Archive.

No.

damn vegetarians, they're eating the food of our food!!!

"Repeat after me... we are all individuals!"

And join me



then the sheep pic. i like it honey.

Moving to Wales?

if you do.

Wanna to live together in Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch mate?

as long as its not near jamerio, 45 to life for that rambling idiot :(

Don't worry, I don't think a state funded scrub like yourself could afford to live anywhere near civilised people like myself.

scrub...LOL this isn't one of your tlc videos now jamerio, at least insult him with vaguely localised slang. Aight dawg?

Scrub actually means.... (IN PLAIN ENGLISH)
"An undersized or insignificant person". http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scrub

Ironically it had nothing to do with rappers and it was simply you projecting your ignorance and thinking it was gospel.
Probably why you're always on probation. Have fun and beter luck next time.

The fact you're posting dictionary.com links says all you need to about it. I've read several thousand more books than you ever will whitesockshater and you can be sure the word scrub isn't even vaguely in wide usage outside of tlc. Oh wait but I forgot your goal was to use obscure words since that helps to communicate your idea better...LOL you clutch at more straws than the average mcdonalds employee son.

u love to be hated, i can tell.

it's the only love he knows

"(please give the link a good read.)"
The clock is 24:22 here in Norway. I have Spanish exam tomorrow.
Today i got to bed 06:00 woke up again 13:00 cause the chick i was sleeping with threw me out (she had a boyfriend or smthn, trippin as hell).
Walking around with hang-over, shaking and shit!
And you tell me.. that i should sit and read an article about vegetarians?

Come on dude.. You could atleast add some cheap hoes in that article. :))

Description:


I wub them girls.

Yeah. At that time i would rather jack till i sleep than read about vegetarians :P

THERE ARE ONLY 24 HOURS IN ONE DAY YOU CANNOT HAVE THE TIME OF 24:22 OKAY

on the other hand, your story pains me :(

:)) You see how fucked up i were.. :P
SPanishexam went well .. ^^

good :D

:)

My mathexam went to hell :( Tried to study on sunday, but I guess my hangover was as bad as yours. Helluva night <3

:( Well you could read it tomorrow?

well it isnt tempting, but ill try :D

polymorph!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you really believe someone who uses "facts" from the bible as a foundation for being a meat-eater? I eat meat myself, but that site is about 90% wrong facts wise. So it's a bit hard to take seriously :)

He isn't using the bible as a specific factual refference, more as an inferrence to the attitudes at the time it was written: when they wrote the bible, they preffered meat, so the argument that in past times we were vegetarian is fallicious.

Except people that claim we (humanity) used to be vegetarian go further back than that.

Yeah, i didn't really understand the purpose of the bible refferences. But the biological facts point solely to us being if not wholly carnivorous, then atleast omnivorous.

I'd also like to know why you think 90% of the facts are wrong. The most imporant points: percentage of arable land, the need for intensive farming, the ridiculous nature of animal morality. These all make perfect sense, vegetarianism, as well as "organic" food, is not sustainable for the majority. Applying this to Kants maxim shows why vegetarianism could do more harm than good.

Actually it would be cheaper to feed the world through vegetarianism than it is using meat today. If everybody would become vegetarians in the world we could feed the entire third world.
The morality of vegetarianism is in no way ridiculous IMO. The main point is: "why do mankind torture and treat these animals in such amazingly horrific ways when we really dont have to?".
Well, the 90% facts being wrong was a very rough estimation. For example he writes alot about vegans not having a way to eat vitamin b12, this is false, I know several vegans myself, and they say they get it on a regular basis.
He warns us that vegetarians can get various diseases because of it. Then one might wonder why just about every person that has problems with his/her heart/stomach etc diseases gets an order from the doctor to eat less meat and more vegetables/beans, etc? The human body does not function to digest and treat meat properly. For example we have an appendix. This is something other animals have too. However NONE of the carnivore animals to my knowledge have one.
My guess is that mankind USED to be complete vegetarians a very long time ago, but for some reason we started to eat corpses, so our body adjusted a little bit to that (sharper teeth for example), but it hasnt completely obviously :). But this is just a theory of mine.

Like I wrote above, I'm not really a vegetarian myself, so I dont read too much material about this. I just react to something like this, because this guy is writing alot of stuff which just isnt true, and to add to that he's guessing alot, (but claims its "true".). And its easy for the ignorant internet user (im not saying you are, :p but alot of people probably are on this subject) to read this and believe it for true, when the major part of it is simply made up or untrue.

I don't understand how we'd have enough land to feed the entire world vegetarian style, it doesn't seem feasable.

As for humans being totally vegetarian at some point in history, it'd be nice of you to provide some facts. We have an appendix yes, but isn't that the thing that quite a few people have removed with no ill effects? In fact, it's actually beneficial to have it removed: http://www.innovations-report.de/html/bericht...14402.html Our digestive systems are much similar to that of carnivores than herbivores, there's some information on that site if you look hard enough. Even if the appendix performed some useful function, it would neccessarily indicate a strictly vegetarian lifestyle, merely an adaption to eating plantlife; i find it very unlikely that a species capable of eating 2 differing food sources, would limit itself to one, for any reason at all: natural selection and insitnct don't work that way.

Nature is nature, and we need to eat to survive, and with the current trendsi n population growth, we need to kill animals to eat. It would not be cheaper to feed the world on a vegetarian diet, since as the artical explains, there isn't enough land. Now perhaps the article is wrong, i wouldn't know, and the information seems to specific to find any other refferences: but it does make sense, and i'm inclined to believe the information provided is true.

How do you know it's not true? The article seemed well written, and the writer takes an objective stance for the most part, at the end stating that lacto-ovo vegetarianism is no more damaging to health than a carnivorous diet. He quotes numerous sources, a rare occurence not seen in most pro vegetarian propoganda, and something indicative of a well researched point of view. I'm not trying to say what he wrote is gospel, but it's not lies either, and i suspect it's much more considered than your knee-jerk reaction to anything remotely religious.

People with heart conditions usually find themselves that way not solely due to diet, exercise also plays a critical role. I would consider anyone who has eaten red meat to the extent that they have damaged their heart, to have eaten red meat excessively: it is thus not caused by red meat, but the excesses of the individual. The person with heart diesease has most likely not excersized sufficiently, or, if the adverts are correct, not eaten enough whole wheat: there are many more factors that contribute towards heart disease than red meat: i would entertain the possibility that red meat being blamed so heavily is down to animal rights organisations in some way, but that would be too close to a conspiracy theory for me to stomach ;oP.

I have limited time to respond to this, and tomorrow I will probably forget about it because I have a busy day. So I'll try to keep it short...
"I don't understand how we'd have enough land to feed the entire world vegetarian style, it doesn't seem feasable. "
Do you know how much food (and therefore landspace) you need to feed a single animal (eatable))? You give the creature MUCH more than you get from it. Granted, we dont eat what the same food as the animal, but food needs land to grow on.

Concerning the second paragraph. I stated in my post that, that was a theory of mine not a fact. However, the appendix doesnt work obviously, thats true, but why would we have one in the first place if we were carnivores? Are you suggesting that we are only exception to this in the world? Our appendix has worked in the past (otherwise our body wouldnt have developed one). But as we have changed from feeding solely on vegetarian food, the appendix has lost its use. Also you might note that carnivores have claws, the closest thing humans get to this is nails, which obviously isnt the same thing. Check up on how the human digestion system works. I think you might be surprised on how much time it takes to digest meat for a human, compared to how long it takes for a normal carnivore.

As for the article itself, sure its pretty well written, and some it makes sense, but most of it is of course written with the angle that he doesnt want to consider trying out a veggie for any period of time.
And for the record I dont buy your "you can eat red meat alot as long as you dont go into the extremes!" logic. Ask any fat person that got some advice from a "dietist" (swedish word, but I guess it translates ok?) on how to live healthier. To lose weight for example they WILL tell you to remove the red meat from the plate, and possibly the white meat as well if its really bad.
Anyways, a very common answer to why someone is a vegetarian/vegan is because of morality, (ie, they dont think its fair to treat an animals the way they are being treated).

If you have some spare time, why not take a look at this flash movie, its quite informative as well as funny :).

http://www.themeatrix.com/

I don't understand the argument you two are having about the appendix...

Whether we were herbivours/carnivours X million of years ago should have no bearing on how we live in the world today or should we stop using any form of technology and simply walk about scavenging food?.

Human beings are designed to eat both vegetables/fruit, and meat and the body is able to adapt well to a diet of both (Provided the body is kept in check with exercise etc.). To purposely exclude one or the other for "health" reasons is stupid as the healthiest people will have a balanced diet including both.

Secondly about the land thing. Animals are given poor land which would be worthless for growing crops on (Otherwise it is a total economic waste, they do think these things through you know :)) so in fact it would have an negetive effect on the third world as we wouldn't have any meat to give them and no more vegetables/fruit!

I don't see anything wrong with harming animals in order to get food from them but if others do that is fine. However I do object to "animal rights" activists trying to enforce their opinion on the whole world (Whether it be animal testing or food).

Enforce their oppinions on the world? The vegetarians and vegans I know arent trying to force their way of life on anyone at all. What they are doing though is trying to show people what kind of cruelty that we do to these animals.

the bible doesn't contain a single fact.
that piece of shit is the source of many political and social problems nowadays.
god's word my ass
CMON SMITE ME GOD AHAHAH FUCK YOU :p yet another piece of evidence that he doesnt exist

Only idiots and evengelists, the two words are synonamous as far as i'm concerned, interpret the bible literally: there's no problem with the bible, only with the literal interpretation that so many seem to adhere too.

Then if you don't take god's word literally, what's it good for??!

The lessons from the bible aren't literal, scholars attempt to interpret them in the best way possible and apply them to our modern lives. I'm no expect in religion though, so it may well be different. Just because it doesn't literally say "Do X when situation Y occurs", doesn't mean you can't interpret a situation jesus was in, and apply it to yourself.

Good point... still, I don't learn from others telling me about experiences - I learn them best when I learn them myself

Yeah, but if everyone thought like that we'd never pass down any moral knowledge. Everyone knows the story of the good samaritan right? And pretty much anyone who hears the story would prefer to be the good samaritan over any of the other characters: if it weren't for the bible, there wouldn't be anything to pass down stories like that, and thus there'd be less morality in general.

That's just how i imagine the bible to be important though: there may not be any negatives to not having the bible or religion, it's just speculation.

Why do you say "fuck you" to me when im practically agreeing with you? =)

haha :D
as in my previous post: 'god's word my ass'
my ass = your face :DDDDDD
my farts = your word :DDD

i think i

Look in the mirror and open your mouth.

See those sharp teeth at the front for slicing and those pointing ones at the side for tearing ?

They're for eating meat you know . . . .

Mind your own plate and let other people worry about what they want to eat.

That would be fine as long as it doesn't affect other people.

Indeed. Religion is like a plate of tuna. Even if you don't eat it, you have to suffer when everyone else does.

Marmite....

All the wrong images right there.