101 Things that get on our tits but don't actually matter in the slightest.
-
@Cocko: surely that poster is making the exact same point that you are, no?
As for knowing where food comes from, I can see that point but do not see how that focus lands on Quorn. You say yourself you like Tofu, have you visited a factory where that was made? Why don't you feel about that the same way as you do about Quorn? What about your meal replacement drinks? What's in one of those? -
No you're just being contrary yet you agree with me. Apart from you think that by extricating yourself from a market you'll still have an influence over it. If a vegetarian chooses that because of the way an animal is treated, then they should have no problem eating meat that they know the provenance of?
Yoss is also being contrary because it's what he does, and for some reason he thinks I'm having a go at vegetarians, when I was having a go at preachy fuckers, which he obviously isn't as I didn't know he was vegetarian until yesterday
I'm not going in circles you're asking the same question despite having been given answers, you don't have to agree with me, but you really shouldn't be afraid that you might"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B -
cockbeard wrote:Not sure why that is dynamite, or the other is poppycock
It's dynamite because the notion that pork was forbidden owing to its similarity to human flesh is bordering on raving lunacy. Pork was forbidden because pigs were considered unclean. They eat pretty much anything, so once upon a time eating them would have exposed you to considerably more diseases than 'clean' animals. It's the same reason that shellfish was often forbidden. Telling folk 'god said so' is an easier way to stop them eating stuff than, 'you might get ill, you might not, best not risk it, even though you're hungry'.
Your other point was poppycock because you've got the entire point of the poster arse for tit. -
Andy wrote:
It's dynamite because the notion that pork was forbidden owing to its similarity to human flesh is bordering on raving lunacy. Pork was forbidden because bigs were considered unclean. They eat pretty much anything, so once upon a time eating them would have exposed you to considerably more diseases than 'clean' animals. It's the same reason that shellfish was often forbidden. Telling folk 'god said so' is an easier way to stop them eating stuff than, 'you might get ill, you might not, best not risk it, even though you're hungry'. Your other point was poppycock because you've got the entire point of the poster arse for tit.cockbeard wrote:Not sure why that is dynamite, or the other is poppycock
So what was the point of the poster? What did I miss?
You have a relationship with these animals so you don't eat them, you don't really cuddle these animals so it's ok?"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B -
Which also leads into animals as pets, as entertainment
The relationship between a farmer and his stock is as much of a two way relationship as that between a person and it's pet, or a person and their working animal
Just because that relationship has been exploited in the pursuit of profit doesn't mean that the relationship is fundamentally wrong and should be shunned. Else by that logic no-one should keep dogs or cats because of the practises of unscrupulous breeders. What you do is not buy from those breeders so removing their motivation to continue those practises
If some choose to do that by going vegetarian, then fine, but more important is to change the habits of those that continually go to the unscrupulous, that feed the cruelty"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B -
"Whoever's responsible for this is gonna have a ruff time in jail..."
"It's not me copper, you're barking up the wrong tree!"
"Sir what a remarkable coat"
somethingsomething I dunno - anyone else? -
This is very true and if you read those parts of The Old Testament it says "you will be unclean until prayer" or "unclean until night", stuff like that, basically you will have the shits for a certain time frame denoted by a regular event like prayer or night as they didn't have watches. There is other stuff beyond shellfish and cloven hoof (pigs) as well but I can't remember it off the top of my head. In fact the only wording in that part of Genesis I would consider to be absolute is that "Man shall not lay with another man, God hates that", not that I subscribe to any of that shite of course.Andy wrote:
It's dynamite because the notion that pork was forbidden owing to its similarity to human flesh is bordering on raving lunacy. Pork was forbidden because pigs were considered unclean. They eat pretty much anything, so once upon a time eating them would have exposed you to considerably more diseases than 'clean' animals. It's the same reason that shellfish was often forbidden. Telling folk 'god said so' is an easier way to stop them eating stuff than, 'you might get ill, you might not, best not risk it, even though you're hungry'.cockbeard wrote:Not sure why that is dynamite, or the other is poppycock -
The poster is making a similar one to the point you're making; it is hypocritical of us to treat dogs like royalty, and not eat them, and treat cows like shit and chow down. It's got nothing to do with vegetarians anthropomorphising animals.
For the record, I do give cows a cuddle, when the opportunity arises. -
Diluted Dante wrote:Do you want us to take the shovel off you cocko?
I'm not in a hole, I'm not on any high ground, nor do I want to be, just failing to see what I'm saying that is being so vociferously opposed
If it's the removing yourself from the market argument, well that's basic economics, and if kabbes were here I'm sure he'd talking about incitement to purchase and it would all make more sense
If it's the fact that I think people are stupid and they anthropomorphise animals, which is why some get eaten and some don't, well people are stupid, and they get more upset about Koreans eating dogs than the way we treat pigs, despite pigs being arguably more intelligent"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B -
Andy wrote:The poster is making a similar one to the point you're making; it is hypocritical of us to treat dogs like royalty, and not eat them, and treat cows like shit and chow down. It's got nothing to do with vegetarians anthropomorphising animals. For the record, I do give cows a cuddle, when the opportunity arises.
But the dickhead that drew the line is the problem, that's why I picked the image with the line not the original poster"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B -
I'm not a vegetarian but funnily enough I have a lot of respect for vegetarianism, I think it's a very respectable stance to take. There's no anthropomorphism in the desire not to kill and eat animals. We're omnivores and we can also make choices. Quorn seems like a shit choice still, though. -
The cows vs dogs thing ain’t rocket science. It stems from practicality. Dogs were useful to humanity as hunting companions and for security. Cows were only useful as a commodity – providing meat, milk, hides/leather and more cows. We don’t avoid eating dogs because they’re cute, we avoid eating dogs because our symbiotic relationship with them predates us even learning how to farm. -
cockbeard wrote:But the dickhead that drew the line is the problem, that's why I picked the image with the line not the original poster
How is that 'dickhead' evidence of vegetarians anthropomorphising animals? -
Love the one slinking off at the bottom. "Me? No, I'm just an ordinary dog, mate."nick_md wrote: -
"The pigs are coming!" -
Andy wrote:
How is that 'dickhead' evidence of vegetarians anthropomorphising animals?But the dickhead that drew the line is the problem, that's why I picked the image with the line not the original poster
Without running a survey you can't get empirical evidence of people's choices. Drawing the line at that specific place plays into the pets vs stock thinking that I'm talking about. Vegetarianism seemed in my youth to be the most common manifestation of teenage rebellion amongst girls and having discussed it with some at the time, the reasons behind it were muddy at best. If a specific vegetarian made the choice based on welfare then they would be vegan, being as the dairy and egg industries arguably creates more suffering and empirically take more animal lives per calorie of food produced
If vegetarianism is a moral choice then eating veal should be a moral obligation for those that drink milk"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B -
You keep saying that as though it makes sense. It doesn't.
All that the supposed dickhead has done is pretty much confirm what the poster is saying. But your point is muddled, because if vegetarianism was based on cuteness, then they'd still eat the same animals we do. All that poster does is highlight the arbitrary/hypocritical nature of meat eating. That said, like poprock pointed out, it's not that hypocritical or arbitrary. Some animals are useful, some taste good. -
Exactly this, because that is how we have selectively bred them.Andy wrote:Some animals are useful, some taste good. -
"C'mon Pal, show me what you've got"nick_md wrote: somethingsomething I dunno - anyone else?
cue dramatic paws....reveal royal flush."Like i said, context is missing."
http://ssgg.uk -
I'd eat dog, cat or horse. Fuck how cute they are I bet they're delicious. -
I can't imagine there being much good eating off a dog. They're a pretty sinew-ey animal.
It takes vegetarian animals which need to be large to accommodate the bulk of food they require in order to make good eating.
Vegetarian animals, being grazers, also have eyes on the side of their heads for a maximum view to look out for predators. They are also more skittish in nature and not as good for a pet.
Predators need stereoscopic vision and are therefore more popular as pets as they are a bit more like us.Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009. -
Cats are notoriously not tasty. Powerful tasting, tough meat. I'd still try it though. I've often said, I wouldn't eat my dog, but I'd eat a dog, if it was on the menu.
-
RamSteelwood wrote:I just trust that Captain Birdseye fella... always happy to take any kids out for a jaunt on his boat
They had to withdraw that ad, right? Because of the implication. -
That ad? Mate, that was all of their ads for years and years.
-
Yeah in seats you'd be too late for him to sort out your meat needs. Looks the type that would throw you a sausage during adolescence though"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B
-
Operation Yarrtree.
-
My sister ate dog in Vietnam. She was upset at how much she liked the taste.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,715
- Games1,879
- Off topic836