[Locked] vegetarians are the real murderers?
0
Bashface wrote...
Some vegetarian's are like political and religious extremists, they think their view is what's right no matter the circumstances. I for one dislike people like that, and people that have to preach about their beliefs annoy the fuck out of me. But in a retrospect, I do see where vegetarians come from. I'd actually rather live a lifestyle eating fresh fruits and vegetables straight from the ground, and tofu correctly marinated or seasoned is delicious. I do not think killing animals is wrong, but I do dislike modern ways to mass produce meat. Partially because a lot of these farms genetically alter their livestock with hormones. So to me it's an iffy situation, but with the way society is it's nearly impossible to live a simple life unless you live in a commune.Plenty of vegetable and fruits are altered with hormones and chemicals in one way or another. Pesticides are sort of tangential but it's using chemicals to assist in the growth of a food product. If you're just nit-picky about the idea of altering food from its "natural" form then you've already lost the game since the food we eat doesn't even resemble what its original form was. Crop foods were artificially selected over thousands of years to make them most suitable for our consumption. It wasn't fast, crazy, or precision science but the concept of selecting out problems is the exact same as just cutting the gene out directly or putting a counter in through a vector.
0
blind_assassin wrote...
Bashface wrote...
Some vegetarian's are like political and religious extremists, they think their view is what's right no matter the circumstances. I for one dislike people like that, and people that have to preach about their beliefs annoy the fuck out of me. But in a retrospect, I do see where vegetarians come from. I'd actually rather live a lifestyle eating fresh fruits and vegetables straight from the ground, and tofu correctly marinated or seasoned is delicious. I do not think killing animals is wrong, but I do dislike modern ways to mass produce meat. Partially because a lot of these farms genetically alter their livestock with hormones. So to me it's an iffy situation, but with the way society is it's nearly impossible to live a simple life unless you live in a commune.Plenty of vegetable and fruits are altered with hormones and chemicals in one way or another. Pesticides are sort of tangential but it's using chemicals to assist in the growth of a food product. If you're just nit-picky about the idea of altering food from its "natural" form then you've already lost the game since the food we eat doesn't even resemble what its original form was. Crop foods were artificially selected over thousands of years to make them most suitable for our consumption. It wasn't fast, crazy, or precision science but the concept of selecting out problems is the exact same as just cutting the gene out directly or putting a counter in through a vector.
Selective breeding. Or...really planting in this case, but we do it with animals too, and have been for a long time. We've even done it with people from time to time. But most of the mass-produced food you eat has been refined for human consumption. It is also done for purely aesthetic reasons in certain animals like dogs, which while producing the desired outcome can also produce...basiclly retarded and deformed dogs from generations of inbreeding. Which I personally think is a lot crueler than slaughtering animals for food.
0
Purebreds are a relatively closed gene pool. I don't see what the attraction is really. I understand avoiding a gimp hunting dog but show dogs are fucking useless.
0
blind_assassin wrote...
Purebreds are a relatively closed gene pool. I don't see what the attraction is really. I understand avoiding a gimp hunting dog but show dogs are fucking useless.Well, people do the same thing. The royal family, for example.
0
Dante1214 wrote...
blind_assassin wrote...
Purebreds are a relatively closed gene pool. I don't see what the attraction is really. I understand avoiding a gimp hunting dog but show dogs are fucking useless.Well, people do the same thing. The royal family, for example.
They weren't trying to create Aryans by inbreeding it just happened that most people of royal blood had been married off at some point to stop a war. The incest was just a rather unseemly happenstance that resulted from a rather limited number of people to marry. If they knew anything about genetics they might have tried diplomacy and trade a bit more aggressively.
0
blind_assassin wrote...
Dante1214 wrote...
blind_assassin wrote...
Purebreds are a relatively closed gene pool. I don't see what the attraction is really. I understand avoiding a gimp hunting dog but show dogs are fucking useless.Well, people do the same thing. The royal family, for example.
They weren't trying to create Aryans by inbreeding it just happened that most people of royal blood had been married off at some point to stop a war. The incest was just a rather unseemly happenstance that resulted from a rather limited number of people to marry. If they knew anything about genetics they might have tried diplomacy and trade a bit more aggressively.
Wasn't compairing them to Nazis. And it's because they had to marry royals, I get it, but you fuck enough cousins, and something is going to go screwy.
0
I wasn't either. I was just saying that they weren't performing selective breeding to "improve" the gene pool. They just had a closed and unfortunately relatively intermixed gene pool to draw from. I probably should've clarified after posting that but I was too lazy.
0
Well, it obviously wasn't to improve themselves; if it was, they would have gotten better looking, stronger, and smarter. But the oposite happened.
0
Dante1214 wrote...
Well, it obviously wasn't to improve themselves; if it was, they would have gotten better looking, stronger, and smarter. But the oposite happened.Prince Charles makes me facepalm. Among his many faults I suppose a belief in homeopathy is more of a cultural fault than his own personal failing. Though it is popular because the royal family supposedly believes it so I guess it's tautological.
0
blind_assassin wrote...
Dante1214 wrote...
Well, it obviously wasn't to improve themselves; if it was, they would have gotten better looking, stronger, and smarter. But the oposite happened.Prince Charles makes me facepalm. Among his many faults I suppose a belief in homeopathy is more of a cultural fault than his own personal failing. Though it is popular because the royal family supposedly believes it so I guess it's tautological.
Homeopathy is a bunch of shinanigans, but it's kindof odd you picked that particular subject to judge the royal family by. I'm sure there are a lot of other things to be said about them, although the actons of The British government isn't really their fault.
Also, big words are not tantamount to intellegent thoughts when thrown in for the sake of it. Please, put down the thesaurus.
0
Dante1214 wrote...
Homeopathy is a bunch of shinanigans, but it's kindof odd you picked that particular subject to judge the royal family by. I'm sure there are a lot of other things to be said about them, although the actons of The British government isn't really their fault. Also, big words are not tantamount to intellegent thoughts when thrown in for the sake of it. Please, put down the thesaurus.
I have a grudge against homeopathy because it's so stupid. It's pretty much to English health care what Intelligent Design is to North American Science education.
Callipygian was the only word I've used for the hell of using a ridiculous word. I used the word tautological because it's accurate for what I was saying.
0
blind_assassin wrote...
Dante1214 wrote...
Homeopathy is a bunch of shinanigans, but it's kindof odd you picked that particular subject to judge the royal family by. I'm sure there are a lot of other things to be said about them, although the actons of The British government isn't really their fault. Also, big words are not tantamount to intellegent thoughts when thrown in for the sake of it. Please, put down the thesaurus.
I have a grudge against homeopathy because it's so stupid. It's pretty much to English health care what Intelligent Design is to North American Science education.
Callipygian was the only word I've used for the hell of using a ridiculous word. I used the word tautological because it's accurate for what I was saying.
Of course, Intellident Design is a bunch of shinanigans too, unfortunately, fairlly successfull shinanigans.
Callipygian is just a funny sounding word with an all-too specific meaning. Tautological is a just a synonym for redudant. And more people understand the word redundant, so my point was, why choose the less common word? isn't that exclusionary?
0
Dante1214 wrote...
blind_assassin wrote...
Dante1214 wrote...
Homeopathy is a bunch of shinanigans, but it's kindof odd you picked that particular subject to judge the royal family by. I'm sure there are a lot of other things to be said about them, although the actons of The British government isn't really their fault. Also, big words are not tantamount to intellegent thoughts when thrown in for the sake of it. Please, put down the thesaurus.
I have a grudge against homeopathy because it's so stupid. It's pretty much to English health care what Intelligent Design is to North American Science education.
Callipygian was the only word I've used for the hell of using a ridiculous word. I used the word tautological because it's accurate for what I was saying.
Of course, Intellident Design is a bunch of shinanigans too, unfortunately, fairlly successfull shinanigans.
Callipygian is just a funny sounding word with an all-too specific meaning. Tautological is a just a synonym for redudant. And more people understand the word redundant, so my point was, why choose the less common word? isn't that exclusionary?
I have to say, "tautological" is a kickass word, even if the word "redundant" would be more appropriate. Who doesn't like saying "tautological"? Hell, I even like writing the word. The word being "tautological," of course.
0
blind_assassin wrote...
Callipygian was the only word I've used for the hell of using a ridiculous word. I used the word tautological because it's accurate for what I was saying.You get a rep for using such obscure words. You good sir have gained some of my respect. Carry on..
0
Dante1214 wrote...
Callipygian is just a funny sounding word with an all-too specific meaning. Tautological is a just a synonym for redudant. And more people understand the word redundant, so my point was, why choose the less common word? isn't that exclusionary?In debating terms tautological also means cyclical. English people believe in homeopathy because the royal family has a tradition of supporting it and the royal family has a tradition of supporting it because the English people believe in it. Redundant would have actually not been an accurate term to use.