Buehrle vs. Vick

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

There's probably some bacteria on that sand and plastic, you jerk.

 

Like I said, I think you can make good arguments in favor of your dietary choices. I just don't think you can make a good equivalence argument between eating meat which results in (hopefully quick) pain and/or suffering and intentionally torturing animals. I haven't seen one yet, anyway.

 

What's your thoughts on scavengers? What if I only eat meat from already dead animals?

[BigSqwert]

What's your thoughts on scavengers? What if I only eat meat from already dead animals?

 

I'd say I hope you live in Canada so that you'd get great health insurance to cover the many hospital trips.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

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.

Agreed 100%

 

The system is wrong in the way it operates, but it exists for good reasons. You can say the same things about governments, economies, etc. Only the difference is, it's much easier to take out or rebuild a government or economy than rehabilitate nature. Certain plants and animals will only exist under certain very specific conditions related to soil pH, water retention/filtration, vegetation density, moisture, pressure, temperature, etc. Man doesn't really know enough right now to re-create an environment he has destroyed. Simply "planting trees" doesn't really work - the order, density, effect on the soil, etc. creates ecosystems.

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

Yes, but beef is tasty. What don't you get about this?!?!?!?!

 

Again, I agree with your general argument here, even if I'm a hypocrite and don't practice it. I just think eating meat=hunting for food=hunting for sport and not eating meat=intentionally torturing animals for pleasure is a pretty ridiculous claim. About as bad as claiming that harvesting wheat is just as bad because animals are inevitably killed.

[BigSqwert]

About as bad as claiming that harvesting wheat is just as bad because animals are inevitably killed.

So NOW you admit that was lame.

[StrangeSox]

I'd say I hope you live in Canada so that you'd get great health insurance to cover the many hospital trips.

You can still cook and sterilize it.

 

But it's a trick question, I'll just have my pet tiger bring down the cows!

[BigSqwert]

You can still cook and sterilize it.

 

But it's a trick question, I'll just have my pet tiger bring down the cows!

 

Hope you're not Seigfried! Or was it Roy?

[Soxbadger]

Sqwert,

 

A carrot will scream.

 

Damn cant believe some one beat me to that. Ill never forget using that in an animal rights debate in 7th grade. Back then I was pro-hunter, against gun control and all of that jazz.

 

How things change.

[StrangeSox]

Listen up brothers and sisters,

come hear my desperate tale.

I speak of our friends of nature,

trapped in the dirt like a jail.

 

Vegetables live in oppression,

served on our tables each night.

This killing of veggies is madness,

I say we take up the fight.

 

Salads are only for murderers,

coleslaw's a fascist regime.

Don't think that they don't have feelings,

just cause a radish can't scream.

 

Chorus:

I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream)

Watching their skins being peeled (having their insides revealed)

Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories)

How do you think that feels (bet it hurts really bad)

Carrot juice constitutes murder (and that's a real crime)

Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables go)

It's time to stop all this gardening (it's dirty as hell)

Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade is a spade)

 

I saw a man eating celery,

so I beat him black and blue.

If he ever touches a sprout again,

I'll bite him clean in two.

 

I'm a political prisoner,

trapped in a windowless cage.

Cause I stopped the slaughter of turnips

by killing five men in a rage

 

I told the judge when he sentenced me,

This is my finest hour,

I'd kill those farmers again

just to save one more cauliflower

 

Chorus

 

How low as people do we dare to stoop,

Making young broccolis bleed in the soup?

Untie your beans, uncage your tomatoes

Let potted plants free, don't mash that potato!

 

I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream)

Watching their skins being peeled (fates in the stirfry are sealed)

Grated and steamed with no mercy (you fat gormet slob)

How do you think that feels? (leave them out in the field)

Carrot juice constitutes murder (V8's genocide)

Greenhouses prisons for slaves (yes, your composts are graves)

It's time to stop all this gardening (take up macrame)

Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade, is a spade, is a spade, is a spade.....

[Steve9347]

The most dangerous game!

Win.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

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.

This is all wrong.

 

The "X amount of water + food for beef" argument has been torn up again and again. The numbers given are usually way off anyway.

 

Besides, these costs all relate to industrial practices, and the industrial practices themselves are wrong and ineffective. Why use numbers from an ineffective system to try to prove anything? People can grow chickens or tomatoes cheaply if they want to. Growing small relieves the need for expensive fuels and machinery, expensive pesticides, medical treatments, fertilizers, etc. And by having both, they can use animals to feed the plants and plants to feed the animals, each feeding the other. Industrial systems produce massive waste and destroy s***. Their numbers mean s*** as a result, and no "cheap food" is worth the destruction of an entire ecosystem especially when we're throwing away massive amounts of food each year and *NOT* even using it as beneficial fertilizer. Imagine how many gardens could grow out of a dumpster behind McDonalds?

[mmmmmbeeer]

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.

 

So it's wrong for Mark Buehrle to advocate for Mike Vick to get hurt playing in what is essentially a blood sport because Mike Vick wanted dogs to get hurt/killed in blood sport? I'd disagree...that seems pretty fair to me.

 

 

 

[BigSqwert]

This is all wrong.

 

The "X amount of water + food for beef" argument has been torn up again and again. The numbers given are usually way off anyway.

 

Oh yeah? Which sources are you citing? And you're telling me that the amount of food and water given to a cow over it's life time is what...the same amount that a human would consume?

Edited February 10, 2011 by BigSqwert

[StrangeSox]

Oh yeah? Which sources are you citing?

 

All of the good ones. Yours suck and have been thoroughly discredited.

[BigSqwert]

All of the good ones. Yours suck and have been thoroughly discredited.

Apparently. You'd think it's common sense to think that the total amount of inputs over a cow's lifetime is way more than the output of meat it will provide at slaughter.

 

And the mass amounts of waste materials the cow excretes hasn't even been touched upon.

Edited February 10, 2011 by BigSqwert

[joeynach]

The title of this thread should be Hippie (Buehrle) vs. Thug Life (Vick)

[StrangeSox]

You're forgetting the vital taste/input ratio. You always do.

[iamshack]

Apparently. You'd think it's common sense to think that the total amount of inputs over a cow's lifetime is way more than the output of meat it will provide at slaughter.

 

And the mass amounts of waste materials the cow excretes hasn't even been touched upon.

I don't think anyone can really defend these factory farms from an ecological standpoint...they certainly have one goal in mind, which is to produce the most quantity of passable quality for the least amount of money. Other than that objective, it's difficult to see much other concern for anything, whether that be the animals, the land, or even their human employees, to be honest.

 

The difficulty with your position, Sqwert, is that every action we take within any ecological system or our greater environment has some effect on everything else. There really is no course of action one can follow which does not have some unintended consequences to it. Nature and the environment are what they are, and no matter what your moral choices or your best intentions, every choice one makes, is causing some other event in nature which will cause some organism to suffer and/or another to thrive. And the scariest part of it all, is we don't really have much of a clue what those reactions will be. So where does it all stop? What is acceptable and what isn't? Why is the presence of a central nervous system some signpost at which we stand and say, "enough is enough"?

 

I think the position that sits best with me is to try and be the most responsible stewards of the environment and the ecosystem that we can. Unfortunately, that is not only difficult because of our limited knowledge, but also because of our capitalist economy. But as you full-well know, some companies are better about it than others, and perhaps we can illuminate their practices and promote patronage for those reasons rather than simply price.

 

It's certainly something that is unsustainable, ultimately, as you have said. But I'm just not so sure that it is as simple to draw the line where you have.

Edited February 10, 2011 by iamshack

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Apparently. You'd think it's common sense to think that the total amount of inputs over a cow's lifetime is way more than the output of meat it will provide at slaughter.

 

And the mass amounts of waste materials the cow excretes hasn't even been touched upon.

I can point you to sources (or you can look on your own) but that's just a whole other matter that would lead to other topics.

 

The basic idea is that food + water = beef argument is based off common industrial practices (and often embellished to favor the vegans). You don't need to feed cattle grain. They're meant to eat various plants, bark, etc. as browsers. You don't need to raise cattle the way they are currently raised. You don't need to grow plants the way they are currently grown. You don't need to work with the amount of expensive machinery and fuels that make beef expensive - and actually - cattle can be part of a system where their own products and behavior are used to lower costs. This argument you rely on is itself reliant upon a system that is generally exploitative and wasteful. It's like conducting an experiment in improper conditions and then saying your results are truth. Converting plant matter to meat isn't some simple equation of grain + water = meat, much less grain + water + conventional practices = the only way of obtaining meat.

 

And what waste materials? Everything a cow produces has a use, except that methane and CO2 would be hard to harvest. But every animal part along with it's excrement, the hide, meat, eyes, tongue, brain, everything has at least one very good use.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I don't think anyone can really defend these factory farms from an ecological standpoint...they certainly have one goal in mind, which is to produce the most quantity of passable quality for the least amount of money. Other than that objective, it's difficult to see much other concern for anything, whether that be the animals, the land, or even their human employees, to be honest.

 

The difficulty with your position, Sqwert, is that every action we take within any ecological system or our greater environment has some effect on everything else. There really is no course of action one can follow which does not have some unintended consequences to it. Nature and the environment are what they are, and no matter what your moral choices or your best intentions, every choice one makes, is causing some other event in nature which will cause some organism to suffer and/or another to thrive. And the scariest part of it all, is we don't really have much of a clue what those reactions will be. So where does it all stop? What is acceptable and what isn't? Why is the presence of a central nervous system some signpost at which we stand and say, "enough is enough"?

 

I think the position that sits best with me is to try and be the most responsible stewards of the environment and the ecosystem that we can. Unfortunately, that is not only difficult because of our limited knowledge, but also because of our capitalist economy. But as you full-well know, some companies are better about it than others, and perhaps we can illuminate their practices and promote patronage for those reasons rather than simply price.

 

It's certainly something that is unsustainable, ultimately, as you have said. But I'm just not so sure that it is as simple to draw the line where you have.

I like this post very much.

[StrangeSox]

I can point you to sources (or you can look on your own) but that's just a whole other matter that would lead to other topics.

 

The basic idea is that food + water = beef argument is based off common industrial practices (and often embellished to favor the vegans). You don't need to feed cattle grain. They're meant to eat various plants, bark, etc. as browsers. You don't need to raise cattle the way they are currently raised. You don't need to grow plants the way they are currently grown. You don't need to work with the amount of expensive machinery and fuels that make beef expensive - and actually - cattle can be part of a system where their own products and behavior are used to lower costs. This argument you rely on is itself reliant upon a system that is generally exploitative and wasteful. It's like conducting an experiment in improper conditions and then saying your results are truth. Converting plant matter to meat isn't some simple equation of grain + water = meat, much less grain + water + conventional practices = the only way of obtaining meat.

 

And what waste materials? Everything a cow produces has a use, except that methane and CO2 would be hard to harvest. But every animal part along with it's excrement, the hide, meat, eyes, tongue, brain, everything has at least one very good use.

 

The diets we put cattle on actually lead to a lot of problems, requiring us to pump them full of antibiotics. The marvels of modern technology!

[Soxbadger]

This whole thread has gone pretty far from my original idea which was, Mark should have stayed out of it because his views could be seen as hypocritical.

 

Regardless of whether you are an avid hunter or a vegan, I think its clear that there is at least an argument to be made for his stance being hypocritical. Some will believe that it is absolute hypocrisy, others may try and find a way to frame it so that its not.

 

But to me, its hypocritical to kill Black Bears for fun on one hand and wish harm on some one else for torturing dogs.

 

I cant get any information about Mark's Black Bear hunt, but most Bear hunting is pretty brutal. Trapping involves a Bear being caught in a trap that basically breaks its leg until the hunter comes and kills it, using dogs involves dogs chasing the bear until it climbs a tree where it can be killed, etc.

 

The argument for deer population control, its understandable. Which is why I make an exception for hunting for ecological preservation, but this is once again limited to professionals, and not to people who are doing it for fun.

 

Hunting to eat, I can live with that, it is natural.

 

But Im just not sure how hunting for sport and having dogs fight for sport, are so extremely different. I certainly dont support either.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I can point you to sources (or you can look on your own) but that's just a whole other matter that would lead to other topics.

 

The basic idea is that food + water = beef argument is based off common industrial practices (and often embellished to favor the vegans). You don't need to feed cattle grain. They're meant to eat various plants, bark, etc. as browsers. You don't need to raise cattle the way they are currently raised. You don't need to grow plants the way they are currently grown. You don't need to work with the amount of expensive machinery and fuels that make beef expensive - and actually - cattle can be part of a system where their own products and behavior are used to lower costs. This argument you rely on is itself reliant upon a system that is generally exploitative and wasteful. It's like conducting an experiment in improper conditions and then saying your results are truth. Converting plant matter to meat isn't some simple equation of grain + water = meat, much less grain + water + conventional practices = the only way of obtaining meat.

 

And what waste materials? Everything a cow produces has a use, except that methane and CO2 would be hard to harvest. But every animal part along with it's excrement, the hide, meat, eyes, tongue, brain, everything has at least one very good use.

And I'll just clarify this a little further in case it doesn't make much sense.

 

The grain + water = beef argument is a cost argument put forth by vegans to try to convince people not to eat meat and instead eat grain. The idea is that it takes the industrial cost of a lb of wheat and compares it to the industrial cost of a lb of beef, and then it takes a MASSIVE LEAP (neglecting nutritional issues and assuming that it's healthy to eat that much grain in the first place, or that meat is unnecessary in a diet) and puts forth the idea of X (s***load) of grain = Y (miniscule amount) of beef, and therefore that grain (and thus veganism) can end hunger and suffering while eating meat only encourages/perpetuates it.

 

But all this s*** is reliant on other s***. It relies on grain being produced in a destructive manner and sold at well below cost such that governments have to step in to make sure farmers stay above the poverty line. It involves wholesale destruction of landscapes and massive amounts of fossil fuel energy that presumably will run out and need to be replaced. It also involves meat products being created in equally unsustainable conditions, with cost appearing to be artificially HIGH as a result of feeding animals on grain instead of free plant material that can be grown on site, and undertaking farming at an over-extended industrial level NO ONE can handle rather than a smaller, more profitable operation that produces yield at a better cost ratio.

 

Like I said, the info is there if you want to look at it, but there's no point in going into too much detail since the argument itself is often a vegan defense mechanism and there's no point in trying to work past it.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

The diets we put cattle on actually lead to a lot of problems, requiring us to pump them full of antibiotics. The marvels of modern technology!

I agree, which is why I'm not defending it.

[RockRaines]

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.

I think you need to look up the definition of hypocritical. If mark was sent to jail for torturing and killing animals for fun, then maybe you could use that word.