It's way better than Hanukkah and ham is okay.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
meat is murder
- Thread starter mattj
- Start date
- Status
It's way better than Hanukkah and ham is okay.
http://www.sparkpeople.com/resource/nutrition_articles.asp?id=1022
apparently trout has the 2 - 4.6 grams of omega 3's in a 3 oz edible piece, where salmon has 1.5. Is trout a tasty fish?
apparently trout has the 2 - 4.6 grams of omega 3's in a 3 oz edible piece, where salmon has 1.5. Is trout a tasty fish?
This is an extremely unhealthy lifestyle choice and I suggest you tell her so.
The reason it ground to a halt is that people like Pwnemon felt more interested in policing the theatrical flair of the posts in question than they did in addressing their content (which was all pretty calculated and meaningful, I thought!). This is exactly what you did with the bingo card, by the way. It's also identical to people being swayed by speakers they find "charismatic" who in actuality provide zero argumentative substance (just in reverse). Pretty disappointing that you would fall into such a ubiquitous rhetorical trap, I guess.capefeather said:
The rest of your post is mostly unrelated to what anyone is talking about. No one is saying that you have to agree with people who believe different things from you, and I don't know why you even brought that up. What I am saying is that intentionally targeting someone's message not[/i] for its content, but purely for its presentation, is one of the least constructive things you could ever do in a debate. It is equivalent to saying "it is better to be cordial and wrong than expressive and correct." I think maybe Thomas Jefferson said that or something.
Even worse--and this is the actual main point of my last post-- is criticizing someone's message specifically on a personal, emotional level. Like if you say that it's stupid of me to mar my posts with humor and theatrics or whatever, that's no big deal. I don't take that personally and I'm not offended by it, I just think it's extremely counterproductive to any sort of discussion. But if you say that it's wrong of someone to express anger at an idea that they find personally abhorrent, then that's a subtle form of personal attack, and that's something that offends me. It's also exactly what you implied when you said, among other things, that "What you've described is constructive because the other person's just saying their views in a matter-of-fact manner." So if someone states their views in an upset, non-matter-of-fact manner, that's not (or at least less) constructive?
Again, I personally do not have emotional outbursts when someone disagrees with me, even when it's about something extreme like racism or homophobia. I think emotional expression is largely less effective as a persuasive 'tool' than calm dispassion. I am also not saying that I would be happier if everyone went out and started screaming in everyone's faces about second-hand smoking or gay rights or whatever.
All I am saying is that, when someone does have an emotional response to something, it should be respected whether you agree with them or not. I respect the emotional outrage someone feels when they're racially discriminated against, even if I don't share it. I also completely welcome and accept the emotional outrage felt by, say, members of the Westboro Baptist Church. That's because my disrespect for them begins and ends with the actual substance of their message (as well as some of the legitimately hurtful things they end up imposing on others as a result of their outrage, but that's another story). I would never even think of criticizing them on the basis that they are activists for a cause they honestly believe in, or that they are "upset." Why would I? The alternative is to stifle and criticize someone's message for unrelated, personal reasons-- which is the definition of an Ad hominem argument. Is this really your "civil discourse"? Can we not dismantle bad arguments by focusing on the actual "argument" part?
What? They totally wouldn't be. That's exactly the problem.Pwnemon said:
presented without commentcapefeather said:
can you focus on an actual argument? lol
i actually completely agree with you
(seriously, i think you are right that emotional attachment to an argument does not necessarily sully ones argument, which is really all you are saying -- idk why others are taking it to mean more)
-- but this thread isn't about whatever wrongs pwnemon or whoever inflicted on you, and you sullied it further by continually going on about this kind of meta-argumentative shit.
you obviously like to argue, but (and idk why i'm even making this point since no one ever convinces anyone of anything else in debate threads, ever) but it seems almost worst to argue futilely about something that literally has nothing to do with any real ethical or moral concern and is off topic.
no one cares, even if you are right, and it wastes everyone's time.
-------------- o^.^o -------- o^.^o ----------
i have a close friend who is actually a vegetarian because of her beliefs in seventh-day adventism. interestingly enough, 7day adventists apparently do this partly because of something their prophet says but also because they genuinely believe in the health benefits of a meat-free diet. ironically though her and her parents can't even touch things that have come into contact with meat -- this behavior always disturbs me, just like when vegetarians completely flip out after eating a bit of meat here and there or by accident. if vegetarianism is just a health decision, eating meat every so often won't kill you (like athletes having cheat days). the only time i can see that kind of flipping out applying is when vegetarianism is a moral decision, in that case it is more like someone cheating in a marriage. however this still seems kind of ridiculous to me, as we perpetuate more wrongs against the earth every day ... you are not breaking some covenant to animals by partaking every so often, just to yourself, which seems self-indulgent. there's a little passage in dante's inferno, or one of the translations or something, where there's actually a really fit beefcake, superdiet kind of guy in the gluttony section of the inferno, and he complains that the demons reviewed him as gluttonous simply because he cared too much about his body (technically opposite, but really very similar to the kind of way obese people also in that hell lived in their time on earth)
I'm confused that you'd consider my response to the bingo card as an attempt to put theatrical flair over the actual content (and even accuse me of emphasizing the tone at the expense of the content), because that bingo card post really had no argumentative point to begin with. I treated it as a picture to make an offhand comment on, nothing more. Maybe you're confusing me with Pwnemon? I do not have the same goals or mindset as Pwnemon in this thread. I don't even particularly care about "theatrics" until it starts to become actual personal attacks, at which point there's no point in continuing when discussion has ceased to be the main goal of whatever it is that's going on. I'm not interested in this blame game.
In the end, I think that the intent is what matters and it's what I'd use to determine whether to continue the matter or not. I'm not going to say that somebody is "bad" because of an emotional reaction. It can be an understandable reaction, just as it can be understandable for a really upset person to ram his car into the property of people he doesn't like. It still is, in a purely technical sense, forcing your beliefs on others. Again, I'm not going to judge a person for doing that. It is the message that matters... but the entire message matters. Maybe that's the difference between how I see things and how someone else might see things. I'm not criticizing with the purpose of judging people or putting people down. At least, I hope I'm not.
Westboro? I don't care about respecting or not respecting them; I care about what I'd talk about with them if, by some strange twist of fate, I met or even befriended one of them, since that at least has some marginal amount of practicality. I look at what they believe and I do not understand it. Their stated beliefs aren't the whole story. Their intent is revealed in their activism, how they choose to go about it. "God hates (BAN ME PLEASE)?" Protesting military funerals due to some convoluted connection to gays? Stuff like that is a strong indication that I shouldn't bother bringing up the matter.
In the context of a forum, I respond to people in the hope that it will be worth it. Often, that hope turns out to have been misplaced. Oh, well. If I didn't make an effort to step back and say "come on" every once in a while, the alternative would be that people would continue to talk about things in a manner that doesn't accomplish anything, until the thread is locked. That small chance to turn something around is, I think, better than nothing.
In the end, I think that the intent is what matters and it's what I'd use to determine whether to continue the matter or not. I'm not going to say that somebody is "bad" because of an emotional reaction. It can be an understandable reaction, just as it can be understandable for a really upset person to ram his car into the property of people he doesn't like. It still is, in a purely technical sense, forcing your beliefs on others. Again, I'm not going to judge a person for doing that. It is the message that matters... but the entire message matters. Maybe that's the difference between how I see things and how someone else might see things. I'm not criticizing with the purpose of judging people or putting people down. At least, I hope I'm not.
Westboro? I don't care about respecting or not respecting them; I care about what I'd talk about with them if, by some strange twist of fate, I met or even befriended one of them, since that at least has some marginal amount of practicality. I look at what they believe and I do not understand it. Their stated beliefs aren't the whole story. Their intent is revealed in their activism, how they choose to go about it. "God hates (BAN ME PLEASE)?" Protesting military funerals due to some convoluted connection to gays? Stuff like that is a strong indication that I shouldn't bother bringing up the matter.
In the context of a forum, I respond to people in the hope that it will be worth it. Often, that hope turns out to have been misplaced. Oh, well. If I didn't make an effort to step back and say "come on" every once in a while, the alternative would be that people would continue to talk about things in a manner that doesn't accomplish anything, until the thread is locked. That small chance to turn something around is, I think, better than nothing.
or you guys could continue arguing about stupid stuff that's cool too
capefeather, forgive me for my belligerence, but i feel like your post is profoundly ironic: you're saying "I sometimes have to say 'come on' just so people don't talk in a way that doesn't accomplish anything"
- i literally just made a "come on" post (to kristoph, but you're arguing about the same topic)
- and now you're talking in a way that doesn't accomplish anything
- and to top it all off your post makes an assertion that really has to do with specifics and semantics (that arguing emotionally is "forcing your beliefs on someone..." like, crashing ones car is an example of that, but not yelling, so you can't really say that) and other than that is way too long and has nothing to do with kristoph's point
^please don't argue with me about this though! the point i'm trying to make is that in the midst of a pointless argument you will benefit this forum and the actual discussion by just thinking i'm retarded in private. if you are "not interested in this blame game" then stop posting. i realize me talking about this now is hypocritical but there's really nothing else to discuss about vegetarianism so...
mattj: i'm sure they have, i wasn't really specific enough. they can't eat things that come into contact with meat, e.g, if i'm eating a burrito bowl and i want to steal some of my friend's pasta, she will not allow me to do so with the same fork. i'm sure there are exceptions though obviously, but the ridiculousness of the example was part of my point that there's a kind of self-obsession in militant vegetarianism
capefeather, forgive me for my belligerence, but i feel like your post is profoundly ironic: you're saying "I sometimes have to say 'come on' just so people don't talk in a way that doesn't accomplish anything"
- i literally just made a "come on" post (to kristoph, but you're arguing about the same topic)
- and now you're talking in a way that doesn't accomplish anything
- and to top it all off your post makes an assertion that really has to do with specifics and semantics (that arguing emotionally is "forcing your beliefs on someone..." like, crashing ones car is an example of that, but not yelling, so you can't really say that) and other than that is way too long and has nothing to do with kristoph's point
^please don't argue with me about this though! the point i'm trying to make is that in the midst of a pointless argument you will benefit this forum and the actual discussion by just thinking i'm retarded in private. if you are "not interested in this blame game" then stop posting. i realize me talking about this now is hypocritical but there's really nothing else to discuss about vegetarianism so...
mattj: i'm sure they have, i wasn't really specific enough. they can't eat things that come into contact with meat, e.g, if i'm eating a burrito bowl and i want to steal some of my friend's pasta, she will not allow me to do so with the same fork. i'm sure there are exceptions though obviously, but the ridiculousness of the example was part of my point that there's a kind of self-obsession in militant vegetarianism
Problem is I don't consider you or Kristoph retarded, which is basically why I'm doing any of this.
I was simply disturbed that my comment on a pic has been received the way it has, and I wanted to reach an understanding... but yes, this is around the time where I'm going to give up.
I was simply disturbed that my comment on a pic has been received the way it has, and I wanted to reach an understanding... but yes, this is around the time where I'm going to give up.
http://www.kasa.com/dpps/news/interactive/threats-push-coyote-hunt-underground_4986832
A bunch of gunslingers want to see who can kill the most coyotes on some private ranch. The state land commisioner said "it's time to outlaw this highly destructive activity." But for all intents and purposes, what they're doing is completely legal and regulated. Should it be legal?
A bunch of gunslingers want to see who can kill the most coyotes on some private ranch. The state land commisioner said "it's time to outlaw this highly destructive activity." But for all intents and purposes, what they're doing is completely legal and regulated. Should it be legal?
I dislike hunting, but I'm not going to challenge someone else's ability to hunt. That's their right, especially on private land.
That being said, this sounds extremely dangerous. I know hunters are very careful people and respect their weapons greatly, but having a large amount of people hunting on the same land is a terrible idea. For safety's sake, I think the authorities can step in and block the event.
I could speak more about upsetting the ecology, but that's a different argument altogether.
That being said, this sounds extremely dangerous. I know hunters are very careful people and respect their weapons greatly, but having a large amount of people hunting on the same land is a terrible idea. For safety's sake, I think the authorities can step in and block the event.
I could speak more about upsetting the ecology, but that's a different argument altogether.
Another, similar story that I should have added in there concerns my good friend Sarah at work. Her family raises horses on the side. She was trail riding the other day after work on a friend's private ranch, here in Missouri. They spotted around 30 wild boars out in a field running after their horses. She told me Friday that she plans on getting with a bunch of friends and family and pretty much decimating them, at least on her friend's property. Totally legal here in Missouri, within certain regulations, such as having to either keep the meat to eat yourself, or having to give it to someone who will eat it, or donate it to that charity, "Share the Harvest" I think it's called. No tags required even!
Sounds like we're all going to have a pig fry!
At least in the case of my friend, they are a pretty serious, non-native, nuisance animal, and she has to eat it or give it to someone who will eat it (including a charity that prepares and gives away the meat to poor families), but really, I'm pondering the morality of these mass hunts, which usually aren't for food, and aren't always non-native, nuisance animals. But even then, would using the meat for food and only killing nuisance/non-native animals even make a difference?
Sounds like we're all going to have a pig fry!
At least in the case of my friend, they are a pretty serious, non-native, nuisance animal, and she has to eat it or give it to someone who will eat it (including a charity that prepares and gives away the meat to poor families), but really, I'm pondering the morality of these mass hunts, which usually aren't for food, and aren't always non-native, nuisance animals. But even then, would using the meat for food and only killing nuisance/non-native animals even make a difference?
If something is on your land and damaging your property, its ok to kill it. In fact, its the best thing to do to avoid financial hardship. Also, if its private land then the owner and his buddies can hunt on it. Its their land and they have freedom to do anything as long as its legal and reasonable. But if its on public land, then they must abide by hunting laws. Its that simple.
Ridiculous, just because something happens on private land says nothing about the ethical ramifications of such events. In mattj's example it's somewhat clear to me that the boars are endangering horses and need to be gotten rid of, but that has nothing to do with the legal status of any party involved. The notion that if something damages your property that justifies murdering it is simply unbelievable: remember when you built a house on that land, you damaged an animals habitat (almost assuredly), luckily they don't share the human predilection for destruction.
these people have every right to protect themselves and their livestock from wild animals but it's disappointing to see that the first instinct is 'KILL IT' and not 'explore more humane options.' I'm sure there is an element of functionality in this coyote-hunt but I suspect there's more than a large-dollop of bloodlust thrown in there too.
anyway, this article seems super-relevant. Was all over UK media today.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ing-pigs-for-army-medic-training-8328148.html
pig flesh is the closest substitute for human flesh iirc and is therefore the best in terms of battle simulation and provided there truly are no other equally effective alternatives then I suppose I can bear this as it will save human lives on the battlefield, although it is a bit grim! :(
anyway, this article seems super-relevant. Was all over UK media today.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ing-pigs-for-army-medic-training-8328148.html
pig flesh is the closest substitute for human flesh iirc and is therefore the best in terms of battle simulation and provided there truly are no other equally effective alternatives then I suppose I can bear this as it will save human lives on the battlefield, although it is a bit grim! :(
Cadavers do not react in the same way as live bodies do. They're being trained to stabilise a person while under pressure so using live patients in a controlled hospital environment isn't an accurate test either. The idea of using bleeding puppets is also laughable as no model anywhere near simulates the body on this level.
This training not only saves soldiers' lives but also that of civilians that get hit in the crossfire. In addition that article failed to mention the pigs were anesthetized during the event, though I find it a shame that they weren't used for their meat afterward. It might have been rendered unusable by the process?
Those comments... on that article and the one in the daily mail. Equating the exercise with killing minorities and asking for prisoners to be used instead. I wish that sort of thinking wasn't so commonplace.
This training not only saves soldiers' lives but also that of civilians that get hit in the crossfire. In addition that article failed to mention the pigs were anesthetized during the event, though I find it a shame that they weren't used for their meat afterward. It might have been rendered unusable by the process?
Those comments... on that article and the one in the daily mail. Equating the exercise with killing minorities and asking for prisoners to be used instead. I wish that sort of thinking wasn't so commonplace.
Really? A couple of years ago, the town I live in organized this mass duck and geese hunt at these large ponds in town because the birds were pooping on golf course across the road from the ponds and they claim it was damaging the course. This angered a lot people because people liked to take their kids to the ponds to feed the birds which made them use to humans. Was it ok for them to organized that? In the end, due to the protests, only like 5 people showed up and it was a total bust.
I really don't really like mass killings, especially when the animals they're killing you usually don't eat, like coyotes. I can see if a farmer kills them to protect he's livestock and it's just spare of the moment, but there are better and humane solutions to deal with the problem. I even don't like what Mattj's friend is doing in his second example, it just doesn't seem right to me.
Name them.
Hiring shepherds or herders, having guard animals such as dogs, donkeys, or llamas, fencing the livestock at night, disposal of carcasses properly, herding livestock together, bringing in the animals at night, etc. It's just that people don't want to put the effort into it and would rather take the easier way out. It goes along with what Lee said, it's sad that people's first instinct is to kill it.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but... so you're saying you'd rather that the farmers protect their livestock and let predators starve to death? I'm not saying I've got this issue all figured out, but there are some realities. Those predators must eat. Predators don't attack livestock unless they must. If they don't eat those cattle, or horses, or other livestock, should they just starve to death? Just throwing the question out there for discussion but, wouldn't it be more humane to kill them?
Where's all this extra money to pay for these things going to come from?
What happens when the coyotes/wild boars kill the guard animals or wound them enough to put them out of commission?
But you aren't supposed to fence the poor animals in at night! That's inhumane too! Unless you mean all around your property, which really doesn't help all that much either. As if a coyote wants your livestock, it's going to find a way to get in.
It's nice to say all these things, but they do not work in practice.
- Status