FeralLovin'
Citizen of Zooville
Could have fooled me...
I am very scared of the vegan movement, they will try to take our right away to have companion animals.
- Thread starter Coolboyman
- Start date
Care to elaborate on why you think I could have fooled you for a moron?
SigmaTheZeta
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Although I find it to be deliciously ironic that a human that had a brain that was composed entirely of ganglia would be regarded legally as a vegetable eligible for planned death, I speak mostly with seriousness.
I am highly interested in the ethical theories of Dr. Carol Gilligan, which you may be familiar with. Under that theory, it is actually quite acceptable if one's behavior is really governed by animal impulses, such as defending the honor of a friend because that person is your friend or having a desire to take care of a baby because the baby is cute.
Of course, Carol was incorrect that this constitutes an altogether "feminist" system of ethics. The reason why she got that impression is that it is difficult for both men and women to apply infrahumanization to a woman, even to themselves (read: rhetoric such as "maternal instinct," "women's intuition," "natural," et al.), in spite of even significant empirical evidence to the contrary (such as a woman really being quite rational to ditch a narcissistic gas lighting bastard of a boyfriend or arrange for his unfortunate untimely demise). While women may benefit economically from such a system of ethics, due to infrahumanization being deemphasized under it, the bottom-line is that to acknowledge that this is a fact is really an outcropping of the same reaction that leads to some societies regarding women as child-like entities that must inherently require being kept under the control and protection of men (read: Saudi Arabian women almost never being allowed to meet men that are not related to them, except when they are being pressured/forced into marrying one that has every intention of not only fucking her, whether she willingly accepts him doing so or not, but also using spousal rape as a method of corporal punishment).
Nevertheless, in instances where I am actually getting along with someone and regard them as friends, I regard it as being perfectly acceptable for me to care about something just because one of my friends does.
On the other hand, whenever someone that I do not regard as a friend demands to have the same level of control over what I think about things, my instinctive inclination is to pugilistically batter him until he stops moving for a while. I have run into many people that believe that I am obligated to care considerably more about their self-righteous opinions than I believe I actually am, and my emotional reaction to it is something that I can only attribute to a rather dramatic amygdala hijack.
Amygdala hijack - Wikipedia
Ideally, I can redirect that amygdala hijack and translate it from a violent rage into an uproarious outburst of highly vocalized mirth directed at their faces.
As an agelast, I suppose that you would not understand this intuitively, but the fact is that a strong amygdala hijack is not easily suppressed, and it must often redirected in order to preserve a sense of law and order and thereby avert physical altercation.
My relatively mirthful approach to discussing this matter with you was merely a method of dealing with the fact that I actually am highly annoyed at you people's insistent anti-carnivorous outlook, but the fact of the matter is that I end up getting along extremely well with many vegans. It therefore actually does matter to me what they think about my dining habits. Since it is extremely important to you, I have chosen to be open-minded about slowly starting to tweak my dining habits.
However, it may give you gratification that, now that I have actually tried more non-tetrapodal dietary alternatives, I actually have decided that I find them to be acceptable as substitutes, and come to think of it, the entire process of raising a tetrapodal organism only to slaughter it for its meat strikes me as rather uncouth when I have perfectly acceptable, sometimes even preferable, alternatives readily at hand.
The outcome is, therefore, that I actually am sort of starting to see meat as being, in a way, beneath me, so how I got there should not make all that much of a difference.
Of course, the initiation of that set of thought processes suggests that I actually do have ethical motives besides those that were studied by Carol Gilligan, which constitutes an interesting observation.
Last edited:
caikgoch
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
OK, that's 12 fields X 1 mile each X 4 sides X $2/foot (cheaper in bulk)= $506,880. Then you need at least 24 40 foot gates ($600 each) and at least 48 canal gates($2400 each). That's $129,600 + $506880 for a total of $636,480. You think you and your vegan buddies can raise that much? And how about $75,000 for yearly maintenance? And I promise you that it will restrict water flow and result in a 15 to 20% loss in yield after every hard rain. Now multiply that by 2.2 million farms. That's $1,400,256,000,000.
<sarcasm> Boy, I wish I was as smart as you so I could see all these simple solutions to everything. </sarcasm>
caikgoch
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
That website has to be the biggest mass of nothing that I've ever seen on the web.Home - Solar Foods
solarfoods.fi
:3
First, corn isn't primarily protein and you absolutely do need more than just protein.
Second, just electricity and air? Bullshit! Why do you think I need fertilizer? There are other things than carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen needed. You need trace elements both as catalysts and intermediaries.
Yes. And who know, maybe a more affordable option could exist in the future.
That would be up to you. Or ask your local goberment to suport eco friendly architecture and maybe help with tax money to help pay for such infraestructure maintenance.
Are there not any method to do a hard fence that would not restrict water flow?
Can't you use a chainlink fence instead? Or make a moat? Does bullets to someone head has to be the solution for everything?
Your sarcasm back fired, because I have never claimed to be smart.
I'm open to suggestion, are you 100% sure that there is no other option that can be done to spare their lives? If sparing animals is not a feasable option, then shooting them (as much as I dislike it) will have to be allowed. But if their lives can be spared, then shooting them is not acceptable.
caikgoch
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
No. If the holes in the fence are small enough to block pigs, they are small enough to block debris like cornstalks.
Chainlink runs around $6 / foot. You do the math.
There are already moats in place. We call them irrigation canals, the hogs call them highways.
So I just imagined that IQ discussion?
SigmaTheZeta
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
This reminds me of the conversation where I said I was not about to do a climate scientist's job if I was not being paid a climate scientist's salary for the trouble. I will let the damn Finnish man figure this one out.
What kind of pigs are we talking about? Mini pigs? 1 ton pigs? Also, are those like a wild native species? Or a invasive species that would be better exterminated?
Like I said, maybe some go found me campaign could give you a free fence, what you lose with trying? Go ask for 1million dollars, you never know. 600k for the fence and 400k for maintenance for 5 years.
I just wish for less animalabuse to happen, even if it costs more money to you (and buyers) obviusly, everybody should be fored to do the same, if that is not posible, like I said, then so be it, kill them.
Sorry, I don't understand that reply. What does IQ has to do with smartness?
Last edited:
SigmaTheZeta
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I am pretty sure that @Aluzky was just correcting someone that called him "retarded," and Aluzky was correcting that impression because that is what he always does, correct incorrect impressions. Even people that score well on IQ tests do not have solutions to everything. IQ is not a magic number that gives you all the answers. It means that you might be quicker than others at making information, once you have it, click together in a meaningful shape. It means you might have a better than usual capacity for extrapolation. It is like being tall: eventually, you get tired of getting asked if you play basketball. It is not the same as being able to pull out a wand and produce an answer to anything. It just isn't. You can be eligible for Mensa, but you can still do better working as a professional prostitute and like it better. You might therefore have an encyclopedic knowledge of body lotions and face creams. Handy trick for your occupation as a prostitute that makes a the same six figure income as an engineer. Congratulations. Nobody else even should care about your strategy for occupational success. IQ does mean something but not what people think it does.
Last edited:
caikgoch
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
"Pigs" are immature porcine species. In this case, 10 to 100 lbs. And I have used the "feral" designation several times. That means invasive in this case.
He's called me stupid a few times and unable to read and handicapped. I find that ironic when he's proud of testing at 134. I have good reason to believe that I understand what the numbers mean better than either of you.
SigmaTheZeta
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Obsessional interest in psychology, here. Do not bother. When I get talking about polymorphisms, I get annoying, and it always ends in someone saying "You use big words to make yourself sound smart." I do not even threaten them anymore. I go play with my cat, and I read some fantasy.
Last edited:
How about you take comments seriously next time? So nobody will mistake you for being dumb or immature? That or properly tag your reply as being sarcastic or tag your reply as "I'm playing dumb on purpose"
If you don't do that, then you can't blamed or anyone for accidentally thinking that you are a bit handicapped.
caikgoch
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Interesting, I write fantasy.
caikgoch
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I give your rantings exactly the attention they deserve. All you are is a minor amusement to fill time while I'm waiting on someone else.
And people will keep thinking you are dumb because you give dumb replies. Eventually people won't believe that you where just "faking it" being dumb.
If you are not dumb, isn't better to not act dumb?
SigmaTheZeta
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
@Aluzky He is a smart guy, but he is also stubborn as a wild boar hog. Don't you know yet that no two people are more certain of the other's imbecility than two gifted men that are a little bit too used to being right?
What happens to gifted men is that they forget how to deal with being wrong about something or having to compromise about beliefs. Put two with conflicting opinions together, and both of them are fucking fish out of water.
Keep than in mind.
Night.
What happens to gifted men is that they forget how to deal with being wrong about something or having to compromise about beliefs. Put two with conflicting opinions together, and both of them are fucking fish out of water.
Keep than in mind.
Night.
SigmaTheZeta
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Now, the fact is that it is all but impossible for traditional methods of agriculture to exist without causing any harm at all to animals. Even care given to crops that are staples in the vegan diet requires pest control, and when you get right down to it, that has to include rats, voles, and other animals that can threaten human crops.
It is not really productive, in my way of looking at it, to expect miracles insofar as reducing the conflicts between human agriculture and wildlife. These conflicts go back to the Neolithic stone age. They are nothing new.
In fact, I would guess that the consumption of pigs as food may have originally been an outcropping of Neolithic pest control. It makes all too much sense to me. Pigs are not readily deterred from a viable source of food and are very creative about overcoming obstacles, and human Neolithic farmers would have had no problem with eating the same animals that had eaten their crops.
I think that vegan philosophy sometimes does not look deeply enough at the complex and entangled relationship between human industry and animals, and I think that this is one of the reasons why the movement has failed to gain as much credibility as its advocates might have hoped among families that have always worked in agribusiness.
My opinion is that agribusiness will someday be regarded as largely outdated. I regard it as feasible for all human food needs to be derived almost entirely from air, energy, and a relatively minimal input of earth minerals. I suppose that this speculation will be met with the usual rounds of scoffing, but the fact of the matter is that this goes under "haters gonna hate."
While I would agree with the point-of-view that is not really possible for humans to have evolved absolutely without ever having any occasion to come into conflict with other tetrapodal organisms or ever needing to depend on their exploitation in order to compete with rival tribes of humans, it has also never really been natural for human beings to be satisfied with current conditions. Human beings have craved progress and change for as long as there have been humans in the world. Human beings have attempted to seek out a more peaceful relationship with each other and with the world around them ever since there have been humans.
Even the ancient Cult of Artemis, which was a predominantly female cult that revolved around the protection of forests and the rules that hunters ought to be expected to observe when hunting, was endeavoring to advance a more peaceful relationship between humans the world around them, and the fact that Cult of Artemis worshiped a goddess of hunting was still an outrcropping of this desire.
Furthermore, the Pythagoreans were the earliest vegan movement in the entire world. They were an ancient subculture whose philosophy and way of life revolved around mathematical harmony and balance. My opinion is that, anytime that you create an economy in which the same capabilities are advantageous, the emergence of the same philosophy will be the result.
Just as birds migrate, human philosophy transforms under the pressures of a changing economy. Humans have always woven their philosophy around the demands of their economies. In any occupation to which harmony is important, humans will also gravitate toward desiring a sense of harmony with nature and other living things.
The "music of the spheres" that was discussed by the Baroque composer Johann Sebastian Bach may have even directly helped to sculpt the economic transformation of Europe.
It is all too tempting to choose to look upon someone else that lives in accordance with a different philosophy as naive or foolish or as heartless and callus, but this ultimately is misguided and counter-productive. Human philosophy will always flow through the channels that have long since been carved by the ancient currents of economic demand.
Just as every extinct riverbed is always just one seemingly trivial geographical shift away from becoming a torrential flow of cascading rapids and leaping fishes, human philosophy will always obey economic demands, and to quarrel with how human beings deal with those economic demands is like attempting to change the flow of a river by picking it up in one's arms and throwing it. Ultimately, the causation could be hundreds of miles upstream, and the difference between a dry riverbed and a torrent could genuinely be as fragile and ultimately malleable as a tumble of leaves that decayed and solidified into a new bank that will gradually be transformed into brittle shale or as dramatic and unalterable as a mighty tectonic event. Human philosophy abides by economic demand.
I am convinced that the new rise of veganism and reducitarianism and pescetarianism and pollotarianism is ultimately a response to changing economic demands. As our economy changes, our consequential beliefs also will change. I regard this as being all but inevitable.
Unfortunately, highly talented, experienced, and otherwise intelligent individuals often never really learn very much skill at metacognition. Metacognition constitutes a consciousness of why we think the things that we do. It constitutes a comprehension of why we arrive at one set of beliefs instead of another. Ultimately, human beings cannot help but deal with ethical dilemmas using a similar pattern of thought to how we deal with problem-solving in the pursuit of our livelihoods. The pursuit of our livelihoods is really more important to us, whether we are comfortable with acknowledging this fact or not. It has a lower economic cost to recycle the same patterns that we use at the drafting table for dealing with ethical dilemmas in our day-to-day life. The thinking skills that put food on the table and keep a roof over our heads invariably become integral to our most basic beliefs. We can no more stop this from occurring than we can we can stop a burrowing animal from digging or a songbird from singing. It is our nature, for we also are beasts whose strongest imperative is our own survival. Our ethics, proud of them as we are, truly constitute an incidental epiphenomenon of our adaptations for survival.
Ultimately, vegan ethics are no more meaningful than the purring of a cat. While it's cute, it's still just an outgrowth of something else.
Are you a scoffer that, having seen many passing trends come and go, also believes that changing values are a passing trend? Tough. Are you a true believer that sees one's own beliefs as being as absolute as one of the laws of nature? Tough. Ironically, the causes of the tidal transformation in human morality are ultimately amoral.
Society has never stayed the same for very long, nor is change ever truly undone. You are migrating geese.
It is not really productive, in my way of looking at it, to expect miracles insofar as reducing the conflicts between human agriculture and wildlife. These conflicts go back to the Neolithic stone age. They are nothing new.
In fact, I would guess that the consumption of pigs as food may have originally been an outcropping of Neolithic pest control. It makes all too much sense to me. Pigs are not readily deterred from a viable source of food and are very creative about overcoming obstacles, and human Neolithic farmers would have had no problem with eating the same animals that had eaten their crops.
I think that vegan philosophy sometimes does not look deeply enough at the complex and entangled relationship between human industry and animals, and I think that this is one of the reasons why the movement has failed to gain as much credibility as its advocates might have hoped among families that have always worked in agribusiness.
My opinion is that agribusiness will someday be regarded as largely outdated. I regard it as feasible for all human food needs to be derived almost entirely from air, energy, and a relatively minimal input of earth minerals. I suppose that this speculation will be met with the usual rounds of scoffing, but the fact of the matter is that this goes under "haters gonna hate."
While I would agree with the point-of-view that is not really possible for humans to have evolved absolutely without ever having any occasion to come into conflict with other tetrapodal organisms or ever needing to depend on their exploitation in order to compete with rival tribes of humans, it has also never really been natural for human beings to be satisfied with current conditions. Human beings have craved progress and change for as long as there have been humans in the world. Human beings have attempted to seek out a more peaceful relationship with each other and with the world around them ever since there have been humans.
Even the ancient Cult of Artemis, which was a predominantly female cult that revolved around the protection of forests and the rules that hunters ought to be expected to observe when hunting, was endeavoring to advance a more peaceful relationship between humans the world around them, and the fact that Cult of Artemis worshiped a goddess of hunting was still an outrcropping of this desire.
Furthermore, the Pythagoreans were the earliest vegan movement in the entire world. They were an ancient subculture whose philosophy and way of life revolved around mathematical harmony and balance. My opinion is that, anytime that you create an economy in which the same capabilities are advantageous, the emergence of the same philosophy will be the result.
Just as birds migrate, human philosophy transforms under the pressures of a changing economy. Humans have always woven their philosophy around the demands of their economies. In any occupation to which harmony is important, humans will also gravitate toward desiring a sense of harmony with nature and other living things.
The "music of the spheres" that was discussed by the Baroque composer Johann Sebastian Bach may have even directly helped to sculpt the economic transformation of Europe.
It is all too tempting to choose to look upon someone else that lives in accordance with a different philosophy as naive or foolish or as heartless and callus, but this ultimately is misguided and counter-productive. Human philosophy will always flow through the channels that have long since been carved by the ancient currents of economic demand.
Just as every extinct riverbed is always just one seemingly trivial geographical shift away from becoming a torrential flow of cascading rapids and leaping fishes, human philosophy will always obey economic demands, and to quarrel with how human beings deal with those economic demands is like attempting to change the flow of a river by picking it up in one's arms and throwing it. Ultimately, the causation could be hundreds of miles upstream, and the difference between a dry riverbed and a torrent could genuinely be as fragile and ultimately malleable as a tumble of leaves that decayed and solidified into a new bank that will gradually be transformed into brittle shale or as dramatic and unalterable as a mighty tectonic event. Human philosophy abides by economic demand.
I am convinced that the new rise of veganism and reducitarianism and pescetarianism and pollotarianism is ultimately a response to changing economic demands. As our economy changes, our consequential beliefs also will change. I regard this as being all but inevitable.
Unfortunately, highly talented, experienced, and otherwise intelligent individuals often never really learn very much skill at metacognition. Metacognition constitutes a consciousness of why we think the things that we do. It constitutes a comprehension of why we arrive at one set of beliefs instead of another. Ultimately, human beings cannot help but deal with ethical dilemmas using a similar pattern of thought to how we deal with problem-solving in the pursuit of our livelihoods. The pursuit of our livelihoods is really more important to us, whether we are comfortable with acknowledging this fact or not. It has a lower economic cost to recycle the same patterns that we use at the drafting table for dealing with ethical dilemmas in our day-to-day life. The thinking skills that put food on the table and keep a roof over our heads invariably become integral to our most basic beliefs. We can no more stop this from occurring than we can we can stop a burrowing animal from digging or a songbird from singing. It is our nature, for we also are beasts whose strongest imperative is our own survival. Our ethics, proud of them as we are, truly constitute an incidental epiphenomenon of our adaptations for survival.
Ultimately, vegan ethics are no more meaningful than the purring of a cat. While it's cute, it's still just an outgrowth of something else.
Are you a scoffer that, having seen many passing trends come and go, also believes that changing values are a passing trend? Tough. Are you a true believer that sees one's own beliefs as being as absolute as one of the laws of nature? Tough. Ironically, the causes of the tidal transformation in human morality are ultimately amoral.
Society has never stayed the same for very long, nor is change ever truly undone. You are migrating geese.
Last edited:
I could care less about vegans or their views on meat eaters. If you don't like that I eat meat, too damn bad. In fact I'll be thinking of this thread tonight while I'm enjoying the juicy hamburgers I'll be having for dinner in a few hours.
And rapists would say: I could care less about people who are against rape or their views on rape. If you don't like that I rape, too damn bad. In fact I'll be thinking of this thread tonight while I'm enjoying my rape victims.
Thing is, when you don't care about animal well being, you are no different from some one who does not care about humans well being. There is also a strong correlation between those who don't care to harm humans and those who don't care to harm animals. Your non-vegan diet is harmful to animals, that is a fact. You should care about it. Not only from the animal abuse point of view, but also as it is healthier to eat vegan and also more environmentally friendly to eat vegan.
arcticwolf69
Citizen of Zooville
i am a speciesist and a meat eater simply because i like eating meat
i am not a cow and will not conform to your extreme moral beliefs
i do not tell you pompous, swelled headed morality preachers that you should not eat like cows
quit preaching your morality views on me, to make yourself more swelled headed, and making your self feel so enlightened and self important
go eat your tofu salad loaded with supplements to stay healthy and i will eat my bacon deer burger and deep fried tator totts
i am not a cow and will not conform to your extreme moral beliefs
i do not tell you pompous, swelled headed morality preachers that you should not eat like cows
quit preaching your morality views on me, to make yourself more swelled headed, and making your self feel so enlightened and self important
go eat your tofu salad loaded with supplements to stay healthy and i will eat my bacon deer burger and deep fried tator totts
Would you be willing to stop doing that despite you like it?
Drug addicts like drugs despite how harmful their are to them and others.
Rapists like rape, despite how harmful rape is to others.
Are you aware that a vegan diet is less harmful to yourself and others? Do you think that humans should have the right to harm anyone who they wish to harm?
If you were a cow, then you would have no reason to follow human morals, you could murder, rape, steal, and do anything harmful to others and get away with it as you would have no mens real. The fact that you are a human is what gives you a human obligation to follow moral rules, as not doing so can get you ostracized from society and that is something that normally harms the human. This is why many people who love stealing, murdering and raping, avoid doing those because they would get shunned by society or jailed.
Also, as mentioned before, a belief being extreme means nothing. Any beliefs was extreme at some point in history. When gay sex and gay marriage was illegal and suported by a majority, it was an extreme beliefs to think that gays should have the human right to have sex and marry. Freeing slaves was also a extreme beliefs back then. Women rights was also a extreme belief.
Because there is no moral reason to tell some one to not eat vegan. Were vegans are telling you that you not eating vegan is: Destroying the environment more than it is needed, making you unhealthier more than it is needed, murdering way more innocent animals more than it is needed.
A non-vegan diet is on the big majority of the time, very VERY harmful to others.
Do you understand why people tell others that rape, murder or stealing is morally wrong? People tell others to not do those because it is harmful to others to do that. Just like being non-vegan is very harmful to others compared to being vegan. So, can you understand why we care about your non-vegan diet? If you think we are wrong, do you also think is wrong to tell people to not murder, or rape, or steal?
Can you acknowledge that you are wrong in having a very harmful diet and that we are right?
Do you also tell people to stop preaching their morality on murderers, rapists, and thieves? Or you are guilty of rape murder and stealing and you also tell people to stop preaching their anti-thief, anti-murder anti-rape morality on you?
Since you don't seem to have a moral compass against harmful actions, are you a zoosadist? Do you rape animals or you are against animal rape? Will you tell people to stop preaching to zoosadist that rape and torture and murder of animals for sexual pleasure is harmful and unacceptable? Or you have no problems with zoosadist doing that to animals just like you have no problems with your diet doing harm to animals?
Straw man and ad hominem fallacy. Not wanting animal to suffer and wanting to protect the environment has nothing to do with making one self feel important, it has to do with defending those who are being unfairly abused.
FeralLovin'
Citizen of Zooville
I haven't had a deer burger in so long. I really should've gotten so grounded up venison last year instead of just steaks. Gonna have to wait I guess.
B
BlueBeard
Guest
It's a thing. My favorite grocery store won't sell it. Some do, though. Most of the available information on the "slaughter-less meats" comes from the companies' own marketing, so there's much that isn't known about it. Hold yours horses, though, if anyone thinks it's a solution yet. The USDA is taking over from the FDA (if it hasn't already), but there are issues. One concern is how they take "processed foods" to a whole new level of processing in an era we were avoiding processed foods, although as far as I could learn, so far, there's nothing used in these slaughter less meats that isn't FDA-approved. But they need lots of study yet, and they're getting it. It's a race to see how quickly companies can corner the burgeoning market for it. General guidance so far is, do not make this kind a meat a regular part of your diet. Same as for regular meat, frequency of consumption should be limited. And in this case, probably don't make it a substitute for your regular meat intake just yet.
My issue with this kind of meat so far is how it's manufactured. It was produced in the lab as, as I understand it, just muscle protein. Know the saying, "We are what we eat?" -- What did this slaughter-less meat eat? It was never in a pasture, never ingested anything. The soil, the plants, the air -- these become the animal, and when I consume the animal, I get them through the meat I eat. Old joke among beef producers here (I think there is a t-shirt?): "You bet, I'm a vegetarian -- but I'm a secondary consumer." With slaughter less meat? It's just... replicated tissue from cells. A minimalist imitation of basic meat tissue.
And some of the initial ways to grow that tissue are way less attractive to me that even the butchering I'm used to. Fetus blood (in one report) is bathed in hormones and some antibiotics. That source promises to improve on the technique, but won't disclose much about it yet.
Issues with it being a viable replacement for meat, wide-scale, are cost (about $16 a pound in the store so far, though as technology improves, it will come down), time to "grow" the tissue, facilities, etc. So far, it's a "novelty" item for a small, niche market: flexitarians, since vegetarians and vegans don't eat meat anyway. Adds to meat offerings -- not replacing them.
So yep. It's a *thing* -- or "things" (dozens and dozens of processes, everybody jumping on board -- ESPECIALLY large meat industry corporations like Tyson, for instance, the "U.S. Chicken King.").
It's coming faster and faster, but... not quite a meat replacement so far. Beef producers, for instance, not concerned. (Yet.) We wouldn't expect it to suddenly interest true vegetarians and vegans, who either believe avoiding meat altogether is healthier or that meat is totally unnecessary. Yet, neither does it appeal to people who are dedicated to eating meat already.
It can only appeal to people don't want to eat animals but really, really want to eat meat. They want to eat meat so badly that they'll go out of their way to eat some ultra-processed, genetically cultured biological derivative "grown" in a lab. And to me? That equals incredibly limited marketability.
Last edited by a moderator:
FeralLovin'
Citizen of Zooville
Sounds like it'll be a good alternative to agriculture industry produced meat, in time. My folks won't be around forever, so it'll be nice to have something like this when it gets better developed and I can't rely on getting meat from my parents anymore. But it sounds like I'll need a lot of salt for this lab grown meat right now
LOL I like meatball hero's a lot too. Love bacon and eggs for breakfast as well. I like hamburgers, spare ribs and pork chops. Damn I'm getting hungry now.
LOL I like meatball hero's a lot too. Love bacon and eggs for breakfast as well. I like hamburgers, spare ribs and pork chops. Damn I'm getting hungry now.
Sorry I don't understand your reply. What are you talking about?
SigmaTheZeta
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
@Aluzky
A hero sandwich.
Look, the only way that you are going to get people interested in trying a vegetarian repast is to describe one that really authentically is gourmet food and tastes really damn fucking good.
My friend, let me please just show you an example that you can use to try to influence a friend (it helps to make that person your friend first) that you also know likes really good southern Indian curry dishes.
www.bonappetit.com
This is a meal that tastes to me more like meat than meat. It contains many of the elements of food that meat-eaters are attracted to. Believe me that if you could just get your curry-loving friend to try this dish and then if you kept hitting that person with recipes, then you could wean that person off of eating meat.
If you can show a meat eater some good food that can make a meat eater salivate like a dog, then you are winning.
The more you talk about meat, the more hungry you make people for meat.
Humans are not different from dogs. If you can win over a dog, you can win over a human. How do you win over a dog? Why, Sigma, I have no idea! How do you win over a dog? It is elementary, my friend, Aluzky! You dangle a treat in front of the dog's nose.
Now, when you talk about meat to a meat-eater, Aluzky, what you are doing is the equivalent of dangling a treat in front of a dog's nose and dancing away with it anytime he gets close while saying, "You can't really have it! Nanny nanny boo boo!"
Humans are not really all that complicated. They are not all that different from dogs. They pretend they are because they are a bunch of narcissistic baboons, but when you embrace the fact that they are really just a bunch of hairless baboons, then I guarantee that you will find that you really like them a lot better and get along with them a lot better.
Start fresh with one meat-eating friend on a completely different social venue, just as an experiment, and try what I am telling you, just focus on your friendship with that person, and keep on dangling really good vegan food in front of that person's nose. You know just like I do that there are many vegan sweets, also, that have never in history contained any animal products, such as Italian ice. Just keep on hitting them with one example after another of great vegan food. Just pretend they are dogs. Put their psychology on your team.
You are one of the best we have got, @Aluzky, but humans are not really robots that run on syllogisms. There is almost nothing that you really genuinely need to know about them that would not also help you tame a dog.
It would also help you with winning us some new non-zooey allies! Did I tell you about the time when I won over most people on a furry-themed MUCK by changing the topic to food every time one of the anti-zoo trolls went off on toxic political rants that I knew really bothered everybody? The anti-zoo trolls got so fed up with their toxic political rants getting derailed that they eventually stopped hanging out there as often. It was one of my watershed moments when I realized just how closely related human beings are to animals that eat their own poop. I had previously been overcomplicating my relationship with a simple animal.
A hero sandwich.
Look, the only way that you are going to get people interested in trying a vegetarian repast is to describe one that really authentically is gourmet food and tastes really damn fucking good.
My friend, let me please just show you an example that you can use to try to influence a friend (it helps to make that person your friend first) that you also know likes really good southern Indian curry dishes.
South Indian Vegetable Curry
This vegetarian curry is delicious served with some basmati rice alongside.
This is a meal that tastes to me more like meat than meat. It contains many of the elements of food that meat-eaters are attracted to. Believe me that if you could just get your curry-loving friend to try this dish and then if you kept hitting that person with recipes, then you could wean that person off of eating meat.
If you can show a meat eater some good food that can make a meat eater salivate like a dog, then you are winning.
The more you talk about meat, the more hungry you make people for meat.
Humans are not different from dogs. If you can win over a dog, you can win over a human. How do you win over a dog? Why, Sigma, I have no idea! How do you win over a dog? It is elementary, my friend, Aluzky! You dangle a treat in front of the dog's nose.
Now, when you talk about meat to a meat-eater, Aluzky, what you are doing is the equivalent of dangling a treat in front of a dog's nose and dancing away with it anytime he gets close while saying, "You can't really have it! Nanny nanny boo boo!"
Humans are not really all that complicated. They are not all that different from dogs. They pretend they are because they are a bunch of narcissistic baboons, but when you embrace the fact that they are really just a bunch of hairless baboons, then I guarantee that you will find that you really like them a lot better and get along with them a lot better.
Start fresh with one meat-eating friend on a completely different social venue, just as an experiment, and try what I am telling you, just focus on your friendship with that person, and keep on dangling really good vegan food in front of that person's nose. You know just like I do that there are many vegan sweets, also, that have never in history contained any animal products, such as Italian ice. Just keep on hitting them with one example after another of great vegan food. Just pretend they are dogs. Put their psychology on your team.
You are one of the best we have got, @Aluzky, but humans are not really robots that run on syllogisms. There is almost nothing that you really genuinely need to know about them that would not also help you tame a dog.
It would also help you with winning us some new non-zooey allies! Did I tell you about the time when I won over most people on a furry-themed MUCK by changing the topic to food every time one of the anti-zoo trolls went off on toxic political rants that I knew really bothered everybody? The anti-zoo trolls got so fed up with their toxic political rants getting derailed that they eventually stopped hanging out there as often. It was one of my watershed moments when I realized just how closely related human beings are to animals that eat their own poop. I had previously been overcomplicating my relationship with a simple animal.
Last edited:
B
BlueBeard
Guest
Well, let me tell you why I wouldn't go *quite* that far, and see if maybe you'll want to revise your opinion slightly. Being a speciesist is really a vague thing. I don't find much use for the term. We are *all* speciesists. When I suggested maybe I shouldn't kill clothes moths, a new qualifier got introduced out of the blue: self awareness or self consciousness or something. Little insects don't count. And then it's just a matter of degree after that.I'm a meat eating, speciesist and proud of it. Humans always comes first, animals always come in second.
The old joke goes, Man asks his waitress, "Would you sleep with me for a million bucks?" She says, "Of course," and smiles. Then he asks, "Would you sleep with me for 10 bucks?" She snarls back, "No way. Say, just what do you take me for?"
He says, "Oh, we've already established that. Now we're just negotiating the price."
So it seemed to me with speciesism. We *all* are speciesist. So that concept really has lost its persuasive weight, not a real big debating point. Easily dismissed.
But... wait a minute now. You *also* said animals *always* come in second. No they don't. We also negotiate *that* price.
You wanna try to hurt my dog? I might just shoot you in the guts then explain to you before you've bled completely out, why I'm taking a human life to defend an animal's. That's my companion animal. I love that animal. I will defend *that* animal's life with my own, taking yours if I have to.
What's up with that?
What's up with that is that human beings constantly choose what animal is worth more than some other animal to *them*. And THAT's what scares the hell out of me about this whole argument between animal "consumers" and animal rights activists -- I would kill a human to defend the life of an animal. Why wouldn't *they*?
Listen how deadly serious this is, when *I* hear it:
If "ethical vegans" truly... I mean, TRULY believe animals' rights deserve equal protection to humans', but aren't out trying to defend those animals' lives with their own lives, IMHO, someone needs to call BS to their face. Otherwise, if they mean what they say, they represent a mortal threat to *me*.
To stop me from "murdering" innocent animals, at least one of them has to feel passionate enough to try to stop me, right? Or would they be willing to take my life to stop me? Or at least, would they lay down *their* life in exchange for an animal's? Jump up and say, "Take me instead"?
I would not just stand there and watch someone murder my friends and neighbors, or massacre a crowd gathered in a church or mall. I'm going to kill the person trying to do that. I'm equipped, prepared and trained to do that. I'm not going to just open up my laptop and post mean things about them in Facebook. I'm going to stop them. If I have time, know about it in advance, sure, I'll call a cop. But if the cops aren't coming, *I'm* going to do it. Outnumbered, out-gunned, doesn't matter. I can't live with *myself* if I just go somewhere and cower. At some point, you turn and fight to defend.
Where are the ethical vegan defenders? Where are the animal rights activists?
Just 12 blocks from my house, about 1 mile from here, is a meat packing plant. Animals are brought in truckload after truckload, all night and all day, alive, unloaded, killed and slaughtered in a long process. Surely there are loud-mouthed ethical vegans in my town. Surely there are animal rights activists here, who say they believe animals deserve equal protection.
What are they doing about this steady mass murder? Just talking big on Facebook accounts? -- Or are they planning a bloody plant takeover in private?
Knowing that I am a hunter, knowing my career as a hunting safety instructor, where were they all season long, when my dogs and I were getting up two hours before dawn, heading out to our favorite wildlife areas? Not a single person blocked our route.
I am NOT calling them cowards. I am NOT saying I don't believe them. I am saying I HAVE to believe them. I take them seriously, at their word. And I'm keeping my back to the wall because of it. There HAVE to be people hunting me for my beliefs. They can't all just be pacifists. They can't all be chicken. Someone out there wants to kill me because I "murder" animals, or kill those who murder them for me to eat.
If we allowed certain humans to be hunted every day? Oh you betcha there'd be lines of people holding hands, lying down in front of your pickup truck, or ... even taking up arms, putting red dots on your breast and forehead yelling "Stop where you are. Not today, murderer. Over my dead body, not today." They would do this -- and have done this, throughout history -- even when it meant their own death.
People elect to sacrifice themselves rather than permit innocent people to die. Those who believe animals are as important as people? Gotta figure, they will do the same.
Someone says they don't like to eat animals because it's inconsistent with their values and perspective, fine by me. I nod and smile. But if someone starts telling me I'm a "murderer"? If they spit hatred at other people, who don't share their beliefs, it puts me on guard. Now things have been taken to a new level. It's not a matter of personal choice anymore. To call someone a murderer does that. We execute murders in some states. And in those we don't, we simply invoke federal law, supersede the state's own laws, and give them lethal injection anyway.
Being called a murderer raises the bar to lethal heights and tosses a noose over it.
That's the thought the scares the shit out of me. That there is an animal rights activist who isn't just all talk. That there's one right here where I live, who probably thinks the same things of me that were said in here. Who now poses a threat to *me*, because if animals are just as important as people, then it is easy to imagine one of us is going to have to kill the other -- the difference in opinion is that great.
It becomes survival of the fittest -- or the best armed. That's the power of hate speech. It's generally why we don't allow it. To the accuser, it was just hyperbole, maybe. Maybe. But to the accused, we just don't know. Did you *mean* -- truly mean -- you thought animals need protection same as humans? Because -- we kill other humans to protect humans.
And STILL it isn't that simple. Because, like *you*, I would tend to think my species was king of the hill. Humans above all other species.
But I told you earlier, I would kill you to defend my dog. I'd kill a human being to protect an animal. What the hell, man? Am I speaking out of both sides of my mouth?
Sure I am. And I'm guessing, so would you?
These topics, the discussion can escalate to lethal levels. One of us shows our teeth, meaning it as a smile. The other sees it as a threat and growls. Then two dogs get tangled up and bloody each other.
These things are not simple. Not to be taken lightly. No perspective here either right or wrong. Just lethal *because* all sides are human.
Last edited by a moderator: