An animal debate

[GSLeloo]

So this came up between a cross debate between me and two other friends (no none reading PC SR 4d or even playings GS). Ok we'll name then Jon, Ron, and me.

Ron is a home schooled kid, never really been exposed to much social situations, only at 22 (this year) just began to attend a community college.... Jon like me was a public schooler, went to college, very used to social situations, knows all the standard shit we're drilled into in school. Jon and I are liberals and athiests. Ron is a conservative christian. (none of that may have anything to do with it just figured some background may be good for later)


So basically the discussion was on animals. Ron said that it's ok to kill cows cause they're stupid and have no place except for leather and beef. He expressed absolutely no concern or sympathy or emotion over the death of them. Jon argued that humans should be sympathetic to the slaughter of these animals, especially how horrible it can be. I argued that each animal even if you think it's stupid and has no role is a vital part of an ecosystem and each serves a purpose.

After I found some information about cows essentially being a limiting factor for a certain type of birds, Ron said that was a bad thing where I argued that all species have to have a natural limiting factor (wolves for deer). Well then Ron told us both to fuck off and left...


My question is for you guys, what do you personally think? I eat beef but it doesn't mean I don't feel bad for them or how they're slaughtered and it doesn't mean I hold a value for their lives. Do you guys think that a lot of animals are only meant to serve the purposes of mankind? Do you think all animals have value?

[Artha]

each serves a purpose.

Yeah, to feed me. It may sound insensitive (because it is,) but I don't care how they die.

[Drew]

Yep, they are food anyway. I'm not one of these people who thinks animals have any sort of emotions or feelings. They are born to die, if that's sad to you, I'm sorry, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Animals are just another sort of property and I'm a staunch believer in property rights. I don't think animals should be abused for sport, but if someone does that, when it all comes down to it, they own the animal, they can do what they want.

[GSLeloo]

Then you can say the same thing about humans. People are born to die just like animals so is it ok if I just shoot my kid cause I own them? I am a firm believer that animals have feelings. I mean seriously anyone who's ever owned a pet knows that they're very complex creatures that can show a lot of emotion. I don't believe that anything is worthless except for people who think they're above all other life.

[Jazuela]

I won't turn down a juicy rare-cooked burger, but the arguement about natural limiting factors is invalid when it comes to cattle that are -bred by humans- specifically for the purpose of slaughtering them.

That isn't a natural limiting factor. It's a human-created limiting factor.

As far as animals go, we haughty self-important humans are quick to forget that we are also animals. The tiger isn't going to stop in the jungle and think to himself, "Oh - a human - that's not an animal, I won't eat him." He's gonna think, "Mmm..I smell raw meat! SUPPERTIME!"

Animal or vegetable, doesn't matter to me. If it tastes good, then I'll eat it when I"m hungry. If I was starving and it didn't taste good, I might eat it anyway. Our bodies don't digest meat as efficiently as true carnivores do, but we are essentially an omnivorous species. And I feel no regret, shame, or sorrow in eating whatever my body requires to sustain itself, even if it means depriving a rabbit of its beloved carrot. Let the rabbit starve, or let him fight me for it. I'm fine either way.

[Artha]

Guess what Leloo, people aren't cows. Well, most of them.

[Psykos]

Um, people can have a conception of the good, define, and change that coneception. -- Animals cannot. therefore we can pwn them, and eat them. If you want a good defense of animal rights, read some Nozick -- thats the best I've seen yet.


Originally posted by GSLeloo
Then you can say the same thing about humans. People are born to die just like animals so is it ok if I just shoot my kid cause I own them? I am a firm believer that animals have feelings. I mean seriously anyone who's ever owned a pet knows that they're very complex creatures that can show a lot of emotion. I don't believe that anything is worthless except for people who think they're above all other life.

[GSLeloo]

Go broader than just cows. Do you really believe all animals are worthless? That we can basically do what we want to them, hurt them, kill them, and not care because we're above them?

[Drew]

For thousands of years people have used animals to hunt, have hunted them, have used them for games, have fought them in war and for pleasure.


Regardless, your whole argument is flawed, people don't own each other, you do however own animals because they aren't humans. The distinction is not complex and trying to say it is... is specious simplemindness.

[GSLeloo]

So what right do we have to own other life and yet we can't own each other? If a person was simple minded like an animal would we have the right to own them? To only think your species is what matters is ridiculous. That's like let's just kill all other living things cause they don't matter, only we do.

[Artha]

Everything has a purpose. If an animal's purpose is to be eaten, that's what is going to happen to it.

[Psykos]

Leloo,

your points are moot and so is this thread.

[GSLeloo]

Fine Psykos, god of all wisdom, give me a good reason why humans have more of a right to live free of pain than animals do.

[Artha]

This is the basic food chain.

Ninjas
Humans
Sharks
EVERYTHING ELSE

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Most people are too arrogant to admit that they really aren't any better than animals. Take chickens, for example, they're recognized as being as smart as dogs, cats, and even primates. In their natural surroundings they form friendships and social hierarchies, can recognize eachother, care for their young. Animals may not be as smart as humans, but they have personalities and they're not worthless things.

Humans may have hunted animals for food for centuries, but that's not the way it is anymore. You head over to your local grocery store, where you can remain detached from everything and just see it as meat=food. Not the living, breathing cow, pig, chicken, etc. that it was. They deserve a chance at a natural life. Not factory farms where they're tortured, kept in cramped cages and slaughtered brutally after a short, miserable life. They do feel pain, fright, and every horrible thing they're put through. To deny that is ridiculous, in my opinion.

I'd like to clarify that I don't have a problem with humans eating meat, persay. I just think that the billions of animals bred just for your diet in this country is evil and unneccessary.

[Artha]

In their natural surroundings they form friendships and social hierarchies, can recognize eachother, care for their young.

Then they get eaten because they taste good. Mmm.

[Chadj]

Consider us the limiting factor on all edible (Thanks Leloo :heart: ) animals. Therefore, who gives a shit if we slaughter the shit outta cows.

[Edited on 9-19-2004 by Chadj]

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by Chadj
Consider us the limiting factor on all etible (etable? Eatable?) animals. Therefore, who gives a shit if we slaughter the shit outta cows.

We would not be overrun by cows if we'd stop breeding them for slaughter in the first place. So what's your point?

[Chadj]

.. My point was simply for people who give a shit about cows, to stfu, and stop giving a shit about cows.

[GSLeloo]

Ok look at it in a different way. Say another life form became the dominant species on this planet and we were what they found to be tasty. Would you want to be seen as just a lesser form of life because something else wants to eat you? Because this species was superior to us, did that make our own lives worthless?

[Chadj]

If cows were self aware, intelligent type animals such as primates or dolphins, I would most likely be against it.

However, they live from basic instinct, making them barely different from bugs I might step on as I walk. I don't care about them. Meh.

[GSLeloo]

Also if we're going by taste... there was a guy Albert Fish who liked to eat children... he said they were tender and a delicacy...

(Heh just for Chad a little off topic...

"My dear Mrs. Budd,

In 1894 a friend of mine shipped as a deck hand on the Steamer Tacoma, Capt. John Davis. They sailed from San Francisco for Hong Kong China. On arriving there he and two others went ashore and got drunk. When they returned the boat was gone.

At that time there was famine in China. Meat of any kind was from $1 to 3 Dollars a pound. So great was the suffering among the very poor that all children under 12 were sold for food in order to keep others from starving. A boy or girl under 14 was not safe in the street. You could go in any shop and ask for steak -- chops -- or stew meat. Part of the naked body of a boy or girl would be brought out and just what you wanted cut from it. A boy or girls behind which is the sweetest part of the body and sold as veal cutlet brought the highest price.

John staid there so long he acquired a taste for human flesh. On his return to N.Y. he stole two boys one 7 one 11. Took them to his home stripped them naked tied them in a closet. Then burned everything they had on. Several times every day and night he spanked them -- tortured them -- to make their meat good and tender.

First he killed the 11 year old boy, because he had the fattest ass and of course the most meat on it. Every part of his body was Cooked and eaten except the head -- bones and guts. He was Roasted in the oven (all of his ass), boiled, broiled, fried and stewed. The little boy was next, went the same way. At that time, I was living at 409 E 100 st., near -- right side. He told me so often how good Human flesh was I made up my mind to taste it. )

[Edited on 9-19-2004 by GSLeloo]

[Chadj]

:ohshit:, that guys a creep.

Now, I want more oreo ice cream.

[GSLeloo]

By the way that letter is supposed to be written to the mother of Gracie, a woman Albert Fish took and ate.

[Brattt8525]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
So what right do we have to own other life and yet we can't own each other? If a person was simple minded like an animal would we have the right to own them? To only think your species is what matters is ridiculous. That's like let's just kill all other living things cause they don't matter, only we do.

No humans are different in that we have a free will. Animals do not...that and we have thumbs! Most all animals don't.

Sadly animals serve mankind, in one way or another. Its been this way since the dawn of time.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by Brattt8525
No humans are different in that we have a free will. Animals do not...that and we have thumbs! Most all animals don't.

Sadly animals serve mankind, in one way or another. Its been this way since the dawn of time.

Animals would have the ability to have free will also if you weren't killing them all the time.

Wouldn't you say your house pet has free will? Eats when they want, sleeps when they want. Avoids you when they want to.

Animals have the same desire to live out their lives that we do, it's just taken away from them.

[theotherjohn]

why limit the discussion to animal meat?


Can plants feel?

If not, why do they turn towards the sun?


Remember the post Raven did about blood products? I see a future where poor countries do use human blood to make food.

also blood products will be used for space flights. Blood is renewable

[Satira]

Generally from what I've heard people consider the difference between plants and animals to be that animals possess a central nervous system allowing them to feel pain.

Plants turning towards the sun does not indicate any kind of consciousness. It is only reacting to outside stimulation. Relate it to a doorbell going off if someone pushes the button. That doesn't mean the doorbell is conscious.

Through a chemical reaction in plant's stems, water floods the side of the plant that is shaded from the sun, making that side heavier, and results the other side turning towards the sun. It isn't because the plant goes, "Oh I'm going to get a suntan, ahhh!"

I pretty much find that whole plant/animal debate to be pointless.

It's fine if other people want to eat meat, but I do have a hard time with people who claim, "We've been eating animals forever and we're smarter than they are, so too bad for them." It's fine if you want to eat meat, but don't play the we're-smarter-than-animals card to back yourself up.

We are smarter than animals, and because we are, we've managed to develop meal plans that have all the nutrients you need, that don't include meat. That means, you aren't required to eat them for survival. If you think they're delicious OKAY, but don't say because you're smarter than the animal, it's the reason you eat them.

Especially when you don't even kill them yourself. You aren't outsmarting the animals by buying a big pack of chicken legs from the grocery store.

Edited because I saw a typo.

[Edited on 9-19-2004 by Lady Satira]

[Nieninque]

The beef industry is one of the most destructive food processes there is.

It takes 10 tons of vegetable protein to make one ton of beef protein, the vegetable protein or at least the energy and time etc to make that protein could have been better used to feed 10x more people than the beef protein which is targetting the richer countries. The vegetable protein is often made in underdeveloped countries.

Rainforests are being cut down to make grazing ground for the cattle and when the ground has been grazed as much as it can, it is basically fucked.

The cattle industry is the most wasteful and destructive to the environment.

Of course it matters how animals live and how they are killed. Even governments acknowledge that but stipulating basic conditions for animals (admittedly these are very basic).

Anyone who is "Yeah well I dont care how they are killed and how they live as long as I get to eat McDonalds" should be made to go and kill and prepare their own meat, and see how much they care about it then.

Most people have no idea about the preparation of the food that is on their plate.

[Tsa`ah]

I don't buy into the dominance and free will bit.

Animals are on our dinner plate because we have the ability to make it so. As Jez pointed out, an animal with the ability to kill and eat a human will kill and eat a human. There isn't any thought behind it just the need for sustenance.

Not that I'm any better than the next omnivore, but I try to adhere to Kashrut law by not eating anything that would be mistreated before slaughter. I don't buy my meat from the grocery store, I buy it from an Amish butcher. It doesn't make me any better than the next meat eater, but that doesn't make a vegan any better than me.

Animals are slaughtered to provide food for the meat eaters and vegans alike. Meat eaters don't get all teary eyed over it most times. It's just the hard core vegan animal lovers that deem the animals killed by combines and other agricultural processes a necessity.

No matter what way you cut it people need to eat. You can accept that or cry a river every time you buy a double cheese burger.

Do animals have feelings, emotions? I think it's absurd to think otherwise, but I also think it's absurd to shed endless tears over thousands of years of tradition and need. I think if you're going to expend the energy to enlighten the masses about the feelings and rights of animals, you need to start with the animals that get chewed up by combines to provide vegans with tofu to fry.

[Nieninque]

There is a difference between animals being killed by a combine harvester, or on the roads, and animals that are deliberately and purposefully mistreated. Such as battery hens that are jammed together so tightly they cant move, their beaks are cut off so they cant peck each other, their feet have no room to move so become deformed and diseased until they are ready to half-kill and then die from blood loss because the person who was supposed to kill them did it wrong.

It doesnt make me a better person because I dont eat them. It does make me a better person because I object to it and see it as sick.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Nieninque
There is a difference between animals being killed by a combine harvester, or on the roads, and animals that are deliberately and purposefully mistreated. Such as battery hens that are jammed together so tightly they cant move, their beaks are cut off so they cant peck each other, their feet have no room to move so become deformed and diseased until they are ready to half-kill and then die from blood loss because the person who was supposed to kill them did it wrong.

It doesnt make me a better person because I dont eat them. It does make me a better person because I object to it and see it as sick.

How in the hell is it any different? Because you say it is? Does it make you sleep better believing this?

There is only one difference between an animal killed by a combine and an animal killed in a slaughter house. The animal slaughtered for food is eaten. The animal killed in the combine only becomes Tofu lube. I don't buy that a difference exists at all.

Additionally the farmland used for cattle feed is no different than the farmland used for human feed. Both are equally destructive and wasteful. It is rather nice that you only point out the destructiveness that pertains to livestock.

With a population as large and dense as the human population, destruction is going to occur in the effort to sustain that population's dietary needs. I think instead of trying to save the animals and the environment you need to try a different approach.

Limiting humans to one offspring per female and male would do more for the environment and hunger issues than all the bleeding heart and tear shedding efforts of every vegan and animal rights advocate combined for the next 1000 years. Population control is the issue, not animal rights. You solve the population problem and the rest is irrelevant.

P.S. You're not any better, your just a blind hypocrite in denial. You are just as guilty for contributing to all of the environmental factors as the next and you are just as guilty as the next meat eater for the mistreatment of animals. You just choose, like any typical advocate nut, that you are not.

I don't see a difference.

[Edited on 9-19-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Satira]

We don't need to eat the animals anymore. Period. So don't pretend like we NEED to eat them. There are TONS of other foods. We have giant supermarkets for Christ's sake. The land used for breeding animals and the food that is fed to the animals could produce even MORE food if we knocked the overbreeding out.

However, people shouldn't be told what to do. If you think it's delicious and want to eat it, go ahead. But claiming it's a necessity, no. Not anymore.

On a side note, the "endless tear" comments are rather odd. I don't know of anyone who is shedding tears over times when people needed to eat meat to survive.

Edited to add:

I know there are nuts who think animals shouldn't be used for anything and they should all be set free. Most of the vegetarians I know don't believe this. Most of the concerns revolve around the unnecessary use of animals. For example, eating them. Animals are used in housing, cars, computers... a lot of things. You can't avoid some things, but you can avoid overbreeding them so our big fat society can eat more.

[Edited on 9-19-2004 by Lady Satira]

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

How in the hell is it any different? Because you say it is? Does it make you sleep better believing this?

There is only one difference between an animal killed by a combine and an animal killed in a slaughter house. The animal slaughtered for food is eaten. The animal killed in the combine only becomes Tofu lube. I don't buy that a difference exists at all.

Additionally the farmland used for cattle feed is no different than the farmland used for human feed. Both are equally destructive and wasteful. It is rather nice that you only point out the destructiveness that pertains to livestock.

With a population as large and dense as the human population, destruction is going to occur in the effort to sustain that population's dietary needs. I think instead of trying to save the animals and the environment you need to try a different approach.

Limiting humans to one offspring per female and male would do more for the environment and hunger issues than all the bleeding heart and tear shedding efforts of every vegan and animal rights advocate combined for the next 1000 years. Population control is the issue, not animal rights. You solve the population problem and the rest is irrelevant.

China tried that and it didnt work.
And the view that there is no point trying to save the environment is warped. Of course, with that view, you will eventually get your population control because we will fuck the world up so badly there will be nothing alive on it apart from the odd cockroach.

Farmland used for cattle feed is very different from the farmland used for people food. For a start, it's more wasteful (as I explained in my first post you put ten tons in and get one ton out). Plus, we dont need to destroy rainforests to grow vegetables and cereals etc. The space already exists. It is just being misused.

Sustainable and ecological farming would go a whole load better to solving the problems we have all identified (with the possible exception of pop. control)

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

How in the hell is it any different? Because you say it is? Does it make you sleep better believing this?

There is only one difference between an animal killed by a combine and an animal killed in a slaughter house. The animal slaughtered for food is eaten. The animal killed in the combine only becomes Tofu lube. I don't buy that a difference exists at all.

The difference is simple, Tsa`ah. Animals bred by factory farms are doomed to live a life of purposeful torture, pain, cramping, living in their own waste, being pumped full of drugs before they're sliced open to be bled to death (usually with no anesthesia). This is unavoidable for them. An animal who is run over by a harvester one, has a chance at a natural life in the wild with their offspring. Two, has a chance at SURVIVAL by getting out of the way - whether it be from a car or a tractor harvesting a field.



Additionally the farmland used for cattle feed is no different than the farmland used for human feed. Both are equally destructive and wasteful. It is rather nice that you only point out the destructiveness that pertains to livestock.

The difference here is that millions more people can be fed in significantly less amount of farmland. Also, animal waste pollutes groundwater. To say they're equally destructive is ridiculous.

Meat productions environmental toll. (http://www.veg.ca/issues/enintro.html)

[Tsa`ah]

How do you figure it's more wasteful? Do you have any idea how much surplus is produced to sit and rot?

Don't lecture a farm boy on the wastefulness of agriculture unless you yourself are a farm girl. Judging from the posts about your life I would say this is not the case.

Farmland for feed vs farmland for human consumption is no different. Both are equally destructive and harmful to the environment.

I can't help it that you dismiss notions of population control over the issue of human rights. I think you're expending too much energy over the issue and not bothering to educate yourself with the facts.

Agree or no, the solution is population control. Just as the issue with abortion is education. Every issue has a root solution it's just that there are too few people who will go after the solution as most just want to bitch over the problem.

[Edited on 9-19-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Tsa`ah]

TOK, you feel that animals chewed up from combines have a chance at a natural life, I fail to see how.

If it weren't for your insatiable need for tofu, granola, corn, and a myriad of other plants, these animals WOULD live a natural life, they WOULD have a chance at a natural life. Due to agriculture they are lured to a plentiful food source, they make a habitat in an environment that doesn't naturally occur and are killed by a means that isn't natural.

I dismiss the animal rights, environmental issues, and anything else brought up by a vegan out of the sheer hypocrisy of the notion. Until you forage your own food in a way that doesn't harm the environment and wild life, your arguments on this issue are just beyond lame to me.

[Satira]

I like all the condescending vegan/vegetarian cliches you're slinging around like a pro.

[Tsa`ah]

They aren't condescending in the least. I just think it's an empty debate when one side preaches about all the bad that results from A, yet ignores B, C, D, E, F, and G. If you're going to side with animal rights, then side with them all, not the ones that billions eat, side with the ones that are mutilated so you to can eat. Don't complain about the damage occurred to sustain cattle for slaughter and ignore the damage that occurs to feed you as well.

If you can't take that step to remove yourself from every aspect of destruction and cruelty, I think it's best to leave the subject alone. I think it's very hypocritical unless you're foraging for roots, tubers, berries and nuts.

[Edited on 9-19-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
TOK, you feel that animals chewed up from combines have a chance at a natural life, I fail to see how.

I just explained to you how. They aren't bred for slaughter, ripped from their offspring after they've been artificially inseminated; we've named just a few of the atrocities that occur. If you think the billions of animals born in this country to a dispicible life of factory farming is the same as those small mammals who happen make their homes in fields, then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. It just reflects on your knowledge of how meat production in this country works.

Veganism is about reducing the amount of suffering, it is not some crazy ideology that believes we can completely eliminate the suffering of these animals. I realize that in our technology driven world some things are unavoidable. There are animal products in this computer, in sidewalks, in cars. One main thing we can do is not support the intentional, completely unnecessary torture and slaughter of billions of animals each year for our diets.

[Satira]

I don't think there's anything wrong with disagreeing with the mistreatment of animals and then going about things in the best way you can.

Claiming you're better than other people, or yelling at other people for the choices they make, I can understand where that would piss someone off.

However, you don't want to send your money over to a big beefy company that's chopping up cows, if you don't agree with that. I realize the other side of agriculture has negative effectsl, but I try my best with that side of things as well.

Also, I don't see anything hypocritical about thinking consuming dead flesh from animals that were killed in a crappy way is gross, and then choosing not to eat them.

[Eupata]

While I'm not going to get into the whole "which is the right way" argument as frankly i'm too tired right this moment to get myself involved, and I have not examined my own opinions well enough (aka I have contrasting ones that make me sound hypocritical and must be sorted out), I will say one thing. I do eat meat, and I love meat. I love beef, chicken, veal, etc. However as every person sits there saying "I don't care about that cow." I must disagree. Based upon my beliefs, I've learned to have a great amount of respect for the living and the dead. That includes animals. For whatever reason that animal found itself on my dinner plate yes, but I do respect its short lived life as it was beneficial to me. I do not just dismiss it as "food". I reflect and remember that it came from a living creature.

Will that stop me from eating it? Not at all. Will I probably feel bad? Definitely not. Would I ever write an animal off as "just a cow?" No way.

Besides.. some people might say that even though humans are 'more evolved' and whatnot, that we're actually the lesser species. All the other creatures on the planet can manage to keep living and existing normally without using the earths finite resources up etc. Even the dolphins who are supposedly on par with humans in many ways. We're the only ones that destroy the very world we live on. And no I'm not a "save the rainforest" guy. I just think the human race has failed at life in many ways.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
I just explained to you how. They aren't bred for slaughter, ripped from their offspring after they've been artificially inseminated; we've named just a few of the atrocities that occur. If you think the billions of animals born in this country to a dispicible life of factory farming is the same as those small mammals who happen make their homes in fields, then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. It just reflects on your knowledge of how meat production in this country works.

You realize that agriculture allows unnatural population growth of animals that are drawn to an abundant food source don't you? You also realize that the animals that are killed by harvesting methods are ripped from their offspring and vice versa correct? You also realize that the animals that make habitat in fields are doing so outside of their natural environment correct?

Vegans and meat eaters alike are guilty of animal cruelty. You can take it a step further and say pet owners, no matter how well they treat their pets are just as responsible for animal cruelty.


Veganism is about reducing the amount of suffering, it is not some crazy ideology that believes we can completely eliminate the suffering of these animals. I realize that in our technology driven world some things are unavoidable. There are animal products in this computer, in sidewalks, in cars. One main thing we can do is not support the intentional, completely unnecessary torture and slaughter of billions of animals each year for our diets.

Yet vegans protest the methods used to raise and sustain cattle and completely ignore the destruction and suffering they themselves cause. If the effort was made to build large green houses and develop large scale hydroponics, I could respect the effort. This is not the case however. No one wants to make the effort to advocate better technology, they just want the "visible cruelty" to stop but they don't dare address anything that would disrupt their diets.

You can make the distinction between animals killed for food and animals killed in the process of harvesting, I see only one difference, we don't eat what is pulled out of the combine.


Originally posted by Lady Satira
Claiming you're better than other people, or yelling at other people for the choices they make, I can understand where that would piss someone off.

However, you don't want to send your money over to a big beefy company that's chopping up cows, if you don't agree with that. I realize the other side of agriculture has negative effectsl, but I try my best with that side of things as well.

Also, I don't see anything hypocritical about thinking consuming dead flesh from animals that were killed in a crappy way is gross, and then choosing not to eat them.

I've never claimed I was any better. In fact I stated that I was no better.

Any animal that is killed, no matter the means, is crappy. It's ending a life to sustain another. Call it a necessary evil if you will. I can understand being upset about industry standards, just make sure you are aware of every aspect of the industry. I think that's the problem here. Some are willing to accept one death and act of cruelty but condemn the next. Like the bible, it's not pick and choose, take it all or take nothing.

Making an effort to not buy foods that are from the big bad industry is fine, but like I said, unless you're out foraging your food, it is rather impossible. Thus you accept a compromise and in turn that compromise does in fact invalidate your argument.

[Satira]

No one is saying ANYTHING is going to fix something entirely.

Don't take this as a challenge, because I am honestly unaware of the statistics, but I'd really like to see some documented proof that more animals are killed in these natural environments than all the animals killed for food.

Also, explain to me why you're saying the whole, shooting the animals full of hormones and crap, overbreeding them, shoving them in cages etc. etc. thing is irrelevant?

I'd think of you thought that actually mattered, you could see where people who are like, "No thanks, I'm not going to buy the meat" are coming from.

[Jazuela]

Being a vegetarian for religious reasons - excellent. Walk the walk and all that.

Being a vegetarian for health reasons - hey - some people just can't handle the proteins in meat. Good deal as far as I'm concerned.

Being a vegetarian for moral/ethical reasons - muh? As Tsa'ah has stated - unless you're supporting hydroponics, you're killing animals too so get off the soapbox. What's worse, those animals you're killing aren't even being put to good use. They're being left there to rot - which infects the soil, which requires more chemicals to clean, which poisons the birds and other animals that come to the farm, which bring the poisons to their nests/burrows/mole tunnels, which propagates the endless cycle of death.

You don't HAVE to take aspirin or other over the counter meds for aches and pains. You can make an infusion of wild willow bark instead. How many of you vegans are taking the meds? Any who are, are supporting companies that torture animals in the name of science. How many of you vegans make the infusion? Good for you, you're on the right track then!

Again, like Tsa'ah says - ethical vegetarianism is hypocritical, unless the vegetarian goes all the way. All or nothing. Suffering of one animal through a combine should be equally repulsive as suffering of one animal through the slaughterhouse.

Not to mention that tofu has got to have THE most icky texture I've ever had the displeasure to experience, and seaweed makes me gag.

[Artha]

There's already a gigantic surplus of crops. Saying that we should let more rot and go to waste because it takes a lot to feed cows is stupid.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I like me some steak, with potatos and gravy. I was at this BBQ restaurant when I was in Tucson... I got the 4 meat madness. It was chicken, steak, pork and some turkey sausage.

Goddamn that was good.

edit: I did have some brocolli with it, and to round it out, for an appetizer I had shrimp cocktail.

[Edited on 9-19-2004 by Suppa Hobbit Mage]

[Ilvane]

You evil meat eating beast! :P

-A

Edited to add a smiley, so you don't think I'm too serious.;)



[Edited on 9-19-2004 by Ilvane]

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I wouldn't want it to go to waste. I mean, those poor creatures were tortured and mother earth was raped to feed them. Isn't it better that I enjoy the succulent shrimp, the tender steak, pork and juicy sausage, than to let it go to waste after all the suffering and raping?

Man, I'm gonna go fry up some bacon and eggs for breakfast. All this talk about food is making me hungry.

[Ilvane]

:lol: Bastard.

-A

More coffee for me. :coffee:

[Psykos]

Animals are incapable of making decisions concerning their conception of the good -- If you can understand that, or can argue against that, then your argument can take some shape -- once again: see Nozick if you want a real defense of animal rights Leloo.

Psykos

PS:

:whocares:

[Miss X]

Mmm, the roast beef I just cooked and ate was yummy!!

I've never been that into animals, they generally annoy me. I have no problems eating them but I do make an effort to buy meat from butchers that claim the animal wasnt mistreated badly. I never buy eggs from battery hens and I check all my cosmetics to make sure they weren't tested on animals. I'm sure I get it wrong sometimes but that's life. Animals kill and eat other animals, humans are animals too. I don't see why it's an issue. :)

[Faent]

>>If you want a good defense of animal rights, read some Nozick...

Try Peter Singer's _Animal Liberation_ or _In Defence of Animals_.

-Scott

Mmmm... meat.

- Arkans

PS: I support animal cruelty if it means a tastier slab of meat on my plate.

[Nieninque]

But it doesnt.
Animal cruelty usually means pumped full of steroids and other shit.
It means matured unnaturally fast so they can get the animal slaughtered and in the supermarkets.
It means maximum profit for minimum outlay.

If you eat organic meat, you will notice the difference. If you eat organic anything you will notice the difference come to that. The cruelty comes out of the same old "lets screw everyone over - who gives a shit as long as we rake in the cash" attitude.

[Artha]

So their lives, which are supposedly horrible, are ended faster. And people who love these animals are complaining. WAY2GO GUYS.

[xtc]

As humans supposedly we have the ability to think, reason and create. A function we are taught animals don't have, reading this board some days I doubt we have it either.

As humans we can survive and sustain ourselves by not killing animals. As a society however we have yet to evolve to a stage where our arrogance is tempered with compassion. At the least we can try to ensure that animals we eat aren't subject to cruel conditions and pain. I see alot of people here have pets I am sure most of you would be dismayed if they were cruelly treated.

There seems to be a lot of natural selection and survival of the fittest arguments here. Use that same theory I am sure there are lots of geeky, non-muscular gemstone players who are only big men online. If I were to see you would I be within my rights to kick the crap out of you because I can, because I am tougher, athletic, have some military training? Should I be able to do just because I can? Because I may feel like it? Because I may enjoy it? Ranger D-1 looks like a big guy military trained. How about if he kicked Arkans ass just for amusement? To use him as a punching bag, a little work out before Iraq? Is that fair?

[Nieninque]

Sounds great

But I'm military trained too...

PS: Steroids makes the meat plumper and juicier! Yum yum!

- Arkans

[Artha]

Will you people stop equating people with animals? We can think and express ourselves, and are thus better.

I'm going to go cook up some tortured animal right now. Mouth is watering already.

- Arkans

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
I mean seriously anyone who's ever owned a pet knows that they're very complex creatures that can show a lot of emotion.You've never had goldfish, obviously.
Say another life form became the dominant species on this planet and we were what they found to be tasty. Over my dead body. Problem solved.
Originally posted by Lady Satira
I pretty much find that whole plant/animal debate to be pointless. Killing is killing. You ought to brush up on your biology, also. (although you did say most people, come to think of it)
Originally posted by Thisotherkingdom
An animal who is run over by a harvester one, has a chance at a natural life in the wild with their offspringI don't see you taking a plane to Africa to live a natural life.

In summation: there are many things wrong with the world today. It saddens me that people are putting so much energy into animal treatment.

[Edited on 9-19-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[Chadj]

Latrinsorm wins hard.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Latrinsorm is the king of generalizing and taking single sentences out of context. Mostly for comedic effect. He never wins.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Arkans
But I'm military trained too...

PS: Steroids makes the meat plumper and juicier! Yum yum!

- Arkans

Actually steroids make the meat less juicy.
Less Flavoursome.
Less healthy.

[Pallon]

There is an open invitation for any cow to come to my house and engage me in single combat to take revenge for his tortured and mistreated brethren.

Until then...mmm, steak

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I mean seriously anyone who's ever owned a pet knows that they're very complex creatures that can show a lot of emotion.>>

I've owned plenty of pets. Wrong.

Ask an animal if it wants to die. Any answer other than, "No," means they want to die and be eaten. So far, that has never happened. Looks like they want to be killed, so stop speaking for them.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<I mean seriously anyone who's ever owned a pet knows that they're very complex creatures that can show a lot of emotion.>>

I've owned plenty of pets. Wrong.

Ask an animal if it wants to die. Any answer other than, "No," means they want to die and be eaten. So far, that has never happened. Looks like they want to be killed, so stop speaking for them.

So if someone speaks to you in swahili and asks you if you want to die, anything other than "no" in swahili means you would gladly be killed by them :rolleyes:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
Latrinsorm is the king of generalizing and taking single sentences out of context. Mostly for comedic effect.Well at least somebody gets me.
He never wins. :(

My summation part was serious (and winful), though.

[Nieninque]

why would it sadden you that people are putting energy into doing something about something that is wrong?

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Nieninque
So if someone speaks to you in swahili and asks you if you want to die, anything other than "no" in swahili means you would gladly be killed by them :rolleyes:

Don't forget those coma victims either. They can feed a family of four for a week.

It's funny how I could have predicted just about everyone's stance that's posted here.

Raven

[HarmNone]

Hee! Too funny, bird! I was just thinking the same thing. The respondees are definitely predictable with regard to their responses. :D

HarmNone saw that, too

[Tsa`ah]

I'm predictable? Tell me it isn't so! :no:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Nieninque
why would it sadden you that people are putting energy into doing something about something that is wrong? There are a lot of things that are wrong. I would say people murdering each other is a hell of a lot more wrong than people murdering some cows.

[Nieninque]

So we have to deal with things on a priority basis?
Cant move onto the next thing until the first thing is dealt with?
No multi-tasking?
Cant deal with problems facing people and the problems with people's treatment of animals?

If so, how does anything get done?

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by xtc
As humans supposedly we have the ability to think, reason and create. A function we are taught animals don't have, reading this board some days I doubt we have it either.

As humans we can survive and sustain ourselves by not killing animals. As a society however we have yet to evolve to a stage where our arrogance is tempered with compassion. At the least we can try to ensure that animals we eat aren't subject to cruel conditions and pain. I see alot of people here have pets I am sure most of you would be dismayed if they were cruelly treated.

There seems to be a lot of natural selection and survival of the fittest arguments here. Use that same theory I am sure there are lots of geeky, non-muscular gemstone players who are only big men online. If I were to see you would I be within my rights to kick the crap out of you because I can, because I am tougher, athletic, have some military training? Should I be able to do just because I can? Because I may feel like it? Because I may enjoy it? Ranger D-1 looks like a big guy military trained. How about if he kicked Arkans ass just for amusement? To use him as a punching bag, a little work out before Iraq? Is that fair?

Too bad survival of the fittest has nothing to do with physical strength, intelligence, or condition.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Nakiro
Too bad survival of the fittest has nothing to do with physical strength, intelligence, or condition.

Eh? Last I checked they had everything to do with it.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Nakiro
Too bad survival of the fittest has nothing to do with physical strength, intelligence, or condition.

Eh? Last I checked they had everything to do with it.

Sorry sir, you are wrong.

[Nakiro]

fit·ness ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ftns)
n.

1. The state or condition of being fit; suitability or appropriateness.
2. Good health or physical condition, especially as the result of exercise and proper nutrition.
3. Biology. The extent to which an organism is adapted to or able to produce offspring in a particular environment.

Fitness is meerly a measure of an orgaisums ability to perpetuate its genetic information into future generations.

The only factor in determining ones fitness is its ability to reproduce.

The question though "Which among a species is most fit for reproduction" is always answered by the environment, and can hinge upon virtually anything.

However, fitness in and of itself is not a matter of any one, or set of, traits, other than the ability to reproduce.

[Tsa`ah]

Sorry, but I'm thinking no. You are free to take 8 semesters of bio and come back to tell me different though.

Lion vs young gazelle.

The lion knows how to stalk, chase and wear down it's prey.
The young gazelle does not have the sense to stick with the herd.

Lion is more intelligent.

The lion can sustain a sprint style chase while maneuvering at angles the best NFL running backs cry over.
The gazelle can't alter course without slowing down nor can it sustain the sprint.

The lion is more fit.

The lion pounces on the gazelle knocking it onto it's side while clamping its jaws onto the neck.
No matter how hard the gazelle fights, the gazelle can't shake off the lion nor does it have the sheer strength to combat it's predator.

The lion is stronger.

All three, and many more are part of the "survival of the fittest" mold.

You can disagree and tell me I'm wrong, but that doesn't make you correct. That makes you ignorant of the topic.

[Edited on 9-20-2004 by Tsa`ah]

You're ability to think in an illogical manner is astounding.

How exactly does a mammal reproduce if it is DEAD?

Which in a primitive evironment is dependent on..strength...intelligence...and you guessed it conditioning.

Are there other factors such as resiliancy to disease etc? Sure, but then again that means nothing if you aren't smart or strong enough to kill that llama or fight for your vital possessions.

Obviously you wouldn' t have survived long being the fat, unintelligent person that you are, but let's stop twisting things to cushion the harsh reality of your inadequateness.

[Nakiro]

If that lion doesn't have children, it doesn't matter.

[Tsa`ah]

You are thinking in context of reproduction.

You stated survival of the fittest.

These are two seperate things.

Uh, Nakiro. Survival of the fitness is not just a collection of commonly used words.

It's a general theory of evoution proposed by Charles Darwin. You might want to familiarize yourself with it before you and tell other people they are wrong.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by RangerD1
You're ability to think in an illogical manner is astounding.

How exactly does a mammal reproduce if it is DEAD?

Which in a primitive evironment is dependent on..strength...intelligence...and you guessed it conditioning.

Are there other factors such as resiliancy to disease etc? Sure, but then again that means nothing if you aren't smart or strong enough to kill that llama or fight for your vital possessions.

Obviously you wouldn' t have survived long being the fat, unintelligent person that you are, but let's stop twisting things to cushion the harsh reality of your inadequateness.

Survival of the fittess isn't about the ability for an individual to survive. It relates for the ability of an individual to perpetuate their gentic information to future generations.

I am more fit if in thirty years I have a substanically larger number of offspring than you do. Any other physical attribute withstanding is irrevelant.

The ability to maintain one's own survival is important, but nonetheless unimportant if your genetic information isn't passed on into the future.

Please explain how a dead person\animal passes on its genetic material. Thanks in advance for your insight into this matter.

[Nakiro]

Please, present me with some Darwin theory that describes what you percieve to be survival of the fitest.

I am quite curious.

Survival of the fittess isn't about the ability for an individual to survive.

This is sig worthy.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Please explain how a dead personanimal passes on its genetic material. Thanks in advance for your insight into this matter.

Please elaborate your question to a form in which it makes sense.

[Tsa`ah]

No, that is incorrect.

Survival of the fittest is simply organisms best suited to their environment have more chance of survival.

The gazelle is not better suited, thus it becomes food to the lion who is better suited.

Those gazelle that escape are better suited, thus they get to perpetuate their species.

The lions that can't take down a gazelle starve and die, thus are not able to perpetuate the species.

The surviving lions are stronger, faster, more fit, and more intelligent. The surviving gazelle have similar attributes.

That is where your reproduction comes in. THOSE THAT SURVIVE!

Please retake BIO 101.

Sure:

As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive, and as consequently there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of survival and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form

That is quoted FROM darwin's Origin of species. You can find a brief overview here:

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/darwin/darwin5.html

Please elaborate your question to a form in which it makes sense.

^

I'm sorry if English doesn't suit your tastes. I'll try again, please explain how something that is non-living procreates.

Thanks.

[Satira]

[/quote]Killing is killing. You ought to brush up on your biology, also. (although you did say most people, come to think of it)[/quote]

I said most people I know, vegetarians especially use the old, plants don't have central nervous systems blah blah blah, excuse.

If you study plants you learn they're very complex and they do respond to stimulation. However, claiming that they're as advanced consciously as animals are because they turn towards the sun is just plain stupid if you know the science behind it.

The explanation was put into laymen's terms so other people could understand it, and also so I didn't look like a scientific asshole.

So I'm not exactly sure where you got that winning, "You ought to brush up on your biology" comment, but if you really feel that way I'll be happy to talk to you privately and obnoxiously go through the whole process in full scientific detail.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Sure:

As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive, and as consequently there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of survival and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form

That is quoted FROM darwin's Origin of species. You can find a brief overview here:

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/darwin/darwin5.html

Case in point:

If it fails to propagate, it fails to be the fittest.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Please elaborate your question to a form in which it makes sense.

^

I'm sorry if English doesn't suit your tastes. I'll try again, please explain how something that is non-living procreates.

Thanks.

As I said before, fitness isn't measured by your ability to survive, but by your ability to reproduce.

They're related, but not the same.

If you and I were to both die, you being the lean conditioned person that you are, and me being the overweight lathargic person that I am, whomever among the two of us managed to have the most influence in the genetic pool within, oh say 100 years, would win.

If you die without a child, your fitness is zero.

Case in point if it vary in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of survival and thus be naturally selected

Meaning, if the animal is unable to SURVIVe to propogate, it's line will not be passed on, because DEAD THING'S DON'T FUCK.

This argument is unreal. Your high school should be burned to the ground for allowing you admittence.

[Tsa`ah]

I wouldn't chalk up posts by TOK or Satira as whining. They're about the most level headed and ideological of the members I've read.

Because they are stating their views and opinions, even if I don't agree with them, that are in a direct contrast to the general view held by these boards as a whole, they aren't doing so in cry baby fashion.

Read a few thousand other posts and do a comparison.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

That is where your reproduction comes in. THOSE THAT SURVIVE!

Please retake BIO 101.

Surviving is not a measure of fitness, and from that we can deduce that physical conditions relating to one's ability to survive are not a property of fitness.

If you and I were to both die, you being the lean conditioned person that you are, and me being the overweight lathargic person that I am, whomever among the two of us managed to have the most influence in the genetic pool within, oh say 100 years, would win.

Asuming of course you live to be a 100 years old. Something that is very much possible to today, regardless of your intelligence or personal strength. But in a primitive envrionment where one most fend for themselves in finding food, gaining alliances and fending off danger it's highly likely that your fat, mcdonalds dependent ass would have not made it to puberty, because you couldn't even manage to lift a fork to your mouth without daddies help.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by RangerD1

If you and I were to both die, you being the lean conditioned person that you are, and me being the overweight lathargic person that I am, whomever among the two of us managed to have the most influence in the genetic pool within, oh say 100 years, would win.

Asuming of course you live to be a 100 years old.

I am failing to communicate to you that longevity is not related to fitness.

I have nothing to say with respect to this topic except the fact that if you hold any sort of animal rights belief in your heart.. to the point of fanaticism.. please keep your fucking beliefs to yourself.

If I get one more, "You know what they do to those baby cows," while dining at my favorite Italian restaurant, I'm gonna go apeshit and start my own veal restaurant-chain.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Nakiro
As I said before, fitness isn't measured by your ability to survive, but by your ability to reproduce.

They're related, but not the same.

If you and I were to both die, you being the lean conditioned person that you are, and me being the overweight lathargic person that I am, whomever among the two of us managed to have the most influence in the genetic pool within, oh say 100 years, would win.

If you die without a child, your fitness is zero.

Scuse me. Did I not already point out that you were trying to merge two different concepts into one and that is not correct?

I believe it started out with this.


Originally posted by Nakiro
Too bad survival of the fittest has nothing to do with physical strength, intelligence, or condition.

It has already been pointed out that you are indeed incorrect and the aforementioned factors have everything to do with survival of the fittest, or natural selection if you will.

This has to be a joke. It's Fittest you dumbass, not FITNESS

Main Entry: [2]fit
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): fit·ter; fit·test
Etymology: Middle English; akin to Middle English fitten
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : adapted to an end or design : suitable by nature or by art (2) : adapted to the environment so as to be capable of surviving b : acceptable from a particular viewpoint (as of competence or morality) : PROPER <a movie fit for the whole family>

I am failing to communicate to you that longevity is not related to fitness.

^

Because the notion is absurd. You don't come out of the womb able to procreate. You have to reach PUBERTY which takes TIME, that you do NOT have if you DIE.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
I have nothing to say with respect to this topic except the fact that if you hold any sort of animal rights belief in your heart.. to the point of fanaticism.. please keep your fucking beliefs to yourself.

If I get one more, "You know what they do to those baby cows," while dining at my favorite Italian restaurant, I'm gonna go apeshit and start my own veal restaurant-chain.

Now get all scientific Stan. I know you're a med student, that means you have more bio than my pre-med degree.

Put your authoritative foot down and settle this ignorant debate.

[Nakiro]

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/fitness%20(biology)
Fitness is a very central concept in evolutionary theory This article is about biological evolution. For other possible meanings, see Evolution (disambiguation).

Evolution most generally refers to any gradual process of growth or development, but it is used more specifically to mean biological evolution, that is, the evolution of species.

Often the word evolution is used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of
..... Click the link for more information.
. It measures the capability of an individual of certain genotype The genotype is the specific genetic makeup (the specific genome) of an individual, usually in the form of DNA. It codes for the phenotype of that individual.

Typically, one refers to an individual's genotype with regard to a particular gene of interest and, in polyploid individuals, it refers to what combination of alleles the individual carries (see homozygous, heterozygous). Any given gene will usually cause an observable change in an organism, known as the phenotype. The terms genotype and phenotype are distinct for at least two reasons:


..... Click the link for more information. to reproduce, and usually it equals to the proportion of the individual's genes

The word "gene" is shared by many disciplines, including whole organism-based or classical genetics, molecular genetics, evolutionary biology and population genetics. It has multiple uses within each of these contexts, but in the primary sense, genes are material things that parents pass to offspring during reproduction; these things encode information essential for the construction and regulation of polypeptides, proteins and other molecules essential for the growth and functioning of the organism. This sense, which is common to all of the above disciplines, is also the original historical meaning of gene.
..... Click the link for more information.
of all the genes of the next generation. If there are differences in individual genotypes which affect the fitness, then the frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations, the genotypes with higher fitness becoming more common. This process is called natural selection Alternative meaning Natural Selection (computer game).

Natural selection is an essential mechanism of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin and generally accepted by the scientific community as the best explanation of speciation as evidenced in the fossil record. Other mechanisms of evolution include genetic drift, gene flow and mutation.

Overview

The basic
..... Click the link for more information.
.

There are two commonly used measures of fitness:

* Absolute fitness: is defined for a given genotype for one generation as

wabs = (number of individuals of given genotype before selection)/(number of individuals of given genotype after selection)

* Relative fitness: quantified as the average number of surviving progeny of a particular genotype compared with average number of surviving progeny of competing genotypes after a single generation, i.e. one genotype is normalized at w = 1 and the fitnesses of other genotypes are measured with respect to that genotype.

[Tsa`ah]

Now use your own words.

[Tsa`ah]

Also realize you are pulling words out of context to better suite your argument ... that is wrong.

[Satira]

:lol:

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Now use your own words.

Fitness is measured by how many kids you have before you die.

Congradulations, you found a synopsis of natural selection at the molecule level. However, it does not pertain to the studies of Charles Darwin and the conclusions drawn by him in regards to the survival of SPECIES, which is what he did his research on.

Also, feel free to click ont he link that says NATURAL SELECTION on that page. I'll save you the trouble:

The basic concept of natural selection is that environmental conditions (or "nature") determine (or "select") how well particular traits of organisms can serve the survival and reproduction of the organism; organisms lacking these traits might die before reproducing, or be less prolific

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Congradulations, you found a synopsis of natural selection at the molecule level. However, it does not pertain to the studies of Charles Darwin and the conclusions drawn by him in regards to the survival of SPECIES, which is what he did his research on.

Sure it does.

It says that if your species doesn't perpetuate its genotype through reproduction, it fails to survive and is not fit.

Edited for a typo.

[Edited on 9-20-2004 by Nakiro]

[Tsa`ah]

Nakiro ... can you hear that?

The vegans are making fun of you now.

You have taken the word fitness out of context from your misinterpretation of fittest.

The concept of the survial of the fittest simply means the strong will survive and thus reproduce.

You stated that strength, fitness, and intelligence had nothing to do with this ... you were wrong.

Now you are the laughing stock of vegans.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Also, feel free to click ont he link that says NATURAL SELECTION on that page. I'll save you the trouble:

The basic concept of natural selection is that environmental conditions (or "nature") determine (or "select") how well particular traits of organisms can serve the survival and reproduction of the organism; organisms lacking these traits might die before reproducing, or be less prolific

Yep.

But natural selection and survival of the fittest are not the same thing.

Use your own source and go to :

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/natural%20selection

Read the first paragraph.

Stop being retarded

Shoot your high school science teacher for the good of our youth

Shoot yourself.

Dear Nakiro..,

Humans are highly evolved animals, animals nonetheless, but highly evolved.

These humans have developed highly evolved means of disposing useless animals and then putting them on a plate for me to eat them.

I might, for example, go to a highly evolved human gun shop and pick up the latest beretta .50. Then using my highly evolved sniping skills, I will shoot a dear/cow/rabbit/mouse/elephant/gerbill/alligator, until this animal has succumbed to my evolutionary prowess and will be a by-product of this notion on a plate.

Humans have also evolved to the points, where, we are able to construct small rectangular and sometimes triangular structures known as shelter. Graced with a great brain aptitude, humans have highly evolved to warp these structures using their evolutionary power and turn them into highly evolved structures called slaughterhouses.. ..Again, more end-of-reaction on my fork.

As a side, I have yet to see a cow, alligator, chimp, deer, gerbill, rat, mouse, penguin, myxomycota or other animal develop an evolutionary ability to the point where they can construct the means of placing the evolutionarily superior humans on a plate.

-Stanley

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Use your own source and go to :

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/natural%20selection

Read the first paragraph.

Stop being retarded

Shoot your high school science teacher for the good of our youth

Shoot yourself.

We are not aruging natural selection, sorry.

No one has said anything thus far about natural selection that I would disagree with, other than an inference than natural selection and survival of the fittest are synomyous.

[Tsa`ah]

No no no Stan.

Describe survival of the fittest/natural selection and critique Nakiro's take on it.

Oye! Do it or I'll refer to you as a schikza wanna be!

But natural selection and survival of the fittest are not the same thing.

You have to be shitting me. It's the same thing you retarded turkey. Go to your own site and type in SURVIVAL OF THE FITTESS

that I would disagree with, other than an inference than natural selection and survival of the fittest are synomyous.

When I try and copy and paste the definition (which says the same thing btw) from your website I get abunch of useless garbage so marriam webster will have to suffice:

Main Entry: survival of the fittest
Date: 1864
: NATURAL SELECTION


WHAT NOW BITCH

Ohhhh. Sorry Tsa.

Yes, Evolution 101.

As we all know by Walter Gilbert's tests of 16s messenger RNA, we see a common gene allele from the plasmids of an E. Coli bacteria, all the way up to homosapiens. It is irrefutable to argue that while observing specific phylogeny trees, that this evidence can be passed off as dismissable.

Another famous experiment, the Miller Urey, showed that evolution could, in fact, be synthesized where amino acids, the basic building blocks of life, were created from chemical compounds and their residues.

Perhaps the most significant arguement for evolution, is simply to look at an advanced species from birth, and see the way that it 'evolves' both technically and metaphorically speaking.

Tsa, what exactly do you want me to counterblast?

Also notice that what you posted ALSO SAYS NATURAL SELECTION AND NOT SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. I seriously hope you are weighing the pros of euphanasia at this time

[Satira]

Natural selection was renamed Survival of the Fittest by Herbert Spencer.

[Tsa`ah]

Haven't you read the last umm. ... two pages?

You're my schikza bitch now Stan.

Go back to the meds!

:banghead:

Perhaps natural selection can best be demonstrated by the phylogeny of extinct species and their extant "offspring" that roam the Earth today.

Natural selection, can be thought of as what species were able to procreate, due to the fact that they had defense mechanisms relative to their environments.

As Darwin observed speciation in finches, he noticed that a certain polymorphism had taken place in different species of the birds. One would have a specific beak for eating insects, another would have a beak specifically designed to draw nectar from angiosperms. What was most significant, is that these different species of finches, could not live in an environment that was unsuitable for their homeostasis. It is with great pride and merit that these key observations have lead to what is known as "speciation," a phenomena where an animal is essentially boxed-in to an environment that best suits its need to maintain life. Without any environmental factors that can support life, this species would die.

In lieu of this, natural selection goes on to further demonstrate that whatever has the most biological prowess, will live, whereas a species that cannot properly procreate, will die. A big animal, will not fair well during times of famine. A small animal, will not fair well when surrounded by other larger predators.

All of this, like I have discussed above, is circumstancial, the environmental balance will ultimately determine what species will continue to be extant, and which shall die.

I hope this better explains things?

I'm no Shiksah, shana tovah.

[Satira]

Happy new year, babycakes.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
I'm no Shiksah, shana tovah.

After further review, you're not so shikzaish.

Not the pwnage I expected from a med student, but excellent delivery.

Thanks?

[Caiylania]

Oiy.

In regards to the original post..... I eat meat. Love a good steak and tender chicken. I also have a number of pets.

Pretty much, I think that animals deserve respect for whatever their function is in life. Cows bred to one day be a steak and leather serve a function. Spiders eat flies, lions cull deer, birds eat spiders, cats eat birds, it goes on and on.

In my opinion, just because they serve a specific purpose and are not on par with Human intelligiance doesn't mean they should be treated horribly and not allowed to enjoy what life they have in some way.

Many ranches allow their cattle to free roam until the time comes for them to go to the slaughterhouse. That I believe is fair. The animals kept in tightly packed cages where their entire life is misery I believe is wrong.

Part of what is supposed to make humans better (in fact some of you have stated it) is our feelings. Our empathy. If one has no empathy for those that are less than them, you loose a bit of what makes us better.

Studies show human's who have no empathy for animals, and even more so for those that take that step into torturing them, often grow up into antisocial dangers to society.

There is nothing wrong with people trying to help animals live better lives to the time alloted to them. Someone saying animals don't care or don't feel or don't deserve doesn't make it true. None of us can truly know what they go through. The idea of being packed in with hundreds of others in a space I can barely move, and never being able to roam (which is instinct in all mammals) would sure as hell be misery to me. The cows might not know any other life, that does not change that their bodies suffer for it. And I can't understand how anyone would WANT animals to suffer like that.

[Edited on 9-20-2004 by Caiylania]

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Tsa`ahNow you are the laughing stock of vegans.

That would be an organic vegetable stock, of course ;)

[Jazuela]

Okay so like um here's the difinitive answer so you can all STFU:

It's Survival of the FITNESS! Darwin and Spencer were wrong.

See, humans invented gyms. And they all have these signs that read "No pets allowed." This of course includes pet alligators and elephants, among other things.

Since no animals besides humans are allowed into gyms, only humans are capable of becoming fit. Well, except seeing-eye dogs, but they don't count because cultures that eat dog, don't use them as seeing-eye dogs. Or maybe they do. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Anyway - HE WHO CANNOT JOIN A GYM CANNOT BE FIT.

That is your answer. You may all STFU now, kthxbye

[AnticorRifling]

I read the first post then I hit reply.

Your friend Ron is spot on. You're a hippy liberal that won't change. Moooooove on with your life.

[AnticorRifling]

Originally posted by Jazuela
Okay so like um here's the difinitive answer so you can all STFU:

It's Survival of the FITNESS! Darwin and Spencer were wrong.

See, humans invented gyms. And they all have these signs that read "No pets allowed." This of course includes pet alligators and elephants, among other things.

Since no animals besides humans are allowed into gyms, only humans are capable of becoming fit. Well, except seeing-eye dogs, but they don't count because cultures that eat dog, don't use them as seeing-eye dogs. Or maybe they do. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Anyway - HE WHO CANNOT JOIN A GYM CANNOT BE FIT.

That is your answer. You may all STFU now, kthxbye

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. You don't need a gym to be fit. Unless you count the wide open world as a gym. You ever swim in the ocean, climb a tree, run through a field, lift rocks, cut down ruffage with a sickle? Probably not...

[Jazuela]

Dear Anticor: It's called a joke. Sarcasm. Dry humor. Making fun of people who take things too seriously.

You know - "Fitness Centers"? Joining a gym? Get it? Hahahahaha.

Eh. Never mind. Go have another cup of coffee. Maybe that sense of humor will wake up with the rest of you.

[AnticorRifling]

It was funny up til the he who cannot join a gym cannot be fit.

I don't drink coffee in the AM and I'm always up and at the gym at 430 so I don't get more awake than this.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by AnticorRifling
It was funny up til the he who cannot join a gym cannot be fit.

I don't drink coffee in the AM and I'm always up and at the gym at 430 so I don't get more awake than this.

4.30am?
Sheesh, you have a bedwetting problem or something?

[AnticorRifling]

Originally posted by Nieninque

4.30am?
Sheesh, you have a bedwetting problem or something?

Not that I know of but then again I did buy those rubber sheets for a reason.

But yes I try to be at the gym between 4:30 and 4:45 every morning so I can get a good workout in before going to work. As long as I'm in bed before midnight I'm good.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by AnticorRifling
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. You don't need a gym to be fit. Unless you count the wide open world as a gym. You ever swim in the ocean, climb a tree, run through a field, lift rocks, cut down ruffage with a sickle? Probably not...

She was cracking on Nakiro's scientific prowess in his attempt to refute common knowledge pertaining to survival of the fittest.

It all started with this ...


Originally posted by Nakiro

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Nakiro
Too bad survival of the fittest has nothing to do with physical strength, intelligence, or condition.

Eh? Last I checked they had everything to do with it.

Sorry sir, you are wrong.

... and just snowballed into a him dismissing every example and explanation pointed out and him centering on "Fitness".

The only explanation I can come up with would be paint chips.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by AnticorRifling
It was funny up til the he who cannot join a gym cannot be fit.

I don't drink coffee in the AM and I'm always up and at the gym at 430 so I don't get more awake than this.

We are SO the opposite. I will do anything to get an extra 15 minutes of sleep... so I certainly wouldn't purposely wake up at 4:30AM to work out. And I need to drink coffee in the morning.

I go to the Y AFTER work.

We have a clinical term for people like you. They are called freaks.

[Tsa`ah]

But you're like viagra old to.

[Edited on 9-20-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
But you're like viagra old to.

[Edited on 9-20-2004 by Tsa`ah]

Not yet.. but I will admit that if the pencil loses it's lead.. I'll be first in line for my Viagra prescription.

I doubt I will ever have that problem though... :smug:

[Wezas]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
argued that all species have to have a natural limiting factor (wolves for deer).

We need more limiting factor for stupid people. Darwinism isn't working fast enough.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Nieninque
So we have to deal with things on a priority basis?
Cant move onto the next thing until the first thing is dealt with?
No multi-tasking?
Cant deal with problems facing people and the problems with people's treatment of animals?

If so, how does anything get done? Here's what I said:
It saddens me that people are putting so much energy into animal treatment. Please note that I did not say, as your response would indicate, that it saddens me that people are puttying ANY energy into animal treatment.
Originally posted by Lady Satira
but if you really feel that way I'll be happy to talk to you privately and obnoxiously go through the whole process in full scientific detail. I would be pleasantly surprised if you could convince me (scientifically speaking) that a jellyfish is more "advanced consciously" than just about any plant.

Stan, do you really shoot mice with a .50 handgun?

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
If so, how does anything get done? Here's what I said:
It saddens me that people are putting so much energy into animal treatment. Please note that I did not say, as your response would indicate, that it saddens me that people are puttying ANY energy into animal treatment.[/quote]

Well, I have to say, that's even stupider. While I would disagree with it, I would understand you more if you were saying it saddens you that people put ANY energy into animal mistreatment.

But to say it saddens you that people put so much energy into it is just plain weird. You have a scale for how much energy people should expend on particular activities? What difference does it make if some people campaign on one particular issue. Either it is worth campaigning for or it isn't, surely? How much energy people put into it, depends on the individual themselves, is it not.

Some people just wouldnt understand the fact that some people spend so much time and money playing an online text-based game. :shrug: Personal choice, right?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I had a patty melt for lunch. Mmmmm beef.

And onion rings. I heard the onions screaming as they were dropped mercilessly into the boiling oil. It will haunt me forever.

[Wezas]

I'm torn.

I had a 1/3 pound Fuddruckers burger with bacon & cheese for lunch.

But on the other hand I'm not bringing my dog to any PC meets in the Northern VA area (that means you, Korean!)

:saint:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Well, I have to say, that's even stupider.Tee hee. :)
You have a scale for how much energy people should expend on particular activities?Yes. I think murdering people is more wrong than animal cruelty, therefore people should care more about murder than animal cruelty, therefore they should put more energy into it.
What difference does it make if some people campaign on one particular issue. Either it is worth campaigning for or it isn't, surely?It'd be a good thing if animal cruelty wasn't around. It'd also be a good thing if our streets were cleaner. I'd hope we'd focus on the first one, because it's not much consolation for millions of tortured animals if we can walk barefoot in the streets. Similarly, I can't bring myself to care about humans being cruel to animals when we're still being cruel to each other.

In my head the other night, I went through a comparison between animal torture and intra-species murder and couldn't come up with any reason to work for the former before the latter. Until someone can provide me with one, I'll continue to not eat veal and not care all that much about chickens.
Some people just wouldnt understand the fact that some people spend so much time and money playing an online text-based game. :shrug: Personal choice, right? Uh, I don't know what that has to do with anything, but I agree that there's no need to argue, some folks just don't understand when it comes to text-based games.

[Miss X]

That wasn't the onion rings, it was your arteries!

[AnticorRifling]

White people give me a headache.

[AnticorRifling]

Animals DO have rights. They have the right to be served with a tasty side dish and a cold beverage.

PETA

People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.

If God didn't want us to eat animals he shouldn't have made them all out of meat.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Wezas

I had a 1/3 pound Fuddruckers burger with bacon & cheese for lunch.


God.. I haven't had Fuddruckers in YEARS. Closest Fuddruckers to me = 64 miles.. and that makes me sad :sniffle:

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Wezas

I had a 1/3 pound Fuddruckers burger with bacon & cheese for lunch.


God.. I haven't had Fuddruckers in YEARS. Closest Fuddruckers to me = 64 miles.. and that makes me sad :sniffle:

http://www.bayweekly.com/year03/issuexi35/bestofbay03/bobpics/fuddruckers.jpg

Now seriously, how can you say no to that, PETA?

BTW, have you tried "the pounder" there, PB? I did once and I got super-sick from eating all that meat. But it was delicious going down.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
In my head the other night, I went through a comparison between animal torture and intra-species murder and couldn't come up with any reason to work for the former before the latter.

I guess my point is that you can do both. You can campaign against wars and you can campaign against animal cruelty and you can campaign against beards and anything else you want. It just depends how much time you want to spend campaigning.


Until someone can provide me with one, I'll continue to not eat veal and not care all that much about chickens.

Again, I dont really understand that way of thinking. Why does it matter if a calf suffers but not a chicken?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

The pounder is big as a freaking frisbee! But mmmmMmmm, lotsa good hamburger.

http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/HamburgerHistory.htm

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Wezas

I had a 1/3 pound Fuddruckers burger with bacon & cheese for lunch.


God.. I haven't had Fuddruckers in YEARS. Closest Fuddruckers to me = 64 miles.. and that makes me sad :sniffle:

http://www.bayweekly.com/year03/issuexi35/bestofbay03/bobpics/fuddruckers.jpg

Now seriously, how can you say no to that, PETA?

BTW, have you tried "the pounder" there, PB? I did once and I got super-sick from eating all that meat. But it was delicious going down.

I don't know.. it's been probably 10 years or so since I was there. I do remember going there after I fasted with a girlfriend and not being able to finish a burger. Must have been the Pounder.

God.. those are good burgers. Now you have me wanting one and I just finished my fucking salad.

Eating healthy makes me sad. :sniffle:

[Aeony]

Originally posted by AnticorRifling
Animals DO have rights. They have the right to be served with a tasty side dish and a cold beverage.

PETA

People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.

If God didn't want us to eat animals he shouldn't have made them all out of meat.

:lol:

I had porkchops

[DeV]

I recently stopped eating my steak and burgers well done. I've been missing out.

Now I'll sing a little song OHhhhhh....

"Mary had a little lamb, little lamb, little lamb!
Mary had a little lamb... AND A SIDE ORDER OF FRIES!"

[Artha]

Again, I dont really understand that way of thinking. Why does it matter if a calf suffers but not a chicken?

Are you unaware of how veal is made?

[CrystalTears]

Wow, levels of cruelty. Chickens are stuffed in a truck, baby calves are stuffed in a box. Sucks to be all of them, quite frankly.

I would fear for my life if there was something out there that used us for breakfast. Wouldn't surprise me if there were aliens out there that did and those are those "missing persons". Survival of the fittest and all. Just as long as there is something meaty and on my plate at some point in the day, I'm a happy camper.

Ironic we speak of meat after I finish seeing "Ravenous". :D

[Killer Kitten]

If we stopped eating cattle, chickens, goats and sheep, and stopped using other animal products such as leather, milk, eggs and wool the animals that produce them would become extinct except in zoos and preserves.

The domestic breeds of farm and production animals have been bred for maximum production and minimal survival traits. In other words, if we stopped caring for them they'd be unable to care for themselves and eventually the various species of these animals would die out.

They aren't even bred to live anything approaching a decent lifespan. At my zoo we have a whole farm full of domestic animals. These animals all receive the best possible diets, attentive daily care and better medical care than most of the humans in this country. Most of them die by their 14th birthday of age-related issues.

In the real animal world, outside the protective realm of the petting zoo, they are designed to reach peak physical/reproductive status early. They are then used for food and/or to reproduce others of their kind. When they are past the prime of their lives, in other words when they become more expensive to maintain than is profitable, they are sent for slaughter and meat, hide and hooves are harvested and used.

If we didn't eat them, it would be profitless to maintain them and nobody would breed or raise them. This would lead to their extinction.

We do them a favor, speaking on a species wide level, when we dine on them. I think they should be fed an adequate diet, have access to fresh water, be given health care when they are ill, be kept in comfortable and clean shelter and be slaughtered humanely when the time has come to use them for the purpose for which they were bred.

In other words, treat them with kindness and compassion during their lives and when we choose to end those lives.

Kimm/Ex-Tilone

So who's cooking steak?

Anyway, I don't have a problem with animal activists as long as they don't shove it down my throat. I believe in live and let live, but when those Nazis from PETA throw paint on a fur coat, well, that just irks me.

- Arkans

[CrystalTears]

Yeah they throw paint on fur coats, yet they buy leather belts and shoes. Way to go, you hippy activist morons you. :P

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
If we stopped eating cattle, chickens, goats and sheep, and stopped using other animal products such as leather, milk, eggs and wool the animals that produce them would become extinct except in zoos and preserves.

The domestic breeds of farm and production animals have been bred for maximum production and minimal survival traits. In other words, if we stopped caring for them they'd be unable to care for themselves and eventually the various species of these animals would die out.

They aren't even bred to live anything approaching a decent lifespan. At my zoo we have a whole farm full of domestic animals. These animals all receive the best possible diets, attentive daily care and better medical care than most of the humans in this country. Most of them die by their 14th birthday of age-related issues.

In the real animal world, outside the protective realm of the petting zoo, they are designed to reach peak physical/reproductive status early. They are then used for food and/or to reproduce others of their kind. When they are past the prime of their lives, in other words when they become more expensive to maintain than is profitable, they are sent for slaughter and meat, hide and hooves are harvested and used.

If we didn't eat them, it would be profitless to maintain them and nobody would breed or raise them. This would lead to their extinction.

We do them a favor, speaking on a species wide level, when we dine on them. I think they should be fed an adequate diet, have access to fresh water, be given health care when they are ill, be kept in comfortable and clean shelter and be slaughtered humanely when the time has come to use them for the purpose for which they were bred.

In other words, treat them with kindness and compassion during their lives and when we choose to end those lives.

Kimm/Ex-Tilone

:clap:

I completely agree. Just because they are meant to one day be food, does not mean the life they do get should be miserable. Being humane to animals is part of what makes us human. That is where the word came from.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Artha

Again, I dont really understand that way of thinking. Why does it matter if a calf suffers but not a chicken?

Are you unaware of how veal is made?

Are you unaware of how battery hens live?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I mixed it up this morning and had me some Jimmy Dean sausage. MmmmmMmm.

and eggs.

[Parkbandit]

I only drink coffee in the morning..

BUT THE CREAM WAS RIPPED OUT OF A COWS TIT WITHOUT HER PERMISSION!

HA! Take that you fucking PETA hippies!

I plan on getting sausage, maybe some bacon and tit ripped milk and cheerios

[CrystalTears]

Mad Cow (http://www.totallytom.com/MadCow.html)