41 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older
41.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 11, 2015, 15:19
41.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 11, 2015, 15:19
Sep 11, 2015, 15:19
 
Veganism certainly has some merit (although achieving a truly balanced vegan diet is insanely complex and way too much work for the average person), but the real problem has never been feeding one person. It is an unsustainable solution for society as a whole and that's where it really breaks down. 3D printed meats are going to be a much more realistic solution IMO.

The moral argument fails spectacularly if you think about it critically for a few minutes. There is basically nothing that a person can eat that something else hasn't died for (even if you grow it yourself). If you are eating "organic rice" then you are really eating dead animals and birds from a dead river (due to big-ag runoff) in China. How many insects, rodents and rabbits do you think are killed by industrial farm equipment to get you that head of lettuce? How many fish die due to rivers being diverted for irrigation for farms (70% of all rivers diverted in some way to water crops)? How many other animals die off because someone turned their homeland into farmland? The breadbasket of the US used to be covered in Bison and wolves with topsoil nearly 12 feet thick, now that topsoil can be measured in inches in most places and it is never, ever, EVER coming back. Do we only care that the cows are being treated inhumanely because it's more obvious?

The political arguments always revolve around solving world hunger, but they never add up. The more land we put aside for these annual crops (grains etc) the quicker the topsoil is depleted without possibility of recovery. Every time you see that "1 pound of beef" argument, it generally revolves around feeding cattle grains which they are not supposed to be eating (they only eat them because we subsidize the shit out of them and they are cheap). This is aside from the fact that you can't grow the levels of crops we need without manure, and you don't get the levels of manure needed unless cows are mass-bred for consumption. Catch-22. Additionally, not a single international aid organization suggests or promotes veganism/vegetarianism as a solution to world hunger because... it simply isn't one.

Then we get to nutrition. Nutrition has been taking it from all sides lately so there is lots of new information to take in on things like salt (not as bad as anyone thought, promotes healing and heart attack risk does NOT decrease when sodium intake is lowered), fats (good for you!), grains (sugar with opioids to keep you addicted), cholesterol (does not actually cause artery buildup, excess calcium does). It's a lot of conflicting information and really requires some mass re-education to occur (which won't happen until the big-ag corporations stop making money...). First things first... some people physically can not be vegan/vegetarian because their liver doesn't produce enough cholesterol. Life is not possible without cholesterol and if you aren't ingesting it or producing enough of it... you're dead. There are tons of horrific health concerns surrounding soy and grains now. Contrary to what has been suggested below it is NOT actually easy to eat a balanced vegan diet. You have to be extremely careful to cover all of the appropriate vitamins/minerals/metals when eating vegan, and you basically HAVE to supplement certain things (B12, K2, fats, etc) in some way. It is extremely easy to screw up though, and it causes all sorts of (sometimes irreparable) damage to your body and digestive tract.


The overproduction of grains on earth has allowed for the overpopulation of humans on earth, and we are stuck in a completely unsustainable situation that no one has an easy solution to. Well, some people do... but it involves killing off about 6 billion people so we can get back to levels of farming and agriculture that won't perpetually drive the planet's resources into the ground. Farming heavy is a problem, meat heavy is a problem... the answer (as always) lies in a balance of the two.
Avatar 56185
40.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 11, 2015, 09:15
40.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 11, 2015, 09:15
Sep 11, 2015, 09:15
 
jdreyer wrote on Sep 11, 2015, 05:29:
InBlack wrote on Sep 11, 2015, 03:50:

I was being facetious, but mark gil is being a fucking hypocrite. How many forests were cleared to plant all those crops like rice and grain, corn, potato, carrots etc.? How many natural habitats were destroyed in the process? How many animals have gone instinct over the millenia so that humanity can live more comfortably, i.e. eat more bread! He can delude himself all he wants, but he isn't contributing to the salvation of one single farm animal, and he is just as responsible for the death and extinction of wild animals as everyone else.

Actually, most of those forests being cleared are to make pasture for beef cattle:

According to one report, an estimated 70 percent of deforestation in the Amazon basin can be attributed to cattle ranching.

As a food source, meat and beef especially, are very inefficient. It takes 10 kg of grain and 1000 l of water to produce 1 kg of beef. Do the math. If you care about natural habitats, being vegetarian has by far the lowest impact. As for animals going extinct, the main reason is overhunting, not loss of habitat due to farming. Does plant farming have an impact? Absolutely, but it's lower than farming animals for meat, or hunting.

Those are all very dubious numbers. Also, compared to the US and South America, the rest of the world doesn't produce or consume nearly as much beef. One other thing, here in the EU cattle is not fed grain. (Not to mention the steroids and hormones, this is illegal in most EU countries). Still, all numbers aside the fact of the matter remains that humans are omnivores. Sure you can exist on plant matter alone, but a mixed diet is always going to be healthier for you. Eliminating meat & fish completely from your menu is going to be bad for your health any way you put it, unless you go out of your way to supplant that animal protein and fat with pecan nuts or something equally rare or expensive. Lastly people are still starving in many parts of the world, you look me in the eye and tell me those people don't have a right to butcher an animal or two they catch in the wild so their families don't have to starve.
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
39.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 11, 2015, 07:32
39.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 11, 2015, 07:32
Sep 11, 2015, 07:32
 
Sounds like someone just watched Forks Over Knives or Food Inc for the first time.

Do you know who is really sad? The person who doesn't get to attend my amazing summer BBQs.
38.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 11, 2015, 05:29
38.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 11, 2015, 05:29
Sep 11, 2015, 05:29
 
InBlack wrote on Sep 11, 2015, 03:50:

I was being facetious, but mark gil is being a fucking hypocrite. How many forests were cleared to plant all those crops like rice and grain, corn, potato, carrots etc.? How many natural habitats were destroyed in the process? How many animals have gone instinct over the millenia so that humanity can live more comfortably, i.e. eat more bread! He can delude himself all he wants, but he isn't contributing to the salvation of one single farm animal, and he is just as responsible for the death and extinction of wild animals as everyone else.

Actually, most of those forests being cleared are to make pasture for beef cattle:

According to one report, an estimated 70 percent of deforestation in the Amazon basin can be attributed to cattle ranching.

As a food source, meat and beef especially, are very inefficient. It takes 10 kg of grain and 1000 l of water to produce 1 kg of beef. Do the math. If you care about natural habitats, being vegetarian has by far the lowest impact. As for animals going extinct, the main reason is overhunting, not loss of habitat due to farming. Does plant farming have an impact? Absolutely, but it's lower than farming animals for meat, or hunting.
To prevent CV-19, avoid the Serious Seven: weddings, funerals, faith-based activities, bars, gyms, house gatherings and other small events.
Avatar 22024
37.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 11, 2015, 03:50
37.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 11, 2015, 03:50
Sep 11, 2015, 03:50
 
jdreyer wrote on Sep 10, 2015, 13:42:
InBlack wrote on Sep 10, 2015, 09:35:
mark gil wrote on Sep 10, 2015, 08:15:
“So many people insist they are against animal abuse, cruelty, suffering and the inhumane treatment of animals, yet they don’t understand they are actively engaging in and supporting egregious suffering, abuse, cruelty and inhumane treatment when they eat animals and their ‘by-products.’ If you are against cruelty, suffering and inhumane treatment, then you go vegan. It’s just that simple.” - Sarah Kiser
youtube.com/watch?v=AtWO83pf3Mc

What about the poor turnips? Won't anyone think of the poor tortured turnips? What about the carrots? Or the potato? How many potatoes get butchered into french fries day in day out...fucking genocide is what it is....

Give me a break. Pigs are as intelligent as dogs, if not more so. Comparing them to turnips is insulting. If you like they way they taste, then just be a man and say "I eat bacon because it tastes good," but don't try to excuse it away with false equivalencies.

If there was more of this on the news, a lot more people would be vegetarian. It's hard not to watch something like Food, Inc or read Diet for a New America and not be affected. Maybe you won't become a vegetarian, but I'd be surprised if you didn't eat less meat. Economically, environmentally, spiritually, ethically, and healthwise, eating less meat has massive benefits for both individuals, your local environment, and the planet as a whole.

I was being facetious, but mark gil is being a fucking hypocrite. How many forests were cleared to plant all those crops like rice and grain, corn, potato, carrots etc.? How many natural habitats were destroyed in the process? How many animals have gone instinct over the millenia so that humanity can live more comfortably, i.e. eat more bread! He can delude himself all he wants, but he isn't contributing to the salvation of one single farm animal, and he is just as responsible for the death and extinction of wild animals as everyone else.
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
36.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 11, 2015, 03:41
36.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 11, 2015, 03:41
Sep 11, 2015, 03:41
 
You guys are fucking hilarious. Socially acceptable??!! Humans are omnivores! OMNIVORES! Its not about social acceptance its fucking BIOLOGY. Sure you can eat Vegan food, but don't go around calling me cruel to animals just because I eat meat (as well as vegetables, fruits and everything in between), you might as well call Bears cruel, or Pigs. (Surprise, Pigs are omnivores too!!)

This comment was edited on Sep 11, 2015, 04:16.
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
35.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 10, 2015, 23:41
35.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 10, 2015, 23:41
Sep 10, 2015, 23:41
 
mark gil wrote on Sep 10, 2015, 19:29:
"But there is no reason to blur the facts of one is totally socially acceptable (meat eater) and one is totally unacceptable socially, animal cruelty. Most meat eaters want humane slaughtering conditions.

There is nothing wrong imo being a vegan, to those congrats you are ahead of your time. But we are fighting 1000's of years of conditioning. Perhaps in another 100 it will be that way. But to think this compares to something that is still socially a-ok, uh no."

not too long ago human slavery also used to be socially acceptable-does that make it morally justifable also? there is no humane way to kill someone who wants to live. if you would not wish to experience something yourself, how is it ethical to force others to do so-especially in the name of a momentary taste sensation?

the lady in this story is using the exact same justifications for her actions that people who choose to consume flesh, dairy and eggs use to try and justify theirs. in both cases the interests of the helpless, innocent victims are deemed less important that those commiting the violence in the name of pleasure and profit.

btw, choosing to be vegan is no more ahead of time than choosing not to do what the lady in the story was convicted of. harming and killing non-human animals for one's own personal gratification is the very LEAST one can do.

Slavery is still acceptable some places, but far from the point.

Today eating meat is socially acceptable, perhaps someday it won't be that isn't today. Animal Cruelty is out today.

I'm cool with both sides because I believe in a universal truth, people are different. I'm not going to parade that everyone should be one way or the other. It ain't happening.
Avatar 17232
34.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 10, 2015, 19:38
34.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 10, 2015, 19:38
Sep 10, 2015, 19:38
 
are not supposed to? the fact that a human can do something in no way addresses the question of if it should be done in the first place.

veganism is about MUCH more than a mere dietary choice-it is a moral imperative which rejects violence and exploitation.

you said it yourself, humans can live healthy, in most cases more healthy, without eating animal products of any kind. if one can live one's life without intentionally harming others, why would they choose not to do so?
33.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 10, 2015, 19:29
33.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 10, 2015, 19:29
Sep 10, 2015, 19:29
 
"But there is no reason to blur the facts of one is totally socially acceptable (meat eater) and one is totally unacceptable socially, animal cruelty. Most meat eaters want humane slaughtering conditions.

There is nothing wrong imo being a vegan, to those congrats you are ahead of your time. But we are fighting 1000's of years of conditioning. Perhaps in another 100 it will be that way. But to think this compares to something that is still socially a-ok, uh no."

not too long ago human slavery also used to be socially acceptable-does that make it morally justifable also? there is no humane way to kill someone who wants to live. if you would not wish to experience something yourself, how is it ethical to force others to do so-especially in the name of a momentary taste sensation?

the lady in this story is using the exact same justifications for her actions that people who choose to consume flesh, dairy and eggs use to try and justify theirs. in both cases the interests of the helpless, innocent victims are deemed less important that those commiting the violence in the name of pleasure and profit.

btw, choosing to be vegan is no more ahead of time than choosing not to do what the lady in the story was convicted of. harming and killing non-human animals for one's own personal gratification is the very LEAST one can do.

This comment was edited on Sep 10, 2015, 19:42.
32.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 10, 2015, 19:27
32.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 10, 2015, 19:27
Sep 10, 2015, 19:27
 
"What about the poor turnips? Won't anyone think of the poor tortured turnips? What about the carrots? Or the potato? How many potatoes get butchered into french fries day in day out...fucking genocide is what it is.... "

if you wish to experience the difference for yourself, go watch turnip harvest and then go visit a slaughterhouse. if you really believed this kind of nonsense you would no sooner mow your lawn than you would chop up your dog.

btw, the lady in the story could use the same reasoning to try and justify her atrocities.

This comment was edited on Sep 10, 2015, 19:32.
31.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 10, 2015, 19:26
31.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 10, 2015, 19:26
Sep 10, 2015, 19:26
 
deleted-duplicate
30.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 10, 2015, 19:21
30.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 10, 2015, 19:21
Sep 10, 2015, 19:21
 
HorrorScope wrote on Sep 10, 2015, 18:31:
mark gil wrote on Sep 10, 2015, 08:15:
“So many people insist they are against animal abuse, cruelty, suffering and the inhumane treatment of animals, yet they don’t understand they are actively engaging in and supporting egregious suffering, abuse, cruelty and inhumane treatment when they eat animals and their ‘by-products.’ If you are against cruelty, suffering and inhumane treatment, then you go vegan. It’s just that simple.” - Sarah Kiser
youtube.com/watch?v=AtWO83pf3Mc

Perhaps in a perfect world.

But there is no reason to blur the facts of one is totally socially acceptable (meat eater) and one is totally unacceptable socially, animal cruelty. Most meat eaters want humane slaughtering conditions.

There is nothing wrong imo being a vegan, to those congrats you are ahead of your time. But we are fighting 1000's of years of conditioning. Perhaps in another 100 it will be that way. But to think this compares to something that is still socially a-ok, uh no.

Well, humans aren't really supposed to be vegetarians. Although we're mostly adapted to eat plant material (flat grinding molars with a lateral chewing ability, a longish gut for absorbing nutrients from plants, etc) we are evolved to supplement with some meat, probably 10-20% of our diet. That's why we absorb iron better from meat, and don't produce our own B12. Still, it's healthier to be vegetarian, and our modern society allows it without any nutritional penalties.
To prevent CV-19, avoid the Serious Seven: weddings, funerals, faith-based activities, bars, gyms, house gatherings and other small events.
Avatar 22024
29.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 10, 2015, 18:31
29.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 10, 2015, 18:31
Sep 10, 2015, 18:31
 
mark gil wrote on Sep 10, 2015, 08:15:
“So many people insist they are against animal abuse, cruelty, suffering and the inhumane treatment of animals, yet they don’t understand they are actively engaging in and supporting egregious suffering, abuse, cruelty and inhumane treatment when they eat animals and their ‘by-products.’ If you are against cruelty, suffering and inhumane treatment, then you go vegan. It’s just that simple.” - Sarah Kiser
youtube.com/watch?v=AtWO83pf3Mc

Perhaps in a perfect world.

But there is no reason to blur the facts of one is totally socially acceptable (meat eater) and one is totally unacceptable socially, animal cruelty. Most meat eaters want humane slaughtering conditions.

There is nothing wrong imo being a vegan, to those congrats you are ahead of your time. But we are fighting 1000's of years of conditioning. Perhaps in another 100 it will be that way. But to think this compares to something that is still socially a-ok, uh no.
Avatar 17232
28.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 10, 2015, 13:42
28.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 10, 2015, 13:42
Sep 10, 2015, 13:42
 
InBlack wrote on Sep 10, 2015, 09:35:
mark gil wrote on Sep 10, 2015, 08:15:
“So many people insist they are against animal abuse, cruelty, suffering and the inhumane treatment of animals, yet they don’t understand they are actively engaging in and supporting egregious suffering, abuse, cruelty and inhumane treatment when they eat animals and their ‘by-products.’ If you are against cruelty, suffering and inhumane treatment, then you go vegan. It’s just that simple.” - Sarah Kiser
youtube.com/watch?v=AtWO83pf3Mc

What about the poor turnips? Won't anyone think of the poor tortured turnips? What about the carrots? Or the potato? How many potatoes get butchered into french fries day in day out...fucking genocide is what it is....

Give me a break. Pigs are as intelligent as dogs, if not more so. Comparing them to turnips is insulting. If you like they way they taste, then just be a man and say "I eat bacon because it tastes good," but don't try to excuse it away with false equivalencies.

If there was more of this on the news, a lot more people would be vegetarian. It's hard not to watch something like Food, Inc or read Diet for a New America and not be affected. Maybe you won't become a vegetarian, but I'd be surprised if you didn't eat less meat. Economically, environmentally, spiritually, ethically, and healthwise, eating less meat has massive benefits for both individuals, your local environment, and the planet as a whole.
To prevent CV-19, avoid the Serious Seven: weddings, funerals, faith-based activities, bars, gyms, house gatherings and other small events.
Avatar 22024
27.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 10, 2015, 09:35
27.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 10, 2015, 09:35
Sep 10, 2015, 09:35
 
mark gil wrote on Sep 10, 2015, 08:15:
“So many people insist they are against animal abuse, cruelty, suffering and the inhumane treatment of animals, yet they don’t understand they are actively engaging in and supporting egregious suffering, abuse, cruelty and inhumane treatment when they eat animals and their ‘by-products.’ If you are against cruelty, suffering and inhumane treatment, then you go vegan. It’s just that simple.” - Sarah Kiser
youtube.com/watch?v=AtWO83pf3Mc

What about the poor turnips? Won't anyone think of the poor tortured turnips? What about the carrots? Or the potato? How many potatoes get butchered into french fries day in day out...fucking genocide is what it is....
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
26.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 10, 2015, 08:15
26.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 10, 2015, 08:15
Sep 10, 2015, 08:15
 
“So many people insist they are against animal abuse, cruelty, suffering and the inhumane treatment of animals, yet they don’t understand they are actively engaging in and supporting egregious suffering, abuse, cruelty and inhumane treatment when they eat animals and their ‘by-products.’ If you are against cruelty, suffering and inhumane treatment, then you go vegan. It’s just that simple.” - Sarah Kiser
youtube.com/watch?v=AtWO83pf3Mc
25.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 10, 2015, 02:44
25.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 10, 2015, 02:44
Sep 10, 2015, 02:44
 
harlock wrote on Sep 9, 2015, 19:21:
these brainless, boneheaded chimps think they are some kinda heroes in their murderous hatred, thing is - they arent heroes, they arent "right", they arent "good"

just the same as the rest of the scumbags - thats what they are

You are preaching to the deaf. People have been told to go jump in the fire for calling someone a noob on the internet for fucks sake. You think they are gonna hold back in this case? Heh. They might be hypocrites and righteous internet assholes, but you are the one being naive.
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
24.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 10, 2015, 00:30
24.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 10, 2015, 00:30
Sep 10, 2015, 00:30
 
Honestly if that lady or anyone that does that shit is in my presence and I know it, all bets off. And goes in line of what I mention elsewhere, Mike Vick best hope there is no video of he and his groups action towards dogs.
Avatar 17232
23.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 9, 2015, 23:43
23.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 9, 2015, 23:43
Sep 9, 2015, 23:43
 
“You can judge a society by how well it treats its prisoners.”

Fyodor Dostoevsky

The purpose of any societal sanction against law breakers should be to stop the offending behavior and rehabilitate the offender for reinsertion back into society as a productive member. As horrific as her crimes are, her death at the hands of the state would only serve as an example of death as an acceptable solution to solve a problem. This is a prime example of why we are a nation of laws that can impartially assess a punishment free of emotion, as evidenced by comments in this thread.

There are of course some who can never be rehabilitated. They need to be imprisoned for life, unfortunately. Even then, we should be working toward rehabilitating them and making them productive members of society, even if they must contribute from prison.

FBI serial killer profiler Robert K. Ressler was opposed to capital punishment for practical reasons. Given enough time, almost every killer will open up and reveal their psychology and their techniques which can be used to prevent future crime. The death penalty is more expensive, isn't a deterrent, and serves no purpose. A truly civilized society will not kill its citizens.
To prevent CV-19, avoid the Serious Seven: weddings, funerals, faith-based activities, bars, gyms, house gatherings and other small events.
Avatar 22024
22.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Sep 9, 2015, 22:55
22.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 9, 2015, 22:55
Sep 9, 2015, 22:55
 
NamecaF wrote on Sep 9, 2015, 22:30:
In this case, eye for an eye isn't even enough. Her suffering would end too soon. She should be tortured to death over a very long, protracted period of time.

Anyone who abuses or murders those much weaker than themselves (eg. animals, kids) deserves the most horrendous, painful form of punishment possible.

You're just as bad as she is if you really believe that. A measured response in the face of cruelty is the mark of an enlightened society. If you want to just give in to your baser self then you're no different than her or any other animal.
41 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older