Buehrle vs. Vick

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Sort of like chicken before factory farming started.

Chickens were once jungle animals that were easy enough to catch by local inhabitants that they became a staple. They readily took to man and became a great food source. They are actually pretty easy to care for all things considered. You can build small "chicken tractors" that protect them and allow them to graze over natural foods, moving them regularly, let them free range over a well-protected area, and then build a coop to house them safely at night. They eat all kinds of s***, so they can be fed very cheaply, and they produce eggs and lots of young, and grow quickly, so there's the potential of easily growing enough to feed yourself and then growing extra commercially.

 

You should also consider that maybe - just maybe - the animals that we have "domesticated" have in another way "domesticated" us. By providing human beings with good food they have increased their numbers in ways nature never would have allowed and have been afforded a type of protection that nature herself also would have never allowed. People have actually destroyed wolf and coyote populations all over the place because of them.

 

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I was referring to chicken meat which wasn't always as thick as the bible. That started happening after the factory farm system, with it's accelerated chicken growing practices, became entrenched in our society. Prior to that you wouldn't get much meat out of a chicken.

 

I'm sure a factory farm could be set up to pump up dogs with steroids in order to produce plump meat.

 

Instead of a pig in this pen, just make it a bulldog:

 

Factory farming has increases yields of everything, but chickens have been raised for a long, long, time, so you're going to have to go back pretty far to find a time where chickens as livestock wasn't *edit* practical.

 

And also, way back when, many fruit trees would have been light-yielding and bitter, but that has all changed too. And I wouldn't put even half that on modern technology, I'd put that on man simply caring for and ensuring the success of more palatable species over time. You can apply that to animals as well.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[G&T]

Yeah Jaime you and your husband are genuine hypocrites. Vick SHOULD HAVE walked away after being ambushed by that "reporter" with the pics. What is he supposed to do, stand there and argue with him?

 

Okay I understand that he and his wife has a problem with what Vick did. But to wish that Vick gets hurt on the field? Buehrle and his wife should know better. They are very fortunate that Mark has never suffered a severe injury.

 

Damn I really hate that this came out. I like Mark Buehrle a LOT less after today. I'm almost at the point where I wish he would f*** off and take the next thing smoking to St. Louis and the Cardinals. Hopefully this will die down, but as of right now - f*** Mark Buehrle.

 

Wow. That's a drastic over-reaction.

[StrangeSox]

You know, you can be against eating meat or using animals products, against hunting and against the deliberate torture of animals without trying to make a hilariously bad argument that all three are morally equivalent.

[BigSqwert]

You know, you can be against eating meat or using animals products, against hunting and against the deliberate torture of animals without trying to make a hilariously bad argument that all three are morally equivalent.

Morals are subjective.

[Controlled Chaos]

Kudos to some well articulated arguments in here. Regardless of who I agree with, I can appreciate people taking the time to speak their mind.

[Soxbadger]

Im at work right now so Ill get to a lot of this later,

 

but who are you to say what other people can morally like or dislike?

 

Some people think there is nothing wrong with killing any animal in any fashion.

 

Some people think it is morally wrong to kill any animal in any fashion.

 

Morals are nothing more than a human societal creation. Different societies have different morals. The morals of the 21st century are pretty different than the morals of the 1st century and id guess will be different than the morals of the 30th century.

 

Just because the majority may feel morally one way, does not mean they are right. People have believed things were moral in the past only to think they are abhorrent today.

 

If I was to do an absolute moral equivalency, I would say that torture is worse than plain murder. But I would say that murder is closer to torture, than not murder is.

[StrangeSox]

Morals are subjective.

Sure. That doesn't mean one can make a sound argument in favor of every possible moral judgement, like equating a human choosing to eat meat with a human deliberately torturing an animal for the sake of torture.

[BigSqwert]

LOL. 158 posts and it's still in Pale Hose.

[StrangeSox]

Im at work right now so Ill get to a lot of this later,

 

but who are you to say what other people can morally like or dislike?

 

Some people think there is nothing wrong with killing any animal in any fashion.

 

Some people think it is morally wrong to kill any animal in any fashion.

 

Morals are nothing more than a human societal creation. Different societies have different morals. The morals of the 21st century are pretty different than the morals of the 1st century and id guess will be different than the morals of the 30th century.

 

Just because the majority may feel morally one way, does not mean they are right. People have believed things were moral in the past only to think they are abhorrent today.

 

If I was to do an absolute moral equivalency, I would say that torture is worse than plain murder. But I would say that murder is closer to torture, than not murder is.

 

 

Sure. That doesn't mean one can make a sound argument in favor of every possible moral judgement, like equating a human choosing to eat meat with a human deliberately torturing an animal for the sake of torture.

 

That applies to your post as well as BS's. I'm not saying you can't make a good argument that consumption of meat is wrong if we have the ability to live without it. I'm saying you can't make a good argument that eating meat is equivalent to intentional torture.

 

BTW, when you say "murder," you're using loaded words and begging the question.

 

FWIW, I probably agree with you and BS a lot on issues of animal treatment and the moral (as well as ecological) problems with the mass consumption of beef and pork.

Edited February 10, 2011 by StrangeSox

[ChiSox_Sonix]

f*** it, I'm taking it to the next level. Michael Vick is just like Hitler because they both owned dogs at some point and were responsible for the deaths of living things in some way.

 

And there it is. Godwin's Law comes through again!

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

That applies to your post as well as BS's. I'm not saying you can't make a good argument that consumption of meat is wrong if we have the ability to live without it. I'm saying you can't make a good argument that eating meat is equivalent to intentional torture.

 

BTW, when you say "murder," you're using loaded words and begging the question.

 

FWIW, I probably agree with you and BS a lot on issues of animal treatment and the moral (as well as ecological) problems with the mass consumption of beef and pork.

This is a great post.

 

Nature exists because of life and death. As such, you can't view natural processes as inherently wrong.

 

If the idea is death = bad, then that's just wrong, because life grows from death, and without death there can be no life, and this is the natural world. Nature just can't be wrong.

 

If the idea is torture = bad, then I'd agree in general - but now it's a much grayer area. How much is too much depending on the circumstances?

 

If the idea is that people don't need to eat meat to survive, then this isn't a life vs. death or torture vs. non-torture argument, because even vegans rely on death and some kinds of torture depending on your definition of torture when you consider that plants are also (based upon some of their behaviors) intelligent lifeforms. The argument in that case is actually over the nutritional differences between plant and animal matter.

 

And even that argument requires a lot of research, not just listening to the propagandists who want to sell you totally unnatural soy products. The "powers that be" will work to deceive the vegans the same way they'll work to deceive the rest of us, and when you look at who you're supporting in either case when you buy animal meat or plant substances, you're going to be supporting a company that murders, tortures, destroys environments, etc. anyway. So the morality really isn't there even if you want it to be, and the argument is nothing more than purely nutritional.

[BigSqwert]

Last I checked plants do not have a central nervous system. I don't recall ever hearing a tree cry out in pain when I picked an apple from it.

[soxrwhite]

Just kill every living thing.........................................especially this thread.

[StrangeSox]

Last I checked plants do not have a central nervous system. I don't recall ever hearing a tree cry out in pain when I picked an apple from it.

 

Check out fruitarianism or jainism.

 

Your wheat harvests kill millions of living things and inevitably result in the death of animals. You are no different than Michael Vick!

[BigSqwert]

Check out fruitarianism or jainism.

 

Your wheat harvests kill millions of living things and inevitably result in the death of animals. You are no different than Michael Vick!

Excellent equivalency demonstration.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Plants will develop poisons to kill pests and drugs to stimulate those who would help them, all for the benefit of the species. Trees will actually create their own environments and draw other plants to them. Some trees will sacrifice themselves to pests to save others. Plants can really do some amazing things. And shouldn't the actions and behaviors observed be a better judgement of intelligence than the appearance of a spinal column?

[StrangeSox]

Excellent equivalency demonstration.

 

I win. Bow before me.

:notworthy :notworthy

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Plants will develop poisons to kill pests and drugs to stimulate those who would help them, all for the benefit of the species. Trees will actually create their own environments and draw other plants to them. Some trees will sacrifice themselves to pests to save others. Plants can really do some amazing things. And shouldn't the actions and behaviors observed be a better judgement of intelligence than the appearance of a spinal column?

 

Fine. A cow and a carrot are the same exact thing. You've convinced me.

 

From now on I'll only eat sand and plastic.

Edited February 10, 2011 by BigSqwert

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I win. Bow before me.

:notworthy :notworthy

The sad thing is that in many ways you are absolutely correct.

 

Adopting a diet based on grain harvested commercially is adopting a diet based on the practice of destroying ecosystems and salting lands. The effects rain down everywhere, like fertilizers washing into rivers and f***ing up ocean habitants, etc. Animals in this case don't just move to better areas and live happy lives, they die off.

 

Lots of farms are for sale pretty cheaply in this country. A big reason why? The land is absolutely useless without extensive rehabilitation.

[StrangeSox]

The sad thing is that in many ways you are absolutely correct.

 

Adopting a diet based on grain harvested commercially is adopting a diet based on the practice of destroying ecosystems and salting lands. The effects rain down everywhere, like fertilizers washing into rivers and f***ing up ocean habitants, etc. Animals in this case don't just move to better areas and live happy lives, they die off.

 

Lots of farms are for sale pretty cheaply in this country. A big reason why? The land is absolutely useless without extensive rehabilitation.

But, to be fair, we grow a lot more food than we need because we turn around and feed it to beef and pork. A lot less efficient than just eating the grains/vegetables/etc., but also a lot less tasty.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Fine. A cow and a carrot are the same exact thing. You've convinced me.

 

From now on I'll only eat sand and plastic.

If cows are so smart then why don't they unite against their evil human overlords?

[BigSqwert]

But, to be fair, we grow a lot more food than we need because we turn around and feed it to beef and pork. A lot less efficient than just eating the grains/vegetables/etc., but also a lot less tasty.

Just look at all the record droughts we're seeing in the world and look at how much water and food is needed to produce 1 lb of beef. The population has been exploding exponentially the last 150 years and shows no signs of slow down. This paradigm is unsustainable.

Edited February 10, 2011 by BigSqwert

[Balta1701]

From now on I'll only eat sand and plastic.

Silt and clay taste better.

[BigSqwert]

Silt and clay taste better.

Says the guy who eats human meat.