meat

In this instance Ideologue comfortably refers to the death of human life, he has no respect for it.

Here he refers to humans as victims, only for living. Yet he constantly defends the lives of other species. Ideologue believes that animals have a more important existence than humans.

What? Not a word of the human suffering in the world today? Tamee we are examining the roots - not branches, of the animal rights movement here.

Then discover what the true animal right agenda is, and reassess your views. If you truly believe that animals are our equals go and live among them (cause them no harm), like the savage that Ideologue claims we are. Do not claim an argument out of convenience.

If you don’t control the animal, where am I to live? How would the people of the world find a place to live if they could not take the home of an animal? ​

Early Europeans ate, domesticated and displaced animals. Ancestors of American Indians lived entirely off the life of other species of animals. What humans are you talking about?​

 

I also refer to the death of human life comfortably. It doesn't not mean I don't have respect for it, just that I don't think it needs to be something people are afraid of.

to each their own.

I've already told you what the true animal right agenda for me is. My views are constantly being reassessed, and this is what I've come up with. The views of other animal right advocators may differ from mine. It does not matter.

we are all living among them constantly.

I think you're confusing me with other people, like Ideologue maybe. I never said I didn't think animals should be harmed. In order to eat an animal, it has to be harmed. I am not against killing animals. I am against the capturing and controlling of their daily lives when they are made to live in an envionment not suitable for them solely for the purpose of suiting another being. I belive in freedom and respect for everything. I see factory farms and the like as severely disrespectful to life. A person who goes out and kills an animal with h/is own two hands for every meal of every day of h/is life, is ok in my book.

What is your idea of a savage?

Explain this to me, please.

I don't believe taking the homes of other animals is wrong, as long as it is not done in excess.

Did they do it without controlling their entire lives? If so, then I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

That's my point throughout the whole thread, idiots keep on misreading it. >.>

I keep on saying: IF you want to eat meat, eat it. As long as you kill the animal on your own or buy the meat directly from the butcher. I said it about a million times throughout the whole thread. Jeeez, which links right back to my last post....

 

HUMANS are destroying land too, should we fuckin lock ourselves up when we're little babies so our muscles stay nice and tender for our fat asses to eat??!!!????

 

So you are comfortable with Ideologue’s references to the Holocaust, comfortable with him comparing a chicken’s life to that of a Jew or homosexual. You obviously are comfortable with Ideologue stating that a baby’s life is worth that of a pig; I don’t call that respect.

That doesn’t cut it with me.

Your ideas are not completely original, they stem from somewhere. Where do they come from you might ask.....and I would say from philosophical views held by radical animal rights activists, like Ideologue. It matters because this is where your ideas come from see, they are branches on a tree. You must examine the roots (radical philosophers), without them branches (that’d be you) would not exist. We have not scratched the surface of what you believe, I hope you’re smoking what I’m rolling here.

Of course we all take and borrow from different ideologies to create our own, we are individuals. But we must have some basis for beliefs.

You have to take things in context.....you cut my sentence up pretty bad.

In order to eat an animal it most certainly does not have to be harmed. Most livestock live content lives and are humanely killed in sanitary conditions.

No pets Tamee? I’d say my dogs would be pretty unhappy if I turned them loose to fend for themselves.

A savage being a person living that lifestyle of the archaic peoples, you know....pretty rough characters.....

Main Entry: 1sav·age
Pronunciation: 'sa-vij
Function: adjective
1. b : lacking the restraints normal to civilized human beings : [size=-1]FIERCE[/size], [size=-1]FEROCIOUS[/size]
2 : [size=-1]WILD[/size], [size=-1]UNCULTIVATED[/size] <seldom have I seen such savage scenery -- Douglas Carruthers>
4 : lacking complex or advanced culture : [size=-1]UNCIVILIZED[/size]


m-w.com


You get the picture, mine is the same as most others I would assume. Anyone who goes out to hunt and gather all food and possession as you would like us meat eaters to do I would probably consider a savage.

Begonias are the prettiest flower ever to live......but I’ve never seen one. That was quite an easy argument to make there, pretty convenient.

Hmmm.....sounds like you agree with controlling aspects of animals lives.

No.....both cultures are responsible for the domestication of canines. They also controlled the fate of just about any animal they found, even more so with the American Indians.

 

You're right. What we need to do is stop the excess of everything we are doing.

 

I am completely comfortable with the idea of infants, chickens, and pigs being wholly equal.

My ideas are completely my own. I get them from thinking about my life's experience and what's going on in the past and present. I get them from thinking about why we are here and how amazingly wonderful life is at all times. I did not read my views out of a book and put my name on them.

How do you know they are content? Would you be content living the life of livestock? How bout an experiment to find out?

You're right, I don't believe in the idea of having pets.

or maybe they would be the happiest they have ever been? Put yourself in the same situation.

I see nothing wrong the lifestyle of a "savage". I almost see it as honorable.

I never said I would like you "meat eaters" to do anything. Do as you want. Do as you please. And I will do as I please.
Also, I don't agree with the label as anything. We are what we are.

what is this about?

I might have a disagreement about the way something is being done, but I will not take action to control it unless I can do it directly, like making sure I don't personally take the homes of animals in excess.

Well then go farther back to cavemen days.

 

right....uh huh....ok.....g'night......

 

Good night.

 

There are two things that I wish I had never heard of. One is Astrology and the other is the low fat/cholesterol dogma. I also wish I had never touched tobacco and margarine.Although I knew fags were not good for me, I had no idea how dangerous a low cholesterol diet is.These days I have more energy than I had 20 years ago.This is counter-intuitive but I am now on whole foods.I could have made more of my life if I had been on a whole food diet in all those years.

 

...........what's your problem with astrology???

 

It is all lies.

 

Who knows?

 

Me. I'm a Taurus and that description doesn't fit me at all. So it's wrong.

 

.........ok

 

Can you not cuss meat for you do not comprehend the powers of Herbert.

Try before you buy

 

hmmmmm...so this description doesn't fit you?:


Venus, the planet of love and beauty, is your ruler, and makes you a very warm and faithful person. For the most part you are even-tempered and show a great capacity for affection, as well as an appreciation for beauty and art. You are loyal and reliable. You keep your promises.
As the first of the three earth signs, you are realistic, patient, and persistent. You are the most grounded sign of the zodiac, preferring to put down roots and aiming for stability.
Comfort, even luxury, is very precious to you. And indeed, you rule the second house, the sector of the horoscope that encompasses money and possessions. This house describes your value systems, including the value of oneself.
Your sign is a fixed sign, dear Taurus, meaning you enjoy responsibility and taking charge. However, you are not a doer - you are a delegator! Like every genuine Taurus, it may take you longer to get involved with something, but once you do, you don't want to stop. You are more passive than active, and prefer to have the world move around you while you sit still and direct.
Your strengths lie in your decision-making abilities; you don't make snap judgments or jump to conclusions. You engage in careful consideration, as hastiness and impulsive actions do not appear in your script. In your relationships, you are fully committed and faithful, and you seek harmony and inner peace.
But you too have a few weaknesses. One trap you may fall into is that of obstinacy and self-righteousness. Due to your firm beliefs, you are deaf to any kind of criticism. This inflexibility can cause you to resist change and procrastinate. You run the risk of becoming lazy, overindulgent, or convinced of your own infallibility.

From: msn.com horoscopes



Jist' curious......

 

I am also a taurus and no it does not.

If this is the case how come I changed jobs so oftern in my twenties.Nothing unusual for chefs to do that though.

Who doesn't like their creature comfrots?

Nonsence. I am a great DIY person.The only reason I would call in a plumber or sparky is that I am not allowed to do such work.

Again nonsence.Look at my signiture.

I thought that taurus people are hard workers.

 

Let's see:

I'm no warmer or more faithful than anyone else, that is a very, very broad generalization. After all, everyone percieves themself as good natured, loving, and level headed (even if they aren't in reality) right?

And beauty is a subjective idea. Everyone appreciates beauty to some extent or another. What I think is beautiful (a nice rack, for instance) might not be appealing to someone else.

Sure, stability kicks ass. Is there anyone out there who doesn't like stability? I can only speak for myself, but I'm pretty sure most people would appreciate a steady job, house, relationship etc. It's not a quality isolated to people born in May.

People are generally materialistic, regardless of when they were born. Again, it's a broad generalization. Who in the world doesn't like money and possesions?

Sure, I'd love to sit around and tell other people how to do their job while not doing mine. Again, is there anyone who wouldn't?

I generally don't act on a whim, I do take time to make my decisions, but do only Tauruses show that quality?

And if by "harmony and inner peace" you mean "getting laid," then sure, I fit the relationship description.

No I don't.

That's ridiculous. Everyone knows I'm always right no mater what. Stupid horoscope.

 

lol, yeah right...

Yeah, those descriptions fit you, but many don't fit me.This does not mean that
Taurians are the only one with some of those qualities;however, they are the only ones with ALL those qualities.

I'm not a person who can't live without possesions; I hate it when people tell everyone what to do, but won't do their own work; and no, taurians aren't the only signs who think first, than do; however, there are many that do something as quick as possible, without thouroughly (sp.????) thinking it out (leo,aries,etc...).