Y'ALL GOT BEAT BY A VEGAN.

[Chichi]

http://www.vegetarianteen.com/articles/robertcheekeprotein.shtml
This dude actually has a better body than most of the people on this site.

[Inkrepid]

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g190/AntoineV/P6050020.jpg

Antoine would eat that guy for breakfast, at least his first breakfast.

[Papa Lazarou]

What a mediocre physique. Veganism is retarded anyway.

[frankinstine]

Also, there is a little difference between a vegan and a vegan bodybuilder.
This is a veganhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/justin_lunch211.jpg

[Colonel]

What a mediocre physique. Veganism is retarded anyway.

As is vegeterianism.

We didn't climb all the way to the top of the food chain just to eat lettuce!

Stupid hippies

[Chichi]

Antoine looks so sinister.

[sebben]

that guy looked so freaky

[Chichi]

I'd fight Antoine. And win.

[Chichi]

AND, because I don't use 'roids, my penis is way bigger than his.

[Skippy]

Only a meat eater can have this presence.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/photo/data/500/medium/yaaaa2.jpg

I would also like to bet anyone on this site who has actually been lifting for a decent amount of time has a better physique than him, without intentionally trying to have one (most on this site train to improve their tricking).

[tuareg]

This dude actually has a better body than most of the people on this site.

you've got to be shitting me son.

it looks shit.

shit shit shit shit.

[Anonymous]

He does have nice boobs.

[[RozoN]]

http://www.vegetarianteen.com/articles/robertcheekeprotein.shtml
This dude actually has a better body than most of the people on this site.

His face looks like he kissed a train on full speed...

As is vegeterianism.

We didn't climb all the way to the top of the food chain just to eat lettuce!

Stupid hippies
Exactly

that guy looked so freaky
Yes.

I'd fight Antoine. And win.

You're an idiot

AND, because I don't use 'roids, my penis is way bigger than his.
I repeat: you're an idiot

He does have nice boobs.
Yes. I reckon he'd be very popular in jail...

[TKD_Andy]

by "he has a better body than most people on this site"

he means:

"he's got a better body than me"

[Neil]

This guy might have some muscle but he is ugly as fuck!

[Tossman]

This guy might have some muscle but he is ugly as fuck!

Being vegan does horrible things to people.

[Skippy]

Even so, the guy could be the next ronnie coleman for all I care, he's still a vegan and that still makes him a failure.

[ButtHash Hero]

lulz, he looks creepy as shit when he is a little kid.

[cepopeye]

hahaha i think we could legitimately find 100+ regular posters on TT who's physique owns the fuck out of that weird vegan

xOxOx John Maguire went from being "in a relationship" to "single." oXoXo

[Chichi]

Flaming me here will do nothing. Go vote on the poll in the Publicus!

[Steve]

he looks like he does a lot of push ups and sit ups and drinks a lot of juice

[Jon P]

This guy is from Portland.

[AndyLeTerrible]

no it's true even with the weird pecs his body is still way better than 95% of the guys in the TT body thread. being a vegan is considerate not pathetic, so grow up. i bet practically everyone who makes fun of him for being a vegan would be 100% too pussyish to have the motivation to put on that much size without the luxury of meat

So in conclusion, I know for a fact most people who in this thread try to act macho about eating meat are actually skinny/fat/both. and the only reason you say otherwise is because you spend half your time oogling over pics of huge bodybuilders, therefore imprinting this image on yourself. forgetting the reality of the situation

[Karlnold]

I agree with Andy... Though I believe that you could achieve much better results even on a vegan diet... He's in better shape than 99% of the ppl on TT, even though he's a skinny ant.

And why would Antoine's penis be smaller, you fucktard? The only thing that would shrink would be his balls and I have no doubt that he keeps them the size of melons at all time...

[Karlnold]

and jesus christ... he's 16? I thought he was 40'ish... his face looks 47...

[[RozoN]]

Jesus christ, how can you have such an ugly face when you're 16??!?! I guess, that's what being vegetarian does to you.

Andy and Karlnold speak the truth...

[Konnar]

No matter the results I still think being vegan is mega retarded for practicality/morality.

[compleks]

SHUT UP!

[jan]

!!!!!



Oh dammit, he's banned already.

[tracekillz]

AND, because I don't use 'roids, my penis is way bigger than his.

actually i think ive heard that antoine doesnt use 'roids.

the vegan is good for what he is..but hes got bitch tits.

[[RozoN]]

actually i think ive heard that antoine doesnt use 'roids.

Do you really think anyone would achieve the same size as Antoine, without roids?

[Steve]

actually i think ive heard that antoine doesnt use 'roids.

the vegan is good for what he is..but hes got bitch tits.

oh, is that what you think

[tdmonster]

ANTOINE IS MY HERO! HE CAN'T USE ROIDS! :agony:
WAH WAH WAH!!

[/sarcasm]

[chicanerous]

http://www.vegetarianteen.com/articles/robertcheekeprotein.shtml
This dude actually has a better body than most of the people on this site.

He looks malnourished more than he looks muscular.

[Counterfeit Soda]

The fact that he looks like that and is a "competitive bodybuilder" goes to show how low the bar is set at many amateur bodybuilding contests are. There's no way he should even be allowed to step on stage. This is his personal bio thing:

http://www.veganbodybuilding.com/?page=bio_robert

He's also weak as hell.

[Counterfeit Soda]

Oh, and he's not 16. That's the age of the person asking the question. He's 28 now.

[Counterfeit Soda]

http://b6.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00289/69/47/289617496_l.jpg

A BODY YOU COULD ONLY DREAM OF

[Counterfeit Soda]

I also have to say, after viewing his myspace, he's way too proud of mediocrity.

[Dustin_K]

lmao pink speedo looks gay as fuck

[rwm]

What an ugly vegan pile of flaccid shitstained penises.

[tdmonster]

http://b6.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00289/69/47/289617496_l.jpg

A BODY YOU COULD ONLY DREAM OF

Hallelujah, its uh rainin' men.

[rwm]

What an ugly vegan pile of flaccid shitstained penises.

Excellent comment, Richard.
Pink underwear does not make your 2 inch penis look any bigger.

[rwm]

Also wtf is up with his sternum!?

EDIT: Maybe he got shot through the heart,
but your too late
yeah, you give love a bad name!
*SOLO*

[Niko]

Best Lifts:
Dead lift: 337 pounds for 3 reps

Big boy!

[[RozoN]]

http://b6.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00289/69/47/289617496_l.jpg

A BODY YOU COULD ONLY DREAM OF

OH MY FUCKING GOD! HE LOOKS HORRIBLE! LOOK AT THOSE STICK LEGS!! WTF?!?!?!

[ButtHash Hero]

He looks just like a Pedo, lmao.





Take a seat.

[tuareg]

he has better pictures on google than the one in the link, but still, i wouldn't not say he's better than +90% of TT :/

[Rudy]

and you think that bothers me?

also is it possible that he has a smaller dick than swartz?

[tuareg]

that's impossible for everyone.

[Maddaveman]

After reading through this thread I have to say that "vegan bodybuilder" is an oxymoron and that Antoine would, in fact, eat that guy for his first breakfast. And Chichi it appears you are on a crusade for vegetarianism/veganism. It also appears that your crusade is failing.

I'm a pescetarian, but I still think that anyone who eats meat owns anyone who doesn't.

[Rudy]

After reading through this thread I have to say that "vegan bodybuilder" is an oxymoron and that Antoine would, in fact, eat that guy for his first breakfast. And Chichi it appears you are on a crusade for vegetarianism/veganism. It also appears that your crusade is failing.

I'm a pescetarian, but I still think that anyone who eats meat owns anyone who doesn't.

a what?

[ryanp-f]

http://www.veganbodybuilding.com/profile_robert_2.jpg
wft he has no stomach

[Shoes Magoo]

a what?

Eats no meat with the exception of fish.

[thereid]

He looks like a weird old man with fairly muscular arms and a tan.

[Maddaveman]

Eats no meat with the exception of fish.


Exactly

[rwm]

Why would you not eat meat?

[ButtHash Hero]

Don't fish have feelings too? :eh:

[jan]

He looks like a weird old man with fairly muscular arms and a tan.

Dude, if that is Uli Jon Roth in your avatar, I just felt the sudden urge to hug you for an hour.

[thereid]

Dude, if that is Uli Jon Roth in your avatar, I just felt the sudden urge to hug you for an hour.Yeah it is, Dave C changed my avatar to that for lolzzz I guess, luckily for me I am a fan of Uli Jon Roth.

[Maddaveman]

Don't fish have feelings too? :eh:

Yep they do, but they taste better.

[AndyLeTerrible]

After reading through this thread I have to say that "vegan bodybuilder" is an oxymoron and that Antoine would, in fact, eat that guy for his first breakfast.thanks for that secret knowledge

[AndyLeTerrible]

Why would you not eat meat?it's got to do with called being considerate

[rwm]

it's got to do with called being considerate

Argh, not you too...

Meat is part of our natural diets.
But i'm not going to argue.

It makes me laugh those hardout vegans out there that feed their dogs/cats meat...

[Papa Lazarou]

Meat is part of our natural diets.

Natural =/= moral.

Veganism isn't particularly more considerate than vegetarianism though. I think animals farmed for eggs or milk could easily have better lives than in the wild. You can use the same argument to justify meat eating to some extent...

[AndyLeTerrible]

yes "natural". It's sure as hell "natural" to be sitting where you are playing on your computer, right? is that what the macho vikings did? play on their computers, drink energy drinks and post on TT? Natural isn't a reason, it's an excuse. overlooking the fact that your entire life in the modern world is unnatural by the same standards you would apply to eating meat. it corresponds to christians who pick and choose parts from the bible just because certain parts like not having sex before marriage don't appeal to their modern lifestyle.

[rwm]

Nobody knows for sure that any other animals have feelings.

EATZ MEETZ, TIZ GOODZ MEN!

[rwm]

yes "natural". It's sure as hell "natural" to be sitting where you are playing on your computer, right? is that what the macho vikings did? play on their computers, drink energy drinks and post on TT? Natural isn't a reason, it's an excuse. overlooking the fact that your entire life in the modern world is unnatural by the same standards you would apply to eating meat. it corresponds to christians who pick and choose parts from the bible just because certain parts like not having sex before marriage don't appeal to their modern lifestyle.

I see where your coming from and that is a fair enough opinion.
I just can't understand veganism.
How is consuming milk bad, the milk would go to waste if it was not used by the calf when the animal is lactating.
I cannot understand the mind of a vegan.

[AndyLeTerrible]

no actually it's well known that animals have feelings haha

[Steve]

For whoever asked whether fish have feelings or not, the answer is no not really, and they also have severely diminished senses of pain. Crustaceans and other various sea-based arthropods have no pain whatsoever, and most molluscs (with the exception of larger squid and octopi) also don't feel pain. This is the ethical explanation behind pescetarianism. Nutritionally, seafood usually has proportionately less saturated fat and proportionately more monounsaturated fats, including eicosapentaenoic acid, a highly bioavailable form of omega-3 fat.

[rwm]

no actually it's well known that animals have feelings haha

But is it?
*X-Files music*

How can you know for sure, if you have never been a fish/other animal.

[AndyLeTerrible]

and yes i find veganism unnecessary and see being a vegetarian fine. it just bugs me how people have the whole barbarian eating meat issue, telling themselves it's ok eating meat knowing a hell of a lot of their meat comes from abused animals. very rarely is their spoken reason "because i don't give a shit about suffering of others" it's always "because it's natural" when their real reason is because they LIKE THE TASTE OF MEAT and liking the taste of meat is enough for them to ignore the suffering of animals while they life in their comfortable cushy world

[rwm]

I catch my own fish/pigs/deer etc and eat it.
Get my own eggs and lamb.
They are all introduced pests here.

[tdmonster]

If it had feelings, it'd cry while I pull it from its home and eat it raw.:wicked:

[AndyLeTerrible]

is that so

[tdmonster]

Yus, yus it is.

[Papa Lazarou]

But is it?
*X-Files music*

How can you know for sure, if you have never been a fish/other animal.
How can you know that other people have feelings?
It's just an assumption. Assuming that animals have feelings is about as sensible as assuming that other people have feelings.

For whoever asked whether fish have feelings or not, the answer is no not really, and they also have severely diminished senses of pain. Crustaceans and other various sea-based arthropods have no pain whatsoever, and most molluscs (with the exception of larger squid and octopi) also don't feel pain.
Really?
Fish, being vertebrates, have a similar nervous system to ours, and presumably show the "fight or flight" response. And how is their diminished sense of pain measured? Lower neural response, or what?
And crustaceans and molluscs must have a sense equivalent to pain. Presumably something tells them avoid physical damage.

I think it's a fair assumption that at least all vertebrates have "feelings" pretty much similar to our own (including things resembling emotions).

In the end, we all kill to survive, or live on resources that would sustain other organisms. How much and what sort of killing you inflict on what sort of organism is the question. And - while I'm not saying the positions are equal - I really doubt many vegans, vegetarians, or meat eaters have a logically consistent justification for their view.

[rwm]

It would say, "please don't eat me, Tristan, i would prefer to live, i will give you this fine Swiss watch, if you spare my life."

[rwm]

How can you know that other people have feelings?
It's just an assumption. Assuming that animals have feelings is about as sensible as assuming that other people have feelings.




Exactly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

[Papa Lazarou]

My point is, solipsism could equally be used to justify horribly killing and eating humans. Even if uncertainty were a good justification for the position (which it isn't), you still have an inconsistency to sort out.

[thereid]

What else does a chicken have to do besides be eaten?

[Papa Lazarou]

I could say the same of you. (Or myself to be fair).

[AndyLeTerrible]

What else does a chicken have to do besides be eaten?humans don't do a whole lot better than a chicken in the grand scheme of the world

[tdmonster]

humans don't do a whole lot better than a chicken in the grand scheme of the world

Ummm.. Hello, we made fried chicken, isn't that good enough?

[AndyLeTerrible]

http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0744/yucky.gif

[BrandonLenz]

http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0744/yucky.gif

I WANT THAT NAO!

[Steve]

What else does a chicken have to do besides be eaten?

Which was my main point against vegetarianism - that animal products are just an example of humans utilizing otherwise unused resources.

The fact that humans have nothing better to do than chickens is irrelevant - the fact that we produce them to eat is actually a mutually beneficial relationship.

[rwm]

I'm with Lincoln Burrows on this one.

[tdmonster]

I'm with Lincoln Burrows on this one.

AHAHAHAHA
I had to look it up. But oh god, I lol'd.

[Papa Lazarou]

Which was my main point against vegetarianism - that animal products are just an example of humans utilizing otherwise unused resources.

The same could be used to justify cannibalism.

The fact that humans have nothing better to do than chickens is irrelevant - the fact that we produce them to eat is actually a mutually beneficial relationship.

I like this argument. It's pretty close to how I justify eating meat.

[Tossman]

We humans attribute much of our evolution to eating meat and fish. Without the nutrients in such foods, coupled with complexed tasks such as hunting, our brains would not have developed to the state that it's in now.

Yes its "unnaturally" for us to sit in front of our PCs, in our warm homes, typing debates on TT. But would anyone here honestly prefer to live in the wilderness and survive like primitives? If you prefer your current life style, don't be ungrateful to the food that made you what you are. It'll be like punching your own mother in the face for giving birth to you.

The fact that we culture our meat (and plants) isn't a bad thing either. It means we have our days free to do things other than hunting and gathering.

[Papa Lazarou]

That's a bizarre way of arguing that eating meat is ethical. I liked the bit about punching our mother's though.

[roninflyer]

Vegetarians-
eating soy -- Endorphine levels goes UP
Not eating animal fats -- testosterone levels decreasing

*(its a fact that without animal fats the testosterone levels are lowering (at least a small amount of animal fat is recommended every day for maintaining normal testosterone levels)

Result: gay behaviour

[AndyLeTerrible]

Everyones elaborate reasons for the justification of eating meat are selfish reasons, ignoring the probable suffering of animals due to pseudo philosophical bullshit



*Case solved*

[Tossman]

Of course it's selfish. The existence of any species is solely to further their own existence. People are selfish, animals are selfish, even trees are selfish. No-one's saying that the world's a better place with everything eating each other. But how are vegetarians making the world a better place by not eating meat?

[AndyLeTerrible]

because of the methods we use to cultivate food

[Tossman]

Care to elaborate?

[Papa Lazarou]

That animals suffer less under vegetarianism would be the argument. I guess.

[jan]

It's survival of the fittest, and that's how it's always been. Meat makes us grow, and meat is good. We're supposed to eat meat.

[Tossman]

Papa: A lot of the stuff you have heard about animal production is either grossly exaggerated, or absolutely nonsense altogether. The fact of the matter is, animal welfare is of major concern, especially here in Aust (I can't say the same for global production), and welfare is always being improved.

If it'll put your mind at ease, I can tell you some of the facts if you want to hear about them.

[Papa Lazarou]

It's survival of the fittest, and that's how it's always been. Meat makes us grow, and meat is good. We're supposed to eat meat.
That's not a complete moral argument.

Tossman,
Yeah I know. I'm a meat eater haha. I was just assuming that would be their argument - not agreeing with it.

[Anonymous]

*same discussion that has taken place countless times before and will go nowhere*

[Tossman]

Ahh I see. I always say that if someone is to be vegetarian, it should be for the right reasons. Not eating meat solely based on assuming all animals are abused and mistreated is not the right reason. Those people are idiots.

[AndyLeTerrible]

It's survival of the fittest, and that's how it's always been. Meat makes us grow, and meat is good. We're supposed to eat meat.

According to the argument, the fittest are those who survive, and the survivors are deemed "the fittest". in other words, if we say "survival of the fittest" and define that "the fittest" = "the survivors", then "survival of the fittest" really means "survival of the survivors"

to seriously believe that those that survive are always the fittest, or that the fittest always survive? It's trivially obvious that "the fittest" can and do die. "Survival of the fittest" is a merely simplified version of the observation that, in nature, the fittest tend to survive (more frequently) than the unfit. assume we have two rabbits identical in every way except that one rabbit can run faster than the other. Since the ability to run is important for the survival of rabbits, we would say that the faster rabbit is more fit and therefore, more likely to survive. However, if the faster rabbit happens to get an infection and dies, we do not simply say that the slower rabbit must have been more fit to survive because it survived when the faster rabbit didn’t. We maintain our original idea that the faster rabbit was more fit, but that "in general" the fittest organisms tend to survive more frequently than the unfit. The argument that "survival of the fittest is a truth" claims that evolutionists believe that "the fittest" and "survivors" are identical groups (evolutionists don't believe that), and that evolutionists have no way to judge fitness other than survival (which is false). From a definitional standpoint, "fitness" means possessing traits which aid in survival, which is correlated with (but not identical to) survival itself. So claiming eating meat and ignoring the suffering of those animals due to it being survival of the fittest and just "the way it is" is a falsified claim

[tuareg]

That animals suffer less under vegetarianism would be the argument. I guess.

maybe if the world had 98% worth amount of vegetarians, but that's not the deal.

noone will change the veal industry by crying themselves to sleep at night thinking what he eats gets killed.

if it makes them sleep better at night, let them do it. but it doesn't change anything.

[AndyLeTerrible]

maybe if the world had 98% worth amount of vegetarians, but that's not the deal.

noone will change the veal industry by crying themselves to sleep at night thinking what he eats gets killed.

if it makes them sleep better at night, let them do it. but it doesn't change anything.if the world had 98% doing it, 98% of the world would be doing it. if the world had 50% doing it, 50% would do it. if the world had 5% doing it, 5% would do it. if the world had 1 person doing it, 1 person would do it

I'm not a vegetarian or a vegan. I try to eat free range meat mostly but that's about as much as I do which isn't that good.. why do i? because I'm evil and selfish. but one thing i wont do is falsify my selfish desires as survival of the fittest and other crap

[Tossman]

So claiming eating meat and ignoring the suffering of those animals due to it being survival of the fittest and just "the way it is" is a falsified claim

You seem to be basing your whole argument on the supposed suffering of animals. "Suffering" would also be a falsified claim.

[rwm]

In New Zealand, all mammals (except bats) are introduced and therefore pests.
The fact is, these animals would be killed either way, what harm does it do to benefit off a resource rather than letting it go to waste?

The same goes to fur, possums are going to be killed because they are a pest, why would you waste a resource that is going to benefit everyone and the economy.

[tuareg]

if the world had 98% doing it, 98% of the world would be doing it. if the world had 50% doing it, 50% would do it. if the world had 5% doing it, 5% would do it. if the world had 1 person doing it, 1 person would do it

that's the point.

you see 98% of the world ISN'T vegetarian.

wich means the remaining 2% wont change a thing.

[AndyLeTerrible]

no that's not true at all. as i said; 2% changes 2%. 98% changes 98% and so on

[AndyLeTerrible]

The fact is, these animals would be killed either way, what harm does it do to benefit off a resource rather than letting it go to waste?.the suffering of the animals, obviously

[rwm]

But they are going to be killed anyway...eating it will not make them suffer anymore because they are already dead..

[tuareg]

@ andy
regardless, the world isn't going to change, and you can see that.

there are things we know are wrong but we still keep doing them, and we tend to forget about how wrong it was in the first place.

just like eating meat. we know animals get slaughtered so we can eat them (one way or the other, they do get slaughtered), but we take it as a normal thing and don't care. we see it as something normal because if we didn't noone would eat meat.

it's something we humans do well. we close our eyes to things we shouldn't and we live happily after it because we can forget about it. wich doesn't mean it's right, nor that it's wrong.

[rwm]

It just depends on what your opinion of what is right or wrong is.

[AndyLeTerrible]

@ andy
regardless, the world isn't going to change, and you can see that.

there are things we know are wrong but we still keep doing them, and we tend to forget about how wrong it was in the first place.

just like eating meat. we know animals get slaughtered so we can eat them (one way or the other, they do get slaughtered), but we take it as a normal thing and don't care. we see it as something normal because if we didn't noone would eat meat.

it's something we humans do well. we close our eyes to things we shouldn't and we live happily after it because we can forget about it. wich doesn't mean it's right, nor that it's wrong.
right and wrong is something people can use in an instant to disregard almost anything. even if it goes against their argument. although on first reading what you wrote looks correct (most of it is) but when you say it's neither right nor wrong Is that not basically saying people know many animals would suffer, but it's a-OK because most of the worlds population are fine with sitting back ignoring the suffering because they want meat?

my gripe in this thread isn't with people being selfish and doing that, it's with people trying to justify their selfishness on things which are untrue

[AndyLeTerrible]

It just depends on what your opinion of what is right or wrong is.
yea, but i'm aware that most people who claim it's right/ok do, do not think so due to reasons other than them wanting to for selfish desires, but actually claiming it's due to reasons such as "survival of the fittest" or that the "animals would die anyway" *waits for the "everything humans do is selfish argument"*

[tuareg]

haha i wasn't questioning what is right and what is wrong.

i'm saying that we do things we know we will regret (not just to us, but to others aswell) but live on with our lives forgetting about it.

my "neither is right nor is wrong" statement was referring to this. also, it had little to do with animals and eating meat. i was merely trying to point out the error of us humans =]

[rwm]

I made a vegan cry by throwing a chicken nibble at him.
I am going to hell, wait i'm not religious haha.

[Counterfeit Soda]

I eat meat, because I don't care if other animals have to die for me to live an enjoyable and fulfilling life.

All you people debating are wasting your time, that's the reason I eat meat, and why most other people eat meat. Trying to attach philosophy, or science, or anything else to it is useless.


My mother, on the other hand, is a vegetarian. Not because of animal suffering, or moral objections. She just doesn't like the taste of meat. She ate it growing up because she had to eat what was cooked for her, she ate it while I was growing up because I eat it and she made it for me, once I moved out, she just stopped eating it completely. Not every vegetarian is in it for moral reasons. I know a few who simply don't like the taste, texture, etc. of meat.

[Honken]

Animals eat animals. Fucking polar bears should learn to eat vegetables, it's just not right! Selfish bastards...

[AndyLeTerrible]

I eat meat, because I don't care if other animals have to die for me to live an enjoyable and fulfilling life.

All you people debating are wasting your time, that's the reason I eat meat, and why most other people eat meat. Trying to attach philosophy, or science, or anything else to it is useless.
yes that was my point exactly

[AndyLeTerrible]

Animals eat animals. Fucking polar bears should learn to eat vegetables, it's just not right! Selfish bastards...that point would be valid if polar bears kept chickens and pigs and stuff in cruel living conditions, as the polar bears do not do this the point is voiddd

[Tossman]

Andy, you're purposely ignoring my posts, aye?

[Steve]

The same could be used to justify cannibalism.


'Cept humans are far more valuable as workers rather than sustenance for 5 hours (value that increases over time due superior genetics), whereas animals just hop around and use up our resources

[Steve]

Everyones elaborate reasons for the justification of eating meat are selfish reasons, ignoring the probable suffering of animals due to pseudo philosophical bullshit



*Case solved*

Dude no one gives a fuck about the "suffering" of animals Andy, you know why? Because domestication is the greatest thing that ever happened to the security of all these animal species, and even if they are torn apart over the course of 5 weeks I still fail to give a shit because their lives mean nothing in the long run anyway.

How about this: vegetarians have a selfish reason for being vegetarian in the form of moral one-upsmanship. What does the world seek to gain from their practices? Love and compassion? Animals don't care, ha ha ha! The only reason vegetarians are vegetarians ethically is some absurd sentiment that any of this actually matters.

"I'm better because I have compassion for animals"

Lololo who care! If not for the creation of bison farms they'd probably all be dead by now

[AndyLeTerrible]

Andy, you're purposely ignoring my posts, aye?I read them but because everyone lies- regarding whether or not most animals are used in an inhumane way being true/false/over-exaggerated etc, it's something I or anybody will never know for sure, despite what information is brought forward to claims their poor living conditions are exaggerated. but considering the human nature, and how people act to it in the first place I go ahead and think it's most likely people do not give a shit

[AndyLeTerrible]

Dude no one gives a fuck about the "suffering" of animals Andy, you know why? Because domestication is the greatest thing that ever happened to the security of all these animal species, and even if they are torn apart over the course of 5 weeks I still fail to give a shit because their lives mean nothing in the long run anyway.

How about this: vegetarians have a selfish reason for being vegetarian in the form of moral one-upsmanship. What does the world seek to gain from their practices? Love and compassion? Animals don't care, ha ha ha! The only reason vegetarians are vegetarians ethically is some absurd sentiment that any of this actually matters.

"I'm better because I have compassion for animals"

Lololo who care! If not for the creation of bison farms they'd probably all be dead by now
Well because their moral one-upsmanship doesn't hurt anyone for one haha (unless they're crazy vegetarians who act out violently to non vegetarians)

[Tossman]

I read them but because everyone lies- regarding whether or not most animals are used in an inhumane way being true/false/over-exaggerated etc, it's something I or anybody will never know for sure, despite what information is brought forward to claims their poor living conditions are exaggerated. but considering the human nature, and how people act to it in the first place I go ahead and think it's most likely people do not give a shit

That's a fairly cynical way to look at it. I consider myself fairly well educated in the matter. I would be lying if I said that all farmers were law abiding and that ALL animals lived like kings. But the fact of the matter is, animal production is tightly regulated and there are rules and laws to ensure that they live good lives.

But based on your last post, I guess you probably wouldn't believe me.

[AndyLeTerrible]

yes i know, you're right that's how I am

for someone who'd watch all of this-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqH47MIpuoA

would probably get a hint of why I think the way i do

[AndyLeTerrible]

Although I do see what you mean, that all the regulations must somehow dramatically reduce their shitty living conditions. but there is free range meat, animals which are free to graze in a large/adequate open area. then there's normal meat, which is less than that by whatever degree ranging from the best which would be almost free range to the battery farms (which certainly do largely exist). and less than the free range is not good imo

[Skilzat85X]

Of course it's selfish. The existence of any species is solely to further their own existence. People are selfish, animals are selfish, even trees are selfish. No-one's saying that the world's a better place with everything eating each other.
You're assigning human attributes to objects that inherently don't have them.

These things are only "selfish" from our perception. For a tree, it's not "selfish" or it's not anything because that's just the way it is. Wanting to live isn't "selfish".

The fact that everything has to take something to survive is fine, because in the grand scheme of things everything that takes can also be taken by something else. So yay, one screwed up justification for...god why am I even debating in such a retarded topic as this ahaha. So much bs in here.

[Steve]

but bs would not be possible if the bull had not killed a living organism in the first place

[Skilzat85X]

But if I say it's stupid without thinking, people might say I'm old fashion...what a miserable time to be alive!

[AndyLeTerrible]

hahah

[Tossman]

The fact that everything has to take something to survive is fine, because in the grand scheme of things everything that takes can also be taken by something else.

Yeh, that's what I was trying to say.

Although I do see what you mean, that all the regulations must somehow dramatically reduce their shitty living conditions. but there is free range meat, animals which are free to graze in a large/adequate open area. then there's normal meat, which is less than that by whatever degree ranging from the best which would be almost free range to the battery farms (which certainly do largely exist). and less than the free range is not good imo

There's no such thing as "battery farms" for meat animals. Your thinking of egg laying hens. All meat animals (in the western world) are either free range, or in indoor group pens, or open sheds, on the floor, not cages.

[[RozoN]]

I might've misunderstood the point you're trying to bring across, andy, but what you're saying is that it's crule of us to grow animals just so we can eat them, right? But a moose that recieves a bullet through his skull is alright? Is that what you're saying?

[AndyLeTerrible]

Yeh, that's what I was trying to say.



There's no such thing as "battery farms" for meat animals. Your thinking of egg laying hens. All meat animals (in the western world) are either free range, or in indoor group pens, or open sheds, on the floor, not cages.well for one, KFC use battery farms for their chicken meat

[Tossman]

First of all, KFC doesn't own any farms. They buy from 3rd party producers. Secondly, those chickens are in a barn system. Not "battery farms". The term "battery farm" is used to refer to caged system.

[roninflyer]

Endorphins?...aren't you rather thinking about phyto-estrogens contained in soy?

Oh shit sorry.Yes.Thanks.

Then again a lot of people following an omnivorous diet also eat soy and soy products, like protein shakes for example, so you probably get a fair amount too.

I read that Soy protein shakes are not recommended for bodybuilders because
if you train for example,for chest,than Its transforms to look like a Girl's brest.NOT completely,just it will be ugly. *sorry for bad language*
and I remember when Juji started a thread about whey,and he said that AVOID SOY PROTEIN...so if not for that,then why?

[AndyLeTerrible]

First of all, KFC doesn't own any farms. They buy from 3rd party producers. Secondly, those chickens are in a barn system. Not "battery farms". The term "battery farm" is used to refer to caged system.
yes I knew that already, that's why i said "use". and they are caged. it was on national news with a KFC representative there

[Steve]

According to the argument, the fittest are those who survive, and the survivors are deemed "the fittest". in other words, if we say "survival of the fittest" and define that "the fittest" = "the survivors", then "survival of the fittest" really means "survival of the survivors"

to seriously believe that those that survive are always the fittest, or that the fittest always survive? It's trivially obvious that "the fittest" can and do die. "Survival of the fittest" is a merely simplified version of the observation that, in nature, the fittest tend to survive (more frequently) than the unfit. assume we have two rabbits identical in every way except that one rabbit can run faster than the other. Since the ability to run is important for the survival of rabbits, we would say that the faster rabbit is more fit and therefore, more likely to survive. However, if the faster rabbit happens to get an infection and dies, we do not simply say that the slower rabbit must have been more fit to survive because it survived when the faster rabbit didn’t. We maintain our original idea that the faster rabbit was more fit, but that "in general" the fittest organisms tend to survive more frequently than the unfit. The argument that "survival of the fittest is a truth" claims that evolutionists believe that "the fittest" and "survivors" are identical groups (evolutionists don't believe that), and that evolutionists have no way to judge fitness other than survival (which is false). From a definitional standpoint, "fitness" means possessing traits which aid in survival, which is correlated with (but not identical to) survival itself. So claiming eating meat and ignoring the suffering of those animals due to it being survival of the fittest and just "the way it is" is a falsified claim

No, no Andy you fucking idiot, this entire post is wrong, ha ha. The slower rabbit was more fit because it had a superior immune system. The reason that eating meat is a trait that contributes to the survival of the human race is because it has granted us versatility. As evolution actually occurs (not as how you attempted to describe it) meat eating will continue to be an inherent trait of humans until it becomes infeasible to life (or the entire population's genes drift from this norm) for it to happen, which will be never, since populations of livestock animals have more than likely increased since we started eating them.

[cepopeye]

yes i know, you're right that's how I am

for someone who'd watch all of this-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqH47MIpuoA

would probably get a hint of why I think the way i do

Thats actually infuriating and insulting. That you would even seriously equate the worst holocaust in history (the fucking Nazi's were pleading for it to stop because it was gruesome. the fucking NAZI'S were the HUMANITARIANS.), that you would begin to think it was ok to compare that to the slaughter of livestock, is unforgivably awful.

Its callous, felatious, and just plain wrong. I am honestly offended for the first time in years over an internet statement. jesus Christ, what on earth is wrong with you?

Even if the animals and people were literally equals, it would be wrong. LIvestock aren't butchered with a gleefull, purposeful intent. They are butchered for FOOD. Livestock certainly aren't raped. Livestock definately don't suffer emotional damage from sexual violation, which shows the obvious dividing line between human and animal mental capacity in the context of suffering (as though it actually needed to be drawn...)

I can't believe this shit Andy, this is not only the first time i've seen you being a major asshole on this forum, this is the worst thing i've ever seen posted on the internet.

Get a fucking life, and stop disgracing the the deaths of 30,000,000 people for your own lovey-dovey, self indulgent, hippy bullshit narcissism you absolute prick.

[Tossman]

I'm fairly sure that in the USA (I'm assuming your American), caged broiler meat production does not happen either. Mainly for the reason that it'll be EXTREMELY difficult to develop a caged system to house massive broiler birds.

I won't call you a liar. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that what you guys do in your country is different. But I also can't say I believe you. I think you may be mistaken.

[Tossman]

Woops double posted...my bad

[Steve]

Get a fucking life, and stop disgracing the the deaths of 30,000,000 people for your own lovey-dovey, self indulgent, hippy bullshit narcissism you absolute prick.

lulz

[Lobo]

well for one, KFC use battery farms for their chicken meat
But so did the suppliers of the meat for those microwave chicken snack things you used to eat.

[cepopeye]

AndyleTerrible thinks chinese people are delicious

[Skilzat85X]

TOTAL DRAMA ISLAND

[AndyLeTerrible]

No, no Andy you fucking idiot, this entire post is wrong, ha ha. The slower rabbit was more fit because it had a superior immune system. The reason that eating meat is a trait that contributes to the survival of the human race is because it has granted us versatility. As evolution actually occurs (not as how you attempted to describe it) meat eating will continue to be an inherent trait of humans until it becomes infeasible to life (or the entire population's genes drift from this norm) for it to happen, which will be never, since populations of livestock animals have more than likely increased since we started eating them.but no, one rabbit didn't get the illness due to a weaker immune system, it got the illness just to being at a different location to the other rabbit

[Skilzat85X]

Somehow this notion that Andy is a quite and good natured guy has taken hold at this forum, and now he can't do anything without people labeling him as a cold-hearted freakshow even though that's not necessarily the truth.

[AndyLeTerrible]

Thats actually infuriating and insulting. That you would even seriously equate the worst holocaust in history (the fucking Nazi's were pleading for it to stop because it was gruesome. the fucking NAZI'S were the HUMANITARIANS.), that you would begin to think it was ok to compare that to the slaughter of livestock, is unforgivably awful.

Its callous, felatious, and just plain wrong. I am honestly offended for the first time in years over an internet statement. jesus Christ, what on earth is wrong with you?

Even if the animals and people were literally equals, it would be wrong. LIvestock aren't butchered with a gleefull, purposeful intent. They are butchered for FOOD. Livestock certainly aren't raped. Livestock definately don't suffer emotional damage from sexual violation, which shows the obvious dividing line between human and animal mental capacity in the context of suffering (as though it actually needed to be drawn...)

I can't believe this shit Andy, this is not only the first time i've seen you being a major asshole on this forum, this is the worst thing i've ever seen posted on the internet.

Get a fucking life, and stop disgracing the the deaths of 30,000,000 people for your own lovey-dovey, self indulgent, hippy bullshit narcissism you absolute prick.

when you throw that much insult into a post it reeks of weirdness and ulterior motives. unless you genuinely assumed I was comparing the cultivating of animals as food to the incident in the video i posted.
are you simply not aware he said i have a cynical view for thinking low of humans and i said that yes, I am cynical, and posted that video as one reason why. not because I was saying those instances are similar, the same, or anything. there's a difference between the evil actions of the japanese soldiers and people cultivating food from animals? wow... thanks for that secret knowledge jon. i sure as hell was not aware of that.

Or maybe you are right cepopeye, maybe I was saying that the butchering of animals is no worse than that Nanjing incident, surley i was, i mean it's obvious that was what I was saying, right?

[jan]

According to the argument, the fittest are those who survive, and the survivors are deemed "the fittest". in other words, if we say "survival of the fittest" and define that "the fittest" = "the survivors", then "survival of the fittest" really means "survival of the survivors"

to seriously believe that those that survive are always the fittest, or that the fittest always survive? It's trivially obvious that "the fittest" can and do die. "Survival of the fittest" is a merely simplified version of the observation that, in nature, the fittest tend to survive (more frequently) than the unfit. assume we have two rabbits identical in every way except that one rabbit can run faster than the other. Since the ability to run is important for the survival of rabbits, we would say that the faster rabbit is more fit and therefore, more likely to survive. However, if the faster rabbit happens to get an infection and dies, we do not simply say that the slower rabbit must have been more fit to survive because it survived when the faster rabbit didn’t. We maintain our original idea that the faster rabbit was more fit, but that "in general" the fittest organisms tend to survive more frequently than the unfit. The argument that "survival of the fittest is a truth" claims that evolutionists believe that "the fittest" and "survivors" are identical groups (evolutionists don't believe that), and that evolutionists have no way to judge fitness other than survival (which is false). From a definitional standpoint, "fitness" means possessing traits which aid in survival, which is correlated with (but not identical to) survival itself. So claiming eating meat and ignoring the suffering of those animals due to it being survival of the fittest and just "the way it is" is a falsified claim

Yet the difference between a cow with four cloves and two pairs of tits and a human being with a jack-of-all-trades body, a brilliant intellect and hands is vastly different from two fast rabbits, one getting an infection.

As for that example: The rabbit who got the infection had the inferior immune system, and was therefore killed off for the less fast rabbit, but with the superior immune system (as both rabbits must've gotten exposed to the infection in question for it to be a valid argument).

No matter how you look at it, the survivor is always the fittest. The environment might be challenging in different ways, but the most adaptable being (therefore the fittest) would in any dangerous circumstances be the most likely survivor. If you get killed off by not paying attention, you've got an inferior attention span. If you're killed because you couldn't handle the flu virus, you die because of an inferior immune system.


Saying that "the faster rabbit would die IF he got a virus and the other didn't" is like saying Galactus might die in the X-men universe (and the Fantastic Four survive) if Death just randomly took him out, and not the Fantastic Four. Sure, it might happen, but in 99/100 times, the faster rabbit would survive, simply because the faster would outrun any disaster or natural predator better than the slower one, and therefore die less.


As for eating meat: We are omnivores. We even have the teeth to prove it. Meat has tons of nutrients that are hard to get elsewhere. If meat didn't do us any good, why have our bodies adapted to more optimally eat it?

About the suffering of those animals being slaughtered so they can be our food: Yes, harvesting is a bad thing. It's inhumane. However, people are too greedy to make huge fields for their cattle to roam freely around on. Thus the weaker ones still lose, and the stronger ones win (and save money).

If I could choose, I'd choose for the animals to live well as long as possible (until they became my steak), but I'm not the one to decide that. I'm not socially or economically fit enough to win that claim in real life.


EDIT: About comparing the Holocaust to the slaughter of livestock.

Bad comparison.

If livestock slaughtered each other, it would be a better example, somewhat.
The holocaust consisted of humans slaughtering humans by millions. It's like a bizarre form of mass-cannibalism in which the actual slaughter is the main point. Humans slaughtering cows is different, because we're two different races. We feed on cows. We need them to feed our bodies. The Jews were killed off and burnt for no reason other than a personal vendetta. Nothing from the Jews was used for anything good except their hair. It's useless slaughter for no reason. Cattle is killed off and used 100% as meat, flour or whatever, so we (and cats and dogs, for that matter) can survive.

Human beings are our siblings. We naturally get more upset when one of our own species gets killed off, because our bodies are designed to react that way. If we'd get equally sad when we kill a rabbit or even tear a piece of cabbage from the ground, we would starve due to "bad conscience" (which would be an evolutionary negative in that area). The same goes for every being on earth. A cat naturally gets more upset if another cat dies, than if a human dies. Same goes for cattle.

[Steve]

but no, one rabbit didn't get the illness due to a weaker immune system, it got the illness just to being at a different location to the other rabbit

Then the rabbit that survived is more fit in that it has a superior location

[AndyLeTerrible]

haha touche

[Counterfeit Soda]

I read that Soy protein shakes are not recommended for bodybuilders because
if you train for example,for chest,than Its transforms to look like a Girl's brest.NOT completely,just it will be ugly. *sorry for bad language*
and I remember when Juji started a thread about whey,and he said that AVOID SOY PROTEIN...so if not for that,then why?

I'm completely against having much of any soy in my diet, but that's just fucking retarded.

[AndyLeTerrible]

(as both rabbits must've gotten exposed to the infection in question for it to be a valid argument). well if that's true then ok, I pictured them in different locations, if that makes it unvalid then ok, I didn't put much thought into that part of it

[tdmonster]

I did not get beat by a vegan =[

[thereid]

Don't forget that veganism will make you into a crappy bodybuilder.

[Lobo]

I got beat off by a vegan.

[Steve]

well if that's true then ok, I pictured them in different locations, if that makes it unvalid then ok, I didn't put much thought into that part of it

Jan's point is correct in terms of testing fitness, but in the real world "less fit" individuals survive in the way that you tried to say, except for the fact that they are actually more fit, but not because of their genes. The point being that there are more factors for selection than genes and phenotype.

For example Andy you will probably kill yourself eventually and fail to breed, while my psyche is invincible, and I will live forever, but this has nothing to do with genetics.

[jan]

I le edited.

Oh, btw: Eating meat doesn't make you evil. In that case, every single lion, crocodile, vulture and cat on the planet would be evil. We eat what we can get. We are not the ones torturing animals. We just use what is accessible to survive. There's nothing evil in that.


And Steve :good:

[AndyLeTerrible]

EDIT: About comparing the Holocaust to the slaughter of livestock.

Bad comparison.

If livestock slaughtered each other, it would be a better example, somewhat.
The holocaust consisted of humans slaughtering humans by millions. It's like a bizarre form of mass-cannibalism in which the actual slaughter is the main point. Humans slaughtering cows is different, because we're two different races. We feed on cows. We need them to feed our bodies. The Jews were killed off and burnt for no reason other than a personal vendetta. Nothing from the Jews was used for anything good except their hair. It's useless slaughter for no reason. Cattle is killed off and used 100% as meat, flour or whatever, so we (and cats and dogs, for that matter) can survive.

Human beings are our siblings. We naturally get more upset when one of our own species gets killed off, because our bodies are designed to react that way. If we'd get equally sad when we kill a rabbit or even tear a piece of cabbage from the ground, we would starve due to "bad conscience" (which would be an evolutionary negative in that area). The same goes for every being on earth. A cat naturally gets more upset if another cat dies, than if a human dies. Same goes for cattle.

it seriously looked like I was comparing those incidents to cultivating animals for human food to you as well as cepopeye? if you just felt like explaining things then i'd do the same if that subject was brought up, but really wtf, where is my comparing of this?

[Steve]

Are you instead implying that you brought up an ill-reasoned piece of evidence that suggests that your appraisal of humans eating meat is probably irrational?

[AndyLeTerrible]

I don't know what you mean

[Steve]

Well clearly you should be exposed for not understanding my vaguely phrased "argument"!

[jan]

Hahaha. Steve, your posts are great.

[AndyLeTerrible]

wuut

[roninflyer]

I'm completely against having much of any soy in my diet, but that's just fucking retarded.

maybe.. but Iam just saying what I read on a web site like T-nation.

[Final Prophecy]

Anyone notice that Vegans fucked up skin tone? Looks like he had too much beta carotene.

Even if he was bigger than Antoine....DO NOT WANT.

We were designed to eat meat too.

[-Envy-]

This topic makes me want to play Cubivore. Eat animals and grow.

[rwm]

This whole concept of 'suffering' is mostly bullshit.
Most meat animals live a life where there is constant resources and an almost guaranteed path to adulthood.
You can't just pick out a small minority and label the whole species on that minority.
Not every person is a starving African or a Hollywood celebrity.


And for the record, KFC does not have battery farms, they buy chicken independently off local free range farms.

[chicanerous]

Anyone notice that Vegans fucked up skin tone? Looks like he had too much beta carotene.
Actually it's probably his application of artificial tanner.

[majorapa]

I don't care about animals but fact is the world would probably be a better place and less people would starve if more people would turn vegetarian.

[Swartz]

I love meat.

Just like most people I try to look after my own interests more than others. Call it selfish if you want but you lose in life if you stop giving a shit about yourself haha.

[Skilzat85X]

I don't care about animals but fact is the world would probably be a better place and less people would starve if more people would turn vegetarian.
Well if someone wants to become a vegetarian that's nice, however this makes no sense.

You're saying less people would starve if they turn vegetarian, however by turning vegetarian they're subsequently reducing their option of foods. What the nigg? ahah. I think you're forgetting that people who eat meat still eat all the other foods that vegetarians do, and then some.

[rwm]

Haha i think it is entirely the opposite.
More people would starve being vegetarian.
You see people who eat meat are omnivores, they can eat everything a vegetarian can eat plus more, i fail to see your point?

[bryan]

Well if someone wants to become a vegetarian that's nice, however this makes no sense.

You're saying less people would starve if they turn vegetarian, however by turning vegetarian they're subsequently reducing their option of foods. What the nigg? ahah. I think you're forgetting that people who eat meat still eat all the other foods that vegetarians do, and then some.

Haha i think it is entirely the opposite.
More people would starve being vegetarian.
You see people who eat meat are omnivores, they can eat everything a vegetarian can eat plus more, i fail to see your point?

deja vu

[rwm]

Great minds think alike. :good:

[bryan]

Great minds think alike. :good:

Yes but not 5 minutes after the first one

[Papa Lazarou]

Natural selection (or survival of the fittest) needn't apply to every single death of an organism. It's far more useful when applied to trends. More importantly, natural selection has effectively no bearing on ethics.

There's been no good argument for eating meat so far. Except maybe that animals live better lives when domesticated for eating.

[rwm]

Yes but not 5 minutes after the first one

Well well well...your banned.

[Anonymous]

Well well well... your your your.

[Anonymous]

I can't believe you guys are even having this discussion haha.

[Counterfeit Soda]

maybe.. but Iam just saying what I read on a web site like T-nation.

No you're not, you're reading stuff from sites like T-Nation, apparently forgetting quite a bit of it except for "soy is bad," and filling in the blanks with your own bizarre explanation.

It's like playing the game telephone, except you're the only player.

[Lobo]

Soy is bad because it's just a crappy processed food, amongst the hundreds of others. Phyto-oestrogens are irrelevant. Just use arimidex if you're concerned about that rubbish.

[searchsoul]

soy products lead to low sperm count. seriously

[-Envy-]

All predatory animals use the tools that they have to capture their prey and eat it. There is nothing ethically wrong with an animal using the tools at its disposal to provide food for itself. The greatest tool that humans have is their intellect. They use this intellect to raise and kill their prey. Since humans are animals, and there is nothing ethically wrong with an animal using it's tools to provide food for itself, then there is nothing wrong with humans raising animals and slaughtering them for food.

Saying that there is something ethically wrong with using ones intellect to find a more efficient way of obtaining food is comparable to saying that it is wrong for a group of lions to team up to attack a calf or for an ape to use a stick to spoon ants out of a tree.

[Counterfeit Soda]

Soy is bad because it's just a crappy processed food, amongst the hundreds of others. Phyto-oestrogens are irrelevant. Just use arimidex if you're concerned about that rubbish.

I would love to see someone actually taking an AI to combat soy.

[Papa Lazarou]

Saying that there is something ethically wrong with using ones intellect to find a more efficient way of obtaining food is comparable to saying that it is wrong for a group of lions to team up to attack a calf or for an ape to use a stick to spoon ants out of a tree.
No it's not.

Other animals also commit murder, rape, and cannibalism of children. Pretty sure we shouldn't look to them for ethics.

[jan]

Ethics are culturally decided anyways. Vikings used to sword-fight to the death if one called the other's mother a biatch. That's not morally accepted nowadays.

Using one's intellect to find more efficient ways to get food isn't a bad thing. It's just efficient.

They should still treat the animals better, but we still need the food.

[Starter Kit]

Nobody gives a fuck what 'your' arguement is because 'I'm right' and everybody else is 'wrong'.

That being said, I eat meat because I want my diet to be varied because that's part of the reason I can make moot points and discuss my 'ideas'.

That wasn't pointed at anyone in particular.

[Papa Lazarou]

Ethics are culturally decided anyways. Vikings used to sword-fight to the death if one called the other's mother a biatch. That's not morally accepted nowadays.

Using one's intellect to find more efficient ways to get food isn't a bad thing. It's just efficient.

They should still treat the animals better, but we still need the food.

Ethics being culturally decided is a reeeeaaally sticky area. Even I don't want to go there. And I'm pretty depraved.

I agree with the middle bit, somewhat. But it's a misrepresentation of the issue I think.

I pretty much think Steve was right when he said that eating meat is mutually beneficial. The full justification needs more, which I think I've got, but I couldn't be bothered trying to type it out coherently. Especially since everyone hates (what they call) philosophy.

Let's just agree that being nice to animals is a good idea, even if you do end up eating them. Also, veganism is strange and probably retarded.

[Tossman]

Let's just agree that being nice to animals is a good idea, even if you do end up eating them. Also, veganism is strange and probably retarded.

I quite like this.

[Papa Lazarou]

:tongue:

[jan]

Works for me, haha.

[Honken]

it can become detrimental to it and I'm not talking about the "growing boobs" myth.
I just don't respond well to it actually, makes me feel heavy, stiff and inflammed.

First you say that it's a myth then you list side effects related to oestrogen.

Good work! :good:

[tdmonster]

Oh burn.

[tdmonster]

Not really, more like misquotation due to a misunderstanding of the meaning of my words.
It is bound to happen in a topic like this one.

Ohh burn, to me.

[rwm]

FACT: If you don't eat meat you will die from death lolol.