(February 13, 2014 at 3:47 am)jg2014 Wrote:

(February 12, 2014 at 5:34 pm)StoryBook Wrote: PETA kills not just sick or un-adoptable but all the animals they can. They don't want people to own them so they just kill them. They are constantly contradicting themselves.
....
They kill because it is cheaper, and brings more money in their pockets!

Additionally I really don't see why you are so against PETA for killing animals in their shelters for profit, as you claim, although I certainly would be if there was any evidence of this. There is another group of people who also kill animals for profit. We call them farmers.

So you are ok for them killing thousands of animals,sick or not, and letting the bodies rot in dumpsters. Yet you are not ok with the killing of animals for food.
Well according to PETA all domestic animals should not be owned, meaning set them free or kill them all because most domestic animals can't survive on their own. So I guess we should kill them all

---

(February 13, 2014 at 4:42 am)là bạn điên Wrote: How would peta profit from killing animals?

Oh and I support the ALF.

Lets see I already explained this. Let make more simple for you. Dead animals don't need to be fed, so it is cheaper to kill then feed. PETA gets lots of money donations from people like you. Instead of using it to feed or even provide health care, they wast it on silly ads/commercials and photo shoots. That is after the money goes to the employees that write the sad sob stories and complaints how people shouldn't own animals.

I also find it odd that you support the endangerment of animals and the promotion of terrorism that the AFL does to get their message across.

(February 13, 2014 at 10:36 am)StoryBook Wrote: So you are ok for them killing thousands of animals,sick or not, and letting the bodies rot in dumpsters. Yet you are not ok with the killing of animals for food.
Well according to PETA all domestic animals should not be owned, meaning set them free or kill them all because most domestic animals can't survive on their own. So I guess we should kill them all

Before I comment on any of this, I want to check that you didn't click the "Post Reply" button by accident. Or are you just playing the "how many fallacies can fit in a sentence" game?

---

I think the following video encapsulates much of what people like/hate about vegans. It's probably worth taking a look at whatever side you're on.

Quote:So you are ok for them killing thousands of animals,sick or not, and letting the bodies rot in dumpsters. Yet you are not ok with the killing of animals for food.

Whether they rot in dumpsters is irrelevant. Actually they now have an incenerator. And I am happy to euthanise sick animals. To breed animals for food I am against.

Quote:Well according to PETA all domestic animals should not be owned, meaning set them free or kill them all because most domestic animals can't survive on their own. So I guess we should kill them all

We shouldn't breed them for a start

Quote:Lets see I already explained this. Let make more simple for you. Dead animals don't need to be fed, so it is cheaper to kill then feed.

So not a profit then. They could always just refuse to take the animals in the first place as many no kill shelters do

Quote:PETA gets lots of money donations from people like you. Instead of using it to feed or even provide health care, they wast it on silly ads/commercials and photo shoots.

Hardly wasted. the excellents ads are used to raise revenue so unless you think advertising doesn't work then your argment fails

Quote: That is after the money goes to the employees that write the sad sob stories and complaints how people shouldn't own animals.

Not very much money

Quote:I also find it odd that you support the endangerment of animals and the promotion of terrorism that the AFL does to get their message across.

Could you define terrorism please.

(February 13, 2014 at 11:04 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 13, 2014 at 10:36 am)StoryBook Wrote: So you are ok for them killing thousands of animals,sick or not, and letting the bodies rot in dumpsters. Yet you are not ok with the killing of animals for food.
Well according to PETA all domestic animals should not be owned, meaning set them free or kill them all because most domestic animals can't survive on their own. So I guess we should kill them all

Before I comment on any of this, I want to check that you didn't click the "Post Reply" button by accident. Or are you just playing the "how many fallacies can fit in a sentence" game?

No game, just don't don't like the PETA cult/religion. If people have a moral reason to be not eat meat that is fine. But if they are going to follow the contradictions, lies, word twisting, and brain washing of PETA, that is just sad. It just shows me that you fail to think through the whole picture on your own. Your mad when we kill animal and mad when we don't. You don't want them to suffer but get mad when we don't help them.
I'm sorry you don't see what is obvious to me. I often forget that people need things spelled out for them. Of course people see what is in front of them instead of what's all around them.

Wow 3 min in that video I'm being preached to. Just so you know I'm an atheist not just because I don't believe in god, but also I hate preaching.

Also they don't arrest people or ban them "for random acts of kindness". I expected a better video from you, then the one you gave me. There was a lot of things wrong with his arguments. They only plausible part of it was the last three minutes.

So you won't define terrorism then.

(February 13, 2014 at 12:35 pm)là bạn điên Wrote: So you won't define terrorism then.

The use of violence and threats to intimidate.

(February 13, 2014 at 1:01 pm)StoryBook Wrote:

(February 13, 2014 at 12:35 pm)là bạn điên Wrote: So you won't define terrorism then.

The use of violence and threats to intimidate.

So every country in the world is run by terrorists?

Since the ALF don't actually attack people nor threaten to attack them by your definition they are not terrorists. By all means link me to an event where the ALF have targeted people rather than things.

(February 11, 2014 at 5:52 pm)KUSA Wrote: Here's some raw meat that makes me salivate.

Me, too. That is some high-quality masturbation material right there.

(February 13, 2014 at 12:23 pm)StoryBook Wrote:

(February 13, 2014 at 11:04 am)bennyboy Wrote: Before I comment on any of this, I want to check that you didn't click the "Post Reply" button by accident. Or are you just playing the "how many fallacies can fit in a sentence" game?

No game, just don't don't like the PETA cult/religion. If people have a moral reason to be not eat meat that is fine. But if they are going to follow the contradictions, lies, word twisting, and brain washing of PETA, that is just sad. It just shows me that you fail to think through the whole picture on your own. Your mad when we kill animal and mad when we don't. You don't want them to suffer but get mad when we don't help them.
I'm sorry you don't see what is obvious to me. I often forget that people need things spelled out for them. Of course people see what is in front of them instead of what's all around them.

Wow 3 min in that video I'm being preached to. Just so you know I'm an atheist not just because I don't believe in god, but also I hate preaching.

Also they don't arrest people or ban them "for random acts of kindness". I expected a better video from you, then the one you gave me. There was a lot of things wrong with his arguments. They only plausible part of it was the last three minutes.

Actually, I'm not a big fan of PETA or the ALF either. But the post of yours that I quoted was pretty full of rhetorical fallacies: strawman, false dilemma, non sequitur, etc.

I think people forget that not only human beings, but also their ideas, are partway through the process of evolution. I try to look at issues like the vegetarian/non-vegetarian conflict in these terms: we have evolved certain nutritional instincts (eating fatty/high protein foods etc.) but also certain social instincts (protection of the helpless, an aversion to causing suffering in others, etc.) It seems to be when we fully indulge in our instincts that we can achieve the highest state of pleasure or satisfaction. But it also seems to me that this indulgence leads to the greatest harm, both to ourselves but also to the world around us.

I think in the end, the truth has to win. It was obvious that slavery was cruel and unnecessary-- but it took generations of conflict and meme evolution for this truth to be recognized. I consider meat-production (at least on an industrial scale) much the same-- it's quite clear that it harms both people and their environment, as well as causing much unneccessary suffering (at least the way things are right now); this really should change. My problem with PETA and the like is that they don't accept the humanity (you could even say the animal nature) of the people they are accusing; they would never accuse lions of following their dietary instincts, but they constantly demonize humans for doing so. And in refusing to accept and work around human nature, they build psychological resistance and resentment in many.

---

(February 13, 2014 at 3:20 pm)Michael Schubert Wrote:

(February 11, 2014 at 5:52 pm)KUSA Wrote: Here's some raw meat that makes me salivate.

Me, too. That is some high-quality masturbation material right there.

I think this is actually good support for my point-- as humans we see ourselves as much more advanced than monkeys. But much of that great intellect we possess gets subjected to the process of seeking and fulfilling our monkey instincts. We as men are basically like monkeys masturbating in a zoo-- but with much better resources.

(February 12, 2014 at 11:31 am)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(February 12, 2014 at 11:02 am)enrico Wrote: You guys contradict yourself.
Most of you believe in evolution but evolution take his time to make changes.

Oh fantastic! A lecture about how evolution supports his assertions from the guy that doesn't understand evolution.

You are very funny boy.
According to atheism the changes came because our species made those changes in the past so we inherit what we are now.
This dogma is as bad as the religious dogmas in which people get the manna from the sky.
Have you ever got something for free?
Don't tell me the usual bullshit boy.

Quote:Humans share some characteristics with herbivores. We also share some with carnivores. Stop ignoring everybody else and open your damn eyes.

Are you telling me that we have the same digestive system, the same quantity of hydrochloric acid to break down the meat that we sweat through our tongues that we hunt during the night that we have sharp claws and powerful jaws?
Gee, the last time i looked myself in the mirror i must have seen a monster!

(February 12, 2014 at 11:02 am)enrico Wrote: The evidence is there.
1) Ominids skulls and teeth have all the characteristics of veg. eaters.

Quote:No they don't. I have already explained this to you Enrico. Humans have molar teeth. Which are designed for chewing on plant matter. We also have canine teeth, designed to grip onto meat. We also have incisor teeth which are designed to slice through meat.

Idiot.
Our small incisor and canine teeth are not design to kill and brake the raw meat down........


......like an omnivore.

(February 12, 2014 at 11:02 am)enrico Wrote: 2) Man does not salivate at the sight of raw meat.

Quote:Wrong again. I am a man and I salivate at the sight of raw meat. And before you pull out that stupid argument that you did before, remember that you have no evidence of that so no one is going to believe it.

If this is the case that you salivate at the sight of raw meat then you ruin all your natural feeling.
It is like a smoker or a junkie that feel that smoke or drugs are good for him.
It is only when you are free from unnatural way of life that you are able to judge what is good and natural and what is bad.
Unfortunately you f...... up your sense of good and bad.

(February 12, 2014 at 11:02 am)enrico Wrote: 3) The human digestive system can not deal with meat.

Quote:Wrong again! The human digestive system deals with meat very well.

Eh, boy why don't you tell me why out of 2000 people with cardiovascular diseases only less of 10 i found to be vegetarians in the last 24 years that i worked in medical situation?

(February 12, 2014 at 11:02 am)enrico Wrote: All in all there are enough reasons to say that since man is man his characteristics are totally vegetarian.

Quote:Wrong. Literally everybody else viewing this thread, disagrees with you. Why do you think that is exactly?

The fact that everybody disagree with me doesn't mean a thing.
They also disagree that God exist so what?
If i go in a different forum in which people share my ideas then everybody will agree with me.
You see how your way of putting things is defective?
One more point is that when you spew dung your friend will keep quite in order not to humiliate you any further like when you said that in the past omindis or man was probably eating carcasses.
How man can have the same acids and digestive system as a hyena or a vulture?
Even a carnivore like a lion can not deal rotten meat.

(February 12, 2014 at 11:02 am)enrico Wrote: Some points i would like to clear.
1) Somebody say that our digestive system can deal with meat.
I can tell you that a car that suppose to use petrol or gasoline can even go with Kerosene but after some time it will clog up and wear faster.

Quote:Oh fantastic, we are back to making completely unrelated comparisons.

This is the perfect comparison.
The fact that you find difficult to DIGEST this analogy it means only that you lost your natural way of judging. (as i already mention above.

Quote:And as I have already explained to you it is the quantity of food that makes people unhealthy.

The quantity and the quality as well.
If you try to tell your rotten ideas to someone expert in medicine you would be lucky if they don't spit in your face and kick you out their environ.

(February 12, 2014 at 11:02 am)enrico Wrote: 3) Even Charles Darwin that believe in evolution stated that early humans were fruit and veg. eaters and that throughout history out anatomy has not changed.

Quote:Well, if he did really say that, you will have no trouble quoting him, will you?

In his book The Origin of Man he tells us:
"Although we know nothing for certain about the time or place that man shed the thick hair that covered him, with much probability of being right we could say that he must have lived in a warm country where conditions were favourable to the frugivorous way of life which, to judge from analogies, must have been the way man lived."

Quote:I'm pretty sure you have just completely ignored absolutely everybody else on here. You have continued with your bald assertions again and again despite many corrections. I think that counts as spamming. I hope you get banned soon.

Get lost little ignorant prick.
You show me the evidence that man body-mind is build to be omnivore i i will cover you in pure gold.

---

(February 11, 2014 at 8:28 pm)bennyboy Wrote: There's never been a time, at any point in recorded history, when people have not eaten meat. Dude, give it up, your argument is dead.

There has never been a time....at any point in recorded history......in which people have not been picking their nose so what?
Does this mean that it is natural to pick the nose or eating meat?

Quote:People like you that behave like Gandhi or the Dalai Lama do more damage that meat eaters.

Quote:1) Ghandi was partly responsible for the end of the British occupation of India. Big success.

If would be for Gandhi the British still would be in India.
Pacifism get nowhere and this apply also to the Dalai Lama.
The Chinese occupiers are still there as you can see.

Quote:I'm neither of these, or anything like them.

Your ideas get nowhere as Gandhi and as the Lama.

Quote:Have you been reading this thread, dumbass? Have you not seen me arguing that it's more moral to abstain from eating meat, that meat is unnecessary, and that too much meat is obviously unhealthy?

People who eat meat don't give a damn about morality.
It is only when you present them with the bill or the cost to hospitalize people with cardiovascular diseases (meat eaters) that they will wake up and grow up and when science will tell them that climate changes are also caused by the meat policy that they will understand and when their house will be ruin by a fire or a flood that they will understand.

Quote:The spread of disease has nothing to do with whether or not something is natural. DISEASE is natural. So is death.

Mad cow disease is not natural.

Quote:Under natural conditions, it would not be possible for early humans to get enough protein and calories from these sources to sustain the human brain.

How do you know?

Quote:Early humans couldn't go to their local supermarket and buy big bags of those food items. I think you're getting lost-- we are not talking about healthy diet choices of today-- we're talking about evolution, and the fact that humans necessarily evolved to eat both meat and plant foods.

Your guessing has no real foundation.