Post by: danickstr on December 09, 2007, 11:20:48 AM
And they don't want to know, because pork just went on sale at the mini-mart.
But damn those people who don't change the water for Fido every day.
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 09, 2007, 11:28:56 AM
Post by: el duderino on December 10, 2007, 12:24:14 PM
Ribs anyone?
Post by: studiojimi on December 10, 2007, 04:18:02 PM
check out this australian anaconda or whatever this thing is
having a breakfast of water buffalo
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on December 10, 2007, 04:21:57 PM
Jess
Post by: wwittman on December 10, 2007, 05:03:01 PM
You're THAT much of a purist that there is NO hypocrisy whatsoever in YOUR beliefs?
Post by: danickstr on December 10, 2007, 09:38:36 PM
Not really into hair products.
I have had the leather argument many times with the same result. When people stop killing animals to eat them, then leather will be something other than the refuse of their feeding frenzy. Til then, I use it gladly, instead of having it thrown away.
But there is plenty of hypocrisy in other parts of my life, no doubt. I don't really appreciate your assumption that I am a purist, since I am not. You are wrong there.
Cool pic Jimi
Post by: mgod on December 11, 2007, 12:21:29 AM
http://esangha.squarespace.com/recent-news/
DS
Post by: wwittman on December 11, 2007, 12:54:54 AM
it's FUR as well.
that's not a "by product" of the food industry.
(and neither is leather anymore in practicality... they are almost always from DIFFERENT cows)
buy anyway the point isn't to convince YOU... the point is that I see nothing "inconsistent" with someone who thinks anally electrocuting minks is unnecessary but still eats fish.
now people who are anti-abortion but pro death penalty... THOSE people are morons.
Post by: maxim on December 11, 2007, 02:17:14 AM
Post by: Berolzheimer on December 11, 2007, 08:22:08 PM
Post by: maxim on December 11, 2007, 10:03:02 PM
http://fiendfolio.blogspot.com/2007/05/hand-wound-monday-cro codile-attack.html
Post by: conquer on December 12, 2007, 01:27:38 AM
What it calls my attention is that several people try to humanize their pets to the point of believing that they are like us. These owners pay great amounts of money for their dog to have a psychological evaluation with the doctor talking with the animal by phone...
Post by: studiojimi on December 12, 2007, 01:44:30 AM
Give that Crock a hand!
Post by: danickstr on December 12, 2007, 04:02:03 AM
| wwittman wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 00:54 |
it's not only leather. it's FUR as well. that's not a "by product" of the food industry. (and neither is leather anymore in practicality... they are almost always from DIFFERENT cows) |
This sounds like Peta propaganda. It doesn't make economic sense to "throw away" 1500 pounds of carcass just to get some leather.
I agree that the whole thing is disgusting. But leather has to be more of a by-product of the meat trade by practicality alone.
Ask any meat-eater which they would give up first, and you have your answer. But if there are sources other than Peta, which are borderline extremists, I would be willing to consider them.
Post by: rphilbeck on December 12, 2007, 10:57:40 AM
| wwittman wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 00:54 |
now people who are anti-abortion but pro death penalty... THOSE people are morons. |
Why do you think they are morons?
Post by: Fibes on December 12, 2007, 11:18:30 AM
I'm a pescatarian, occasionally wear leather shoes and think PETA is a horrible thing (except for their topless mermaid stunts).
That's not the point.
WW made a good point about the difference between use and exploitation.
My personal beliefs are more of the "small footprint" and organic philosophy than anything. I eat fish but unless I'm eating out on a special occasion it is fish that i caught and killed myself. The fish didn't get dragged around on a long line for hours and no porpoises or turtles were trapped in any nets to drown.
Bycatch and byproducts are the most dangerous impacts from the food and fish industries.
http://www.themeatrix.com
I used to play in a big "chicken town" and noticed that almost every restaurant in town didn't serve chicken. The locals knew what went into those hormone bags (chickens) and everything else in the process.
So, i don't care what y'all eat; i do care what i see on a bluebloods back at the opera however.
So call me a hypocrite because i think (just like meat eating indians) that animals deserve respect in all aspects of their use.
In china they skin dogs alive for the collars on american parkas.
Hrm.
Skinned alive.
Anal electrocution sounds like a day at the park.
Post by: PRobb on December 12, 2007, 12:28:25 PM
Post by: Andy Peters on December 12, 2007, 01:55:46 PM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 08:57 | ||
Why do you think they are morons? |
Because they claim that abortion is murder, yet they condone (and in a lot of cases, rabidly support) the death penalty, which has the same result.
Then there's the guy who murdered that doctor who performed abortions. Fry that fucker.
-a
Post by: rphilbeck on December 12, 2007, 03:55:40 PM
| Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 13:55 | ||||
Because they claim that abortion is murder, yet they condone (and in a lot of cases, rabidly support) the death penalty, which has the same result. |
One is a convicted murderer, and the other is an unborn child guilty of nothing.
What can I say about a person who is against the death penalty, but pro-abortion? Doesn't this argument work both ways?
Great post Fibes!
Post by: CCC on December 12, 2007, 07:54:04 PM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 15:55 |
One is a convicted murderer, and the other is an unborn child guilty of nothing. What can I say about a person who is against the death penalty, but pro-abortion? Doesn't this argument work both ways? |
I'm not wading into this debate because of my strong feelings, or to grind an axe. I would say merely that the reasoning above hinges on equating an embryo or fetus with a person, which is not an assumption that everyone shares. The ascertainment of the moment that a group of cells engages the term "person" isn't a solvable problem.
Also,convicted murderers aren't sentenced to live inside another person for 9 months. So murderers aren't kept alive inside another living person who perhaps isn't terribly keen on the idea.
As far as capital punishment goes, I like the death penalty paradox, personally. Assume the penalty for premeditated homicide is death. The penalty is given by the state, by virtue of the power we grant the state. If the state is wrong and executes an innocent person on our behalf the state has committed a murder for which the penalty is death. So what happens then? Is it the end of the state, or should we all be put to death because the state, which is us, has committed a murder? ....and we have convicted people who were not guilty, haven't we?
Just some thoughts.
Post by: rphilbeck on December 12, 2007, 10:54:16 PM
| JS wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 19:54 | ||
I would say merely that the reasoning above hinges on equating an embryo or fetus with a person, which is not an assumption that everyone shares. The ascertainment of the moment that a group of cells engages the term "person" isn't a solvable problem. |
Well, if there is a God, and he questioned my feelings on the subject I would prefer to err on the side of caution. Oh, and then there is my conscience.
| Quote: |
Also,convicted murderers aren't sentenced to live inside another person for 9 months. So murderers aren't kept alive inside another living person who perhaps isn't terribly keen on the idea. |
Is that supposed to be logic? If you feel about abortion as I do than you are hardly concerned with the brief 9 month inconvenience she may have Vs. the unborn child's right to life. Use birth control if it's such an inconvenience. How selfish.
Furthermore, my point was how ridiculous it is to compare an unborn child to a convicted murderer.
Post by: Daniel Farris on December 12, 2007, 11:57:29 PM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 19:54 |
Furthermore, my point was how ridiculous it is to compare an unborn child to a convicted murderer. |
But there is research that suggests a connection between an unwanted child and a convicted murderer.
DF
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 13, 2007, 09:15:22 AM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 12:55 | ||||||
One is a convicted murderer, and the other is an unborn child guilty of nothing. What can I say about a person who is against the death penalty, but pro-abortion? Doesn't this argument work both ways? Great post Fibes! |
First, I have to call out a typical pro-life straw man: Calling pro-choice "pro-abortion."
Also, your argument suggests that all life is sacred, unless you are allegedly a murderer?
We have innumerable examples of executed felons being exonerated posthumously. You would think that on the basis of common sense, we would not use the death penalty because of our track record. Besides, the average cost of putting somebody to death is $24 million. It's probably cheaper to let them rot in prison, which is probably a worse fate, and is at least undoable if you wrongly convicted them!
BTW, I wonder who Jesus would execute.
Besides, many scholars will tell you that "an eye for an eye" means that if you take an eye, you must give one back - not that if you took mine, I get to take yours. The first depiction sounds much more like something Jesus would have taught. You know ... "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." Not, "forgive us as we commit further sins in the name of vengeance."
"Christians" crack me up. Being a recovering "born again", I can tell you first hand that the majority of them spend so much time trying to impose some morality, into which they've been indoctrinated, on everybody else, rather than trying to emulate Christ. I've seldom encountered a more judgmental, self righteous, myopic, hypocritical bunch of folks.
Post by: Fibes on December 13, 2007, 10:01:04 AM
Christians don't taste good either.
I prefer the flavor of USDA farm raised Mormons.
Post by: ScotcH on December 13, 2007, 10:57:43 AM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 09:15 |
Besides, the average cost of putting somebody to death is $24 million. It's probably cheaper to let them rot in prison, which is probably a worse fate, and is at least undoable if you wrongly convicted them! |
Can you explain this JJ? Seems like an awfully large number for a bit of poison .... (I'm assuming there are "hidden" costs, but I have no idea what could be?)
Post by: el duderino on December 13, 2007, 12:11:02 PM
Post by: Daniel Farris on December 13, 2007, 12:12:13 PM
| ScotcH wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 07:57 |
Can you explain this JJ? Seems like an awfully large number for a bit of poison .... (I'm assuming there are "hidden" costs, but I have no idea what could be?) |
An exhaustive appeals process.
DF
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 13, 2007, 02:02:38 PM
| Daniel Farris wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 09:12 | ||
An exhaustive appeals process. DF |
Post by: mgod on December 13, 2007, 02:18:26 PM
indignation who read the bible as a treatise on justifiable homicide despite such statements as "Vengeance is mine!" and Jesus' admonitions against judgment and in favor of loving your enemy.DS
Post by: rphilbeck on December 13, 2007, 04:51:07 PM
I just can't fathom defending John Wayne Gacy, or Timothy McVeigh's life, but when it comes to an unborn child you throw them out like a piece of garbage.
The death penalty is more expensive than keeping a person incarcerated for 4 or 5 lifetimes. It has also never been proven to deter criminal activity. If our prisons were less like vacation resorts, the public would be more inclined to let them rot and break rocks all day.
Post by: Tidewater on December 13, 2007, 05:04:47 PM
mMmmm...
iles
Post by: CCC on December 13, 2007, 05:56:22 PM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 16:51 |
I'm still curious to know how one is okay with killing an unborn child, but they are not okay with executing a convicted murderer? Is it strictly due to the risk that the convicted may be later found to be innocent? I just can't fathom defending John Wayne Gacy, or Timothy McVeigh's life, but when it comes to an unborn child you throw them out like a piece of garbage. The death penalty is more expensive than keeping a person incarcerated for 4 or 5 lifetimes. It has also never been proven to deter criminal activity. If our prisons were less like vacation resorts, the public would be more inclined to let them rot and break rocks all day. |
An answer was proposed. To rephrase that answer: the statement that "killing an unborn child" is a value-loaded statement that dictates only one acceptable conclusion. Some people do not begin considering this matter with the presupposition that terminating pregnancy is the killing of a child...other people say the termination of pregnancy is "killing a child" or "murder." The difference is fundamental and is rooted in how you conceive (pun intended) of the embryo/fetus/unborn-baby-created-in-Gods-own-image creature.
If you describe the termination of pregnancy as "killing" then it would naturally seem weird that some people are pro-choice and anti-death penalty. If you do not consider the termination of pregnancy as "killing a child" and you are anti-death penalty then you do not have contradictory views.
Your earlier argument, which seems to be a "hedge" in case God exists (despite the dearth of evidence of that), presupposes that God cares. Maybe God (who may exist, despite the dearth of evidence) is not the Christian-right-wing queer hating anti-abortion God of legend. The nature of God and his/her/its views are not ascertained. Unless you believe in literal interpretations of religious writings, which is your prerogative, as completely discredited as that is.
Death penalty: well, the risk of killing the wrongfully convicted is a problem. Unlike an embryo, for which the ascertainment of its "personhood" is difficult and rests in large part on religious views, we can all pretty much agree that a bona fide living independent human is a bona fide living independent human. Deliberately planning to kill and killing a bona fide living person for no reason is a problem.
Maybe we should reserve the death penalty for only those people for whom guilt is an absolute certainty, rather than for whom guilt is (supposedly) beyond a reasonable doubt. But then again, what is absolute certainty that somebody has planned, premeditated and executed a first degree murder? A video tape of them doing the killing, with a narration of exactly what their subjective intention was? A confession? (problematic - coercion, death wish, etc.)
I don't know much about the kinds of high security prisons that murderers serve time in. The description "vacation resort" is interesting. I've never seen such a place, so I must reserve comment. I would, however, be interested to hear more about how maximum security prisons are great places to live since this doesn't fit with my limited knowledge of those institutions.
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 13, 2007, 07:01:15 PM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 13:51 |
I'm still curious to know how one is okay with killing an unborn child, but they are not okay with executing a convicted murderer? Is it strictly due to the risk that the convicted may be later found to be innocent? |
Because it isn't killing an unborn child, it's removing a piece of tissue. In the early stages of gestation you are hard-pressed to tell a human embryo from a pig embryo and I know that by observation. After a certain point it's less clear this holds and it gets into questionable territory late in gestation. It's not black and white as you seem to want to make it.
And I wonder if you'd feel the same if you were a woman who was made pregnant without her consent.
| RPhilbeck wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 13:51 |
I just can't fathom defending John Wayne Gacy, or Timothy McVeigh's life, but when it comes to an unborn child you throw them out like a piece of garbage. |
We don't have to defend their lives not to want to kill them. Two wrongs...you know.
Would you personally volunteer to execute them?
Post by: maxim on December 13, 2007, 11:03:20 PM
some might argue that's exactly what it is... (after all, it was moses who delivered god's plague to ALL THE FIRSTBORN CHILDREN of egypt)
the end justifies the means?
Post by: danickstr on December 14, 2007, 12:03:35 AM
| Tidewater wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 17:04 |
The irony of meat: Eating animal rights activists. mMmmm... iles |
LOL
Post by: mgod on December 14, 2007, 12:19:24 AM
| Tidewater wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 14:04 |
The irony of meat: Eating animal rights activists. mMmmm... iles |
Well, the "man" is consistent at least.
How about this? People who eat meat can be meat. I'll eat anyone who thinks it ok to eat their fellow creatures. Its a carnivore eat carnivore world - leave the rest of us out of it.
That should suit "Miles"' idea of the world. If the Nuge ever opend his meat only restaurant I'd happily dine there if he served me a piece of his own arm or leg.
DS
Post by: mgod on December 14, 2007, 12:23:55 AM
| JS wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 14:56 |
Your earlier argument, which seems to be a "hedge" in case God exists (despite the dearth of evidence of that), presupposes that God cares. Maybe God (who may exist, despite the dearth of evidence) is not the Christian-right-wing queer hating anti-abortion God of legend. The nature of God and his/her/its views are not ascertained. Unless you believe in literal interpretations of religious writings, which is your prerogative, as completely discredited as that is. |
In this context it also pre-supposes that God, whatever "HE" is, disapproves of "killing" the yet-to-be-formed mass of cells in utero but approves of killing his other creatures for food.
DS
Post by: maxim on December 14, 2007, 01:14:05 AM
i'd want it served with a penicillin injection on the side...
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 14, 2007, 01:26:13 AM
And sorry, I don't view ending a pregnancy in the first two trimesters as murder.
Post by: Fox on December 14, 2007, 10:36:51 AM
I find it difficult to either support or condemn the death penalty at times. Here's an example.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/bittake r_norris/1.html
If you don't have the time to read this, I'll sum it up quickly. Two men raped, tortured and killed numerous young women, most between the ages of 13 and 19. They made audio tapes of some of it. They were convicted and one of them was sentenced to death in 1981. He's still on death row right now. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that these men tortured and murdered those women. It's on tape. Here's something of interest, quoted from the above article:
| Quote: |
Death penalty sentences are neither sure nor swift. Appeal of a death sentence is automatic, regardless of the defendant’s wishes. Two years elapsed before the California Supreme Court appointed Bittaker’s appellate attorney, six more before the same court affirmed Bittaker’s death sentence on June 28, 1989. Bittaker was absent on October 4, 1989, when Torrance judge John Shook set his execution for December 29, but he had little to fear. His attorney filed yet another appeal that automatically stayed the execution. On June 11, 1990, the California Supreme Court declined to hear the case again. Later that same year, while actor Scott Glenn was preparing for his role as an FBI profiler in The Silence of the Lambs, he visited the Bureau’s Behavioral Science Unit at Quantico, Virginia. Legendary profiler John Douglas gave Glenn a tour of the facility. Glenn listened to the Bittaker/Norris tapes and he left Douglas’ office in tears. He told reporters that he entered the office as a death penalty opponent. He left staunchly in favor of capital punishment. When Bittaker was not busy drafting appeals, he amused himself by filing frivolous suits against the state prison system. There were more than 40 in all by October 1995. In one case, where he claimed he had been subjected to “cruel and unusual punishment” by receipt of a broken cookie on his lunch tray, state officials paid $5,000 to have the suit dismissed. Before the state was granted summary judgment, they had to prove that Bittaker could skip his lunch and still survive by only eating breakfast and dinner. It was all great fun and cost Bittaker nothing, since California prisoners are permitted to file their suits for free. When not pursuing nuisance litigation, Bittaker enjoyed a daily game of bridge with fellow inmates Randy Kraft, Douglas Clark and William Bonin, themselves convicted serial killers with an estimated 94 victims among them. The game was left short-handed in February 1996, after Bonin was executed, but Bittaker has other diversions. In the late 1990s, a catalogue of prison memorabilia offered his fingernail clippings for sale to murder groupies. And there is fan mail -- enough to keep him busy between card games. Bittaker often signs his letters with a nickname. “Pliers.” |
I would kill that man personally, no doubt about it, if it were my daughter, my sister or my girlfriend, etc. whom he destroyed. I'd kill him a thousand times if I could. Sometimes people should be killed. Most often not, but sometimes, yeah. I don't see violence as right or wrong so much as I see it as complex. Good can come of violence, as well as bad. It is a part of all of us, and there must be a reason for it. It's a necessary part of us, unfortunately, and we are what we are. We aren't good, we aren't bad, we just are.
As for vegetarianism, meat and leather, well, what can you do. I'm a meat eater. I love it. The difference between myself and many meat eaters is that I'm very aware of the fact that I'm eating something that used to be alive. I have no problem killing my own food personally. Actually, I would encourage killing your own food instead of picking up steaks at the supermarket if you are a meat lover. You have to actually watch something die, and ask yourself if you're okay with what you've done. I'm okay with it because I won't kill cruelly or for no reason. I show the prey some respect. I try not waste any of the rabbits I've killed, so that they've served a purpose in death.
I wear lot's of leather. Not because of fashion or anything like that, but because I do eat beef quite often. Being that I can't really go cow-hunting, it's my way of showing respect to that animal. I have a few leather coats, I wear leather construction boots all year round, on special occasions leather dress shoes. All of my belts are leather and in the winter I wear leather gloves. Does that make me a bad person? I don't think so. i don't eat veal partly because I don't think I could kill a baby cow, and partly because I just plain don't like the taste. If I liked it enough, I might be willing to kill the calf. Who knows?
There is a difference between being cruel to an animal and killing an animal in my opinion. I have a few dogs and I treat them well. I couldn't hurt them. BTW I don't really draw a distinction between animals for the most part. I'm the only guy I know who isn't disgusted by the thought of people eating dogs. I just wouldn't do it because I love dogs.
Wow this is a long post. Sorry about that. I guess to sum it up, there is a difference between killing and torture, and violence is what you make it. To each his own, as always.
Post by: mgod on December 14, 2007, 10:50:17 AM
FWIW, as far as I know I still like meat. When my neighbors are grilling I usually like the smell. But I haven't eaten it for 25 years. A little discipline goes a long way. We don't really have to have everything we want. Some things we can live without.
DS
Post by: Fox on December 14, 2007, 11:18:04 AM
Post by: maxim on December 14, 2007, 07:02:37 PM
it's the only opinion that matters...
Post by: John Ivan on December 15, 2007, 05:43:15 AM
So, having gone through many many profound changes in my life over the last 8 years, I say kill and eat what ever sounds good at any given moment..
Like last week.. Bass players were sounding really good around lunch time..
I'm nice to our dog.. But she's nice to me.. She's very small, so I wont eat her..
My ten year old Boy?? I don't know yet.. I might eat him, but only if he becomes a Republican, or a Democrat..
Eating stuff is good.. No one seems to care about the killing part, so I don't see what all the fuss is about..
Let's eat..
Ivan..........................
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 15, 2007, 11:16:03 AM
| John Ivan wrote on Sat, 15 December 2007 02:43 |
Let's eat.. Ivan.......................... |
Post by: mgod on December 15, 2007, 11:20:13 AM
DS
The end of cheap food
Dec 6th 2007
From The Economist print edition
Rising food prices are a threat to many; they also present the world with an enormous opportunity
FOR as long as most people can remember, food has been getting cheaper and farming has been in decline. In 1974-2005 food prices on world markets fell by three-quarters in real terms. Food today is so cheap that the West is battling gluttony even as it scrapes piles of half-eaten leftovers into the bin.
That is why this year's price rise has been so extraordinary. Since the spring, wheat prices have doubled and almost every crop under the sun—maize, milk, oilseeds, you name it—is at or near a peak in nominal terms. The Economist's food-price index is higher today than at any time since it was created in 1845 (see chart). Even in real terms, prices have jumped by 75% since 2005. No doubt farmers will meet higher prices with investment and more production, but dearer food is likely to persist for years (see article). That is because “agflation” is underpinned by long-running changes in diet that accompany the growing wealth of emerging economies—the Chinese consumer who ate 20kg (44lb) of meat in 1985 will scoff over 50kg of the stuff this year. That in turn pushes up demand for grain: it takes 8kg of grain to produce one of beef.
But the rise in prices is also the self-inflicted result of America's reckless ethanol subsidies. This year biofuels will take a third of America's (record) maize harvest. That affects food markets directly: fill up an SUV's fuel tank with ethanol and you have used enough maize to feed a person for a year. And it affects them indirectly, as farmers switch to maize from other crops. The 30m tonnes of extra maize going to ethanol this year amounts to half the fall in the world's overall grain stocks.
Dearer food has the capacity to do enormous good and enormous harm. It will hurt urban consumers, especially in poor countries, by increasing the price of what is already the most expensive item in their household budgets. It will benefit farmers and agricultural communities by increasing the rewards of their labour; in many poor rural places it will boost the most important source of jobs and economic growth.
Although the cost of food is determined by fundamental patterns of demand and supply, the balance between good and ill also depends in part on governments. If politicians do nothing, or the wrong things, the world faces more misery, especially among the urban poor. If they get policy right, they can help increase the wealth of the poorest nations, aid the rural poor, rescue farming from subsidies and neglect—and minimise the harm to the slum-dwellers and landless labourers. So far, the auguries look gloomy.
In the trough
That, at least, is the lesson of half a century of food policy. Whatever the supposed threat—the lack of food security, rural poverty, environmental stewardship—the world seems to have only one solution: government intervention. Most of the subsidies and trade barriers have come at a huge cost. The trillions of dollars spent supporting farmers in rich countries have led to higher taxes, worse food, intensively farmed monocultures, overproduction and world prices that wreck the lives of poor farmers in the emerging markets. And for what? Despite the help, plenty of Western farmers have been beset by poverty. Increasing productivity means you need fewer farmers, which steadily drives the least efficient off the land. Even a vast subsidy cannot reverse that.
With agflation, policy has reached a new level of self-parody. Take America's supposedly verdant ethanol subsidies. It is not just that they are supporting a relatively dirty version of ethanol (far better to import Brazil's sugar-based liquor); they are also offsetting older grain subsidies that lowered prices by encouraging overproduction. Intervention multiplies like lies. Now countries such as Russia and Venezuela have imposed price controls—an aid to consumers—to offset America's aid to ethanol producers. Meanwhile, high grain prices are persuading people to clear forests to plant more maize.
Dearer food is a chance to break this dizzying cycle. Higher market prices make it possible to reduce subsidies without hurting incomes. A farm bill is now going through America's Congress. The European Union has promised a root-and-branch review (not yet reform) of its farm-support scheme. The reforms of the past few decades have, in fact, grappled with the rich world's farm programmes—but only timidly. Now comes the chance for politicians to show that they are serious when they say they want to put agriculture right.
Cutting rich-world subsidies and trade barriers would help taxpayers; it could revive the stalled Doha round of world trade talks, boosting the world economy; and, most important, it would directly help many of the world's poor. In terms of economic policy, it is hard to think of a greater good.
Where government help is really needed
Three-quarters of the world's poor live in rural areas. The depressed world prices created by farm policies over the past few decades have had a devastating effect. There has been a long-term fall in investment in farming and the things that sustain it, such as irrigation. The share of public spending going to agriculture in developing countries has fallen by half since 1980. Poor countries that used to export food now import it.
Reducing subsidies in the West would help reverse this. The World Bank reckons that if you free up agricultural trade, the prices of things poor countries specialise in (like cotton) would rise and developing countries would capture the gains by increasing exports. And because farming accounts for two-thirds of jobs in the poorest countries, it is the most important contributor to the early stages of economic growth. According to the World Bank, the really poor get three times as much extra income from an increase in farm productivity as from the same gain in industry or services. In the long term, thriving farms and open markets provide a secure food supply.
However, there is an obvious catch—and one that justifies government help. High prices have a mixed impact on poverty: they hurt anyone who loses more from dear food than he gains from a higher income. And that means over a billion urban consumers (and some landless labourers), many of whom are politically influential in poor countries. Given the speed of this year's food-price rises, governments in emerging markets have no alternative but to try to soften the blow.
Where they can, these governments should subsidise the incomes of the poor, rather than food itself, because that minimises price distortions. Where food subsidies are unavoidable, they should be temporary and targeted on the poor. So far, most government interventions in the poor world have failed these tests: politicians who seem to think cheap food part of the natural order of things have slapped on price controls and export restraints, which hurt farmers and will almost certainly fail.
Over the past few years, a sense has grown that the rich are hogging the world's wealth. In poor countries, widening income inequality takes the form of a gap between city and country: incomes have been rising faster for urban dwellers than for rural ones. If handled properly, dearer food is a once-in-a-generation chance to narrow income disparities and to wean rich farmers from subsidies and help poor ones. The ultimate reward, though, is not merely theirs: it is to make the world richer and fairer.
Post by: Andy Peters on December 15, 2007, 04:58:37 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 23:26 |
When does life begin? In the words of the prophet, Bill Hicks, "Life begins when you are in the phone book." |
The classic line is that a Jewish child is viable when he graduates from law school.
-a (Jew, natch)
Post by: mgod on December 15, 2007, 08:07:55 PM
DS
Post by: PookyNMR on December 15, 2007, 11:02:12 PM
Rib eye steak, rare, with a Bordeaux, s'il vous plait.
Post by: CCC on December 15, 2007, 11:15:36 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 15 December 2007 23:02 |
I'm a member of PETA. People for the Eating of Tasty Animals. Rib eye steak, rare, with a Bordeaux, s'il vous plait. |
Lets face it, if we weren't meant to eat animals then why did (non-existent) God make them so tasty?
Post by: conquer on December 15, 2007, 11:20:16 PM
Post by: PookyNMR on December 16, 2007, 12:40:07 AM
| JS wrote on Sat, 15 December 2007 21:15 | ||
Lets face it, if we weren't meant to eat animals then why did (non-existent) God make them so tasty? |
And why did he give us BBQs, warm summer days and cold beer?? I mean really, come on people - could it be any more obvious??
Post by: danickstr on December 16, 2007, 08:47:42 AM
there are grotesque atrocities that lead to the tasty burger and bacon sandwich, that any person with even the least amount of compassion would find abhorring.
I almost throw up the first time I saw a chicken cage secret film.
These fiends need to be policed, if the carnivores are to continue their flesh lust.
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 16, 2007, 11:36:58 AM
| PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 15 December 2007 21:40 |
And why did he give us BBQs, warm summer days and cold beer?? I mean really, come on people - could it be any more obvious?? |
Post by: mgod on December 16, 2007, 12:25:32 PM
| danickstr wrote on Sun, 16 December 2007 05:47 |
Meat is a hard tradition to abandon, and leaving god's genius aside, my real problem with meat is the treatment of animals in the slaughterhouses and stockyards. there are grotesque atrocities that lead to the tasty burger and bacon sandwich, that any person with even the least amount of compassion would find abhorring. I almost throw up the first time I saw a chicken cage secret film. These fiends need to be policed, if the carnivores are to continue their flesh lust. |
That's exactly the issue for me. We tend to not support businesses whose practices we dislike (except for all Digi users), and this one is just beyond the pale. The British documentary "The Animals Film" is a behind the scenes look at where meat comes from.
We ignore the potential of global warming out of convenience and it may cost us our "civilization". We ignore the atrocity of the meat industry for similar reasons, and it costs us our souls. Not much to lose apparently. And on a positive note, keeping us primed for brutality will have us ready to devour each other when meat can longer get to our local marketplace. I'm told that the palm is the tenderest, tastiest part of humans.
I didn't find meat a hard tradition to abandon, despite being raised by spectacular Hungarian cooks who considered vegetarianism an aberration. All I had to do was really look at what I was about to eat and see how much like me it was.
DS
Post by: Ashermusic on December 16, 2007, 12:50:55 PM
| mgod wrote on Sun, 16 December 2007 17:25 | ||
That's exactly the issue for me. We tend to not support businesses whose practices we dislike (except for all Digi users), and this one is just beyond the pale. The British documentary "The Animals Film" is a behind the scenes look at where meat comes from. We ignore the potential of global warming out of convenience and it may cost us our "civilization". We ignore the atrocity of the meat industry for similar reasons, and it costs us our souls. Not much to lose apparently. And on a positive note, keeping us primed for brutality will have us ready to devour each other when meat can longer get to our local marketplace. I'm told that the palm is the tenderest, tastiest part of humans. I didn't find meat a hard tradition to abandon, despite being raised by spectacular Hungarian cooks who considered vegetarianism an aberration. All I had to do was really look at what I was about to eat and see how much like me it was. DS |
So Daniel, when we get together next week at Amir's and I order a shawerma is this going to be a problem for you?
Post by: mgod on December 16, 2007, 08:40:39 PM
But thank you for asking. Bear in mind the falafel there is the best. The shwarama might be, I'll never know.
(All invited, btw. Politeness is the rule - no piling on Mr. Asher.)
DS
Post by: danickstr on December 16, 2007, 09:03:05 PM
Post by: maxim on December 16, 2007, 10:08:51 PM
still going at 10...
Post by: mgod on December 16, 2007, 10:23:59 PM
| danickstr wrote on Sun, 16 December 2007 18:03 |
what do the bloody limeys mean by the word dear |
Expensive.
DS
Post by: PookyNMR on December 16, 2007, 11:38:53 PM
| Jay Kadis wrote on Sun, 16 December 2007 09:36 | ||
|
No, wrong guy. You're thinking of the guy in the red suit with the pitch fork - you know the same guy who gave us telemarketing, those bluetooth cellphone ear pieces, and Kenny G a recording contract.
Post by: maxim on December 17, 2007, 12:11:57 AM
"She's now 13"
she needs to be taking iron supplements
the only other significant mineral that needs supplementing is zinc, but zinc loss is more of an issue with boys
however, she is definitely in need of iron replacement at 13 (+?monitoring of B12, Zn and Fe)
Post by: mgod on December 17, 2007, 10:28:20 AM
DS
Post by: Ashermusic on December 17, 2007, 10:51:26 AM
My wife and I eat very little red meat or pork, although we greatly enjoy it when we do, so chicken and eggs are mostly the issue.
Because of what I have learned from my daughter I spend the extra money to buy free- range chicken and eggs from cage-free hens.
Of course when you go out to eat at most restaraunts there is no practical way to do this.
I know it does not speak well for me that I am only willing to do what is relatively convenient but I think that is how most people are. I suspect that if there were more education about this issue and access to meat/chiccken/fish that was produced in a way that does not cause the animals undue suffering people would do it.
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 17, 2007, 03:54:47 PM
Post by: maxim on December 17, 2007, 08:47:22 PM
"...but we don't make sure she takes them every day"
imo, as long as the stores are topped up regularly, it doesn't have to be daily...
it might be better for compliance if it's weekly or even monthly or quarterly, as long as it doesn't get forgotten...
Post by: Annie on December 18, 2007, 08:41:43 PM
| Fibes wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 08:18 |
Bycatch and byproducts are the most dangerous impacts from the food and fish industries. |
Not entirely. There's the carbon foot print.
Just yesterday I was at a fish market on the pier that had raw oysters from the north east. Oh and there's a sushi place here that rumors to overnight it's fish from Japan. That's definitely got some impact.
delicious delicious impact.
mmmm... Hirozen.
back to the point, Sustainable Foods!
Post by: Larrchild on December 18, 2007, 10:38:01 PM
Post by: Podgorny on December 22, 2007, 09:19:21 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 08:15 |
PeTA members crack me up. Being a recovering vegan, I can tell you first hand that the majority of them spend so much time trying to impose some morality, into which they've been indoctrinated, on everybody else, rather than trying to emulate meat products with tofu. I've seldom encountered a more judgmental, self righteous, myopic, hypocritical bunch of folks. |
??
Post by: mgod on December 23, 2007, 11:51:52 AM
| Podgorny wrote on Sat, 22 December 2007 18:19 |
?? |
That's just JJ being JJ. He gets cranky sometimes.
DS
Post by: Hank Alrich on December 23, 2007, 12:21:18 PM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 12:55 |
One is a convicted murderer, and the other is an unborn child guilty of nothing. |
As it is turning out with the increasing use of DNA testing, many "convicted murderers" are also guilty of nothing.
Post by: Hank Alrich on December 23, 2007, 12:26:32 PM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 19:54 |
Is that supposed to be logic? If you feel about abortion as I do than you are hardly concerned with the brief 9 month inconvenience she may have Vs. the unborn child's right to life. Use birth control if it's such an inconvenience. How selfish. Furthermore, my point was how ridiculous it is to compare an unborn child to a convicted murderer. |
Firstly, I don't see much "logic" in your comments here. It has been said that if males could get pregnant abortion would be entirely legal. Your concept that you somehow have a right to force a woman to bear a child does not smack of logic, nor compassion, nor a realization that if you had to go through that while not wanting to you might not be so keen to force it upon others.
Secondly, that a person has been convicted of murder is no assurance that they actually committed the murder. That is fact, and if you wish to claim logic, you might acknowledge it.
Post by: danickstr on December 23, 2007, 12:37:16 PM
People need time to change, and they like steak. Giving up what they like is hard when their life is shit in so many other ways. why give up a pleasure when you don't see the harm it causes?
Self-righteous indignation is ugly. Not as ugly as watching a baby runt pig getting slammed against the concrete floor until dead in the presence of his siblings (pigs are smarter than dogs btw), but Peta-ians can be ugly in their own smug way. And I understand smug
Post by: mgod on December 23, 2007, 03:25:33 PM
| danickstr wrote on Sun, 23 December 2007 09:37 |
why give up a pleasure when you don't see the harm it causes? |
That's the essence of it - not seeing the harm. But that is exactly why Peta get so obnoxious about it: to draw attention to it. Not everyone gets a road-to Damascus conversion like I did.
DS
Post by: mgod on December 24, 2007, 02:30:33 PM
Post by: danickstr on December 24, 2007, 02:45:12 PM
Post by: Hank Alrich on December 25, 2007, 12:04:23 PM
| danickstr wrote on Sun, 23 December 2007 09:37 |
Peta really could do a bit less "looking down the nose" at the ignorant contributers to animal torture. |
When the giant agricultural machinery rolls it destroys plenty of little animal life that had begun housekeeping in the field. This is overlooked by many vegetarians.
We eat meat. But it's deer taken hereabouts or beef from Defanti Ranch, a local grower (as in just across the valley, a few miles from my house) of grass-fed antibiotic- and hormone-free cattle, or fish caught in this area, or other organicly raised critters. On top of that we eat meat in small quantities compared to our consumption of grains, vegetables and fruits.
Post by: Tidewater on December 25, 2007, 03:53:34 PM
M
Post by: rphilbeck on December 25, 2007, 04:27:59 PM
| Hank Alrich wrote on Sun, 23 December 2007 12:21 |
As it is turning out with the increasing use of DNA testing, many "convicted murderers" are also guilty of nothing. |
Hank, This is about all I need to show that you clearly do not know what you're talking about. What is the number of inmates currently on death row? How many have been exonerated with DNA testing? Research that miniscule percentage and please come back and reevaluate your above statement, which would lead people to believe "many" people are being exonerated with DNA testing.
Simply not true sir.
Oh, and also do research on the number of death row inmates who have declined the opportunity to exonerate themselves with DNA testing!
Don't get me wrong. DNA has brought a whole new level of fair play to our criminal justice system. But the small percentage of overturned convictions does not prove, or even suggest, that the majority of inmates on death row are guilty of nothing.
Post by: rphilbeck on December 25, 2007, 04:35:53 PM
| Hank Alrich wrote on Sun, 23 December 2007 12:26 |
Firstly, I don't see much "logic" in your comments here. It has been said that if males could get pregnant abortion would be entirely legal. Your concept that you somehow have a right to force a woman to bear a child does not smack of logic, nor compassion, nor a realization that if you had to go through that while not wanting to you might not be so keen to force it upon others. |
Hank, I respect your position here. I guess I'm just a rotten insensitive bastard. But, no matter what I do, I can not make abortion right in my head. Under any circumstances no matter how horrible. At the very core of my soul something just tells me that everything about it is just wrong. I would be interested in seeing statistics on the number of abortions performed in the US where the impregnation was the result of rape/incest vs. the number of abortion performed where the host simply felt this was to inconvenient a time too have a child.
Post by: Hank Alrich on December 25, 2007, 05:03:09 PM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Tue, 25 December 2007 13:27 | ||
Hank, This is about all I need to show that you clearly do not know what you're talking about. What is the number of inmates currently on death row? How many have been exonerated with DNA testing? Research that miniscule percentage and please come back and reevaluate your above statement, which would lead people to believe "many" people are being exonerated with DNA testing. Simply not true sir. Oh, and also do research on the number of death row inmates who have declined the opportunity to exonerate themselves with DNA testing! Don't get me wrong. DNA has brought a whole new level of fair play to our criminal justice system. But the small percentage of overturned convictions does not prove, or even suggest, that the majority of inmates on death row are guilty of nothing. |
There is presently no question that we have scheduled for death parties innocent of the crime(s) of which they have been accused, and that could we apply DNA testing retroactively to those we have executed in the name of justice we, ourselves, would be shown to be murderers.
Do you doubt that we have executed any innocent people? Do you imagine that in the past our record there is somehow perfect and that it is only recently that we have erred in our determination of guilt?
Post by: rphilbeck on December 25, 2007, 05:31:55 PM
The system is designed to err on the side of the defendant. And it more often errs on the side of letting a guilty party go free than it does detaining the innocent. Let me also tell you in my experiance the guilty are caught with their hands in the cookie jar more often than not. If you think the majority of those poor bastards sitting in lock up are innocent than think again. And I say that as someone with an education in Criminal Justice, and as someone who once worked for the Fulton County DA Atlanta Judicial Circuit, and as a probation officer.
The things I could tell you.
Post by: John Ivan on December 26, 2007, 02:02:31 AM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Tue, 25 December 2007 17:31 |
It is quite a leap from suggesting that "many" death row residents are actually innocent as opposed to suggesting that there are innocent people on death row, and that have been executed. Thank you for clarifying your position. The system is designed to err on the side of the defendant. And it more often errs on the side of letting a guilty party go free than it does detaining the innocent. Let me also tell you in my experiance the guilty are caught with their hands in the cookie jar more often than not. If you think the majority of those poor bastards sitting in lock up are innocent than think again. And I say that as someone with an education in Criminal Justice, and as someone who once worked for the Fulton County DA Atlanta Judicial Circuit, and as a probation officer. The things I could tell you. |
If the Government can be shown to have killed ONE person who happened to be in the same parking lot as the real killer and was wrongly convicted as a result, OR that we have wrongly convicted and have come within only a "period of time" of killing them for something they did not do, than there should be no argument about taking the Death penalty off the table.. We should not be in the business of killing people. Not in my name.. Please.
If there is any chance at all that we will kill an innocent person, we should not be doing this. Especially when we can house them.
The abortion issue that you bring up is a different subject all together. There is some question as to what constitutes the death of a human in this argument. Well, we know FOR SURE that a death has occurred in the case of the death penalty. Why take a chance?? Why?
Ivan...............
Post by: danickstr on December 26, 2007, 09:14:11 AM
| Hank Alrich wrote on Tue, 25 December 2007 12:04 |
When the giant agricultural machinery rolls it destroys plenty of little animal life that had begun housekeeping in the field. This is overlooked by many vegetarians. |
And I probably stepped on an ant this morning walking the dog. I will try to live with the guilt.
The point for me is more about the intentional breeding, captivation and mistreatment during life of sentient animals.
Some people don't mind blood on their hands.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 26, 2007, 10:38:32 AM
| John Ivan wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 07:02 | ||
If the Government can be shown to have killed ONE person who happened to be in the same parking lot as the real killer and was wrongly convicted as a result, OR that we have wrongly convicted and have come within only a "period of time" of killing them for something they did not do, than there should be no argument about taking the Death penalty off the table.. We should not be in the business of killing people. Not in my name.. Please. If there is any chance at all that we will kill an innocent person, we should not be doing this. Especially when we can house them. The abortion issue that you bring up is a different subject all together. There is some question as to what constitutes the death of a human in this argument. Well, we know FOR SURE that a death has occurred in the case of the death penalty. Why take a chance?? Why? Ivan............... |
Using the same logic:
1. No doctor should be allowed to perform a risky surgery because while it may save the patient's life it may kill the innocent patient.
2. No one should be allowed to drive a car because the number of innocent people killed in driving accidents dwarfs the number of those executed.
3. You should never battle against those who wish to kill you, take away your freedom, etc. because innocents get killed sometimes along with the combatants.
If you hold any aspect of human behavior to a standard of being error proof or we should not do it we might as well all just go back to bed.
I support the death penalty but I believe it should be reserved for the most heinous crimes and I believe that no matter what the expense every scientific test that can be run to prove whether the convicted person is indeed guilty or innocent should be run before a convicted person is put to death.
Post by: danickstr on December 26, 2007, 11:04:13 AM
Execution is not positive.
Post by: mgod on December 26, 2007, 11:09:18 AM
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 07:38 |
If you hold any aspect of human behavior to a standard of being error proof or we should not do it we might as well all just go back to bed. |
Finally! Took you long enough!
First do no harm.
DS
Post by: Ashermusic on December 26, 2007, 11:27:13 AM
| danickstr wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 16:04 |
The problem with your logic there is that the acts you mention are done in the interest of accomplishing something positive. Execution is not positive. |
I disagree. IMHO it IS positive for society to send the message that some crimes are so horrendous that the only just punishment is forfeiture of your life.
Post by: CCC on December 26, 2007, 11:28:35 AM
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 10:38 |
1. No doctor should be allowed to perform a risky surgery because while it may save the patient's life it may kill the innocent patient. |
This is not an analogy for the death penalty. If you are under imminent threat of expiring, but a risky surgery can save you, and you elect of your own free will to face the risk, this is not the same as being wrongfully convicted and executed. It's just not the same. Do you mean to analogize between the "curing" of an individual and the attendant risks and the "curing" of a society and the attendant risks of same? The counter argument to that point would be that in any case we should select the least risky approach. So if killing innocents can be avoided by a less risky approach to curing society's ills then that approach should be taken.
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 10:38 |
2. No one should be allowed to drive a car because the number of innocent people killed in driving accidents dwarfs the number of those executed. |
In the course of voluntary human activities things can go wrong. Many more things than automobile accidents, actually. If I voluntarily eat at a restaurant and get fatal food poisoning I am an innocent person being killed by a chef. I could slip on ice and strike my head on the way to the restaurant, and never make it to the place where the bad meal is served. But so what? I don't see how any of these examples are apt analogies for the clear-headed, calculated execution of a human being by the state. The conviction of a person on imperfect evidence might be accidental, but the consequential execution of that person is not accidental. If a chef prepared a bad meal that would be an accident, but if the chef knew that of the 100 meals he made one evening, one would fatally poison a customer, and if the chef went ahead and served those meals anyway, would that still be accidental and would we just shrug and say "too bad"?
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 10:38 |
3. You should never battle against those who wish to kill you, take away your freedom, etc. because innocents get killed sometimes along with the combatants. |
Some people think war is never justifiable, perhaps for this reason. Others might say that in limited circumstances its a necessity and that the death of innocents is an unfortunate consequence. However, if there was a way to resolve a dispute without killing innocents this is to be preferred, correct?
There is a way to avoid the killing of innocents in the case of death row inmates. You commute their sentences to life in prison. So your analogy fails, because as long as there is an alternative solution that allows you to avoid the killing of innocents that should be the preferred solution.
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 10:38 |
I support the death penalty but I believe it should be reserved for the most heinous crimes and I believe that no matter what the expense every scientific test that can be run to prove whether the convicted person is indeed guilty or innocent should be run before a convicted person is put to death. |
Part of a criminal conviction relies on the determination of criminal intent. If a person claims they are not guilty by reason of a mental problem, or if they claim self-defence, what scientific test is completely conclusive for or against this? I wouldn't put modern psychology on the same footing as DNA, would you?
Post by: Ashermusic on December 26, 2007, 11:41:28 AM
In my mind, for a person who has done such horrendous things to people that the death penalty should be considered, and bear in mind if I had my way it would be a small number, life imprisonment is not a substitute.
As miserable as prison is, the perpetrator would nonetheless continue to have some moments of happiness and comfort and that is an affront to the victim's memory and his family and society at large.
Society needs to say that some crimes are SO bad that there is only one just punishment and that is forfeiture of your life.
Once again, there is no human endeavor that can never go wrong but I think it is possible for a jury or judge to be presented with enough evidence of whether or not the perpetrator is mentally ill. And there are all kinds of appeals available that of course can and should be exhausted. And if there is any serious doubt as to the person's competency then I would come down on the side of not executing.
Post by: Daniel Farris on December 26, 2007, 12:05:51 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 08:41 |
As miserable as prison is, the perpetrator would nonetheless continue to have some moments of happiness and comfort and that is an affront to the victim's memory and his family and society at large. |
I don't think I have ever thought of the role of the justice system as being one of *avenging* the victim.
Really? Is that what you think it's supposed to do? The government?
Should we kill the perpetrator's pets as well? It would certainly cause them to suffer, if that's really the goal.
DF
Post by: Hank Alrich on December 26, 2007, 12:26:38 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 08:27 | ||
I disagree. IMHO it IS positive for society to send the message that some crimes are so horrendous that the only just punishment is forfeiture of your life. |
Does it not then logically follow that should one innocent person's life be taken by the state in our name that all of us should then forfeit our lives? Murder is what we're talking about here, and we have murdered. Will you happily submit to the penalty for murder that you would impose on others?
Post by: mgod on December 26, 2007, 12:26:43 PM
But its also apparent that, as a society, we prefer punishing animals to our own inconvenience.
DS
Post by: danickstr on December 26, 2007, 12:52:29 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 11:27 | ||
I disagree. IMHO it IS positive for society to send the message that some crimes are so horrendous that the only just punishment is forfeiture of your life. |
You really believe that killing the sick members of a society is a proper thing to do? I disagree completely. IT will not dissuade other sick people, simply because they are sick. Sickness defies logic. You are incorrectly assuming that sick minds are logical.
People failing on diets are not logical, and they are functioning members of society.
You want to mete out justice based on a logical approach.
when you go to take lives with that justice, I will always fight you.
Post by: Daniel Farris on December 26, 2007, 01:03:51 PM
| danickstr wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 09:52 |
You want to mete out justice based on a logical approach. |
As much as I disagree with Jay, um... so do I.
I'm not sure arguing *against* a logical approach will get you very far.
I think opposing capital punishment happens to be a very logical approach. DON'T YOU?
DF
Post by: Ashermusic on December 26, 2007, 01:07:52 PM
| danickstr wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 17:52 | ||||
You really believe that killing the sick members of a society is a proper thing to do? I disagree completely. IT will not dissuade other sick people, simply because they are sick. Sickness defies logic. You are incorrectly assuming that sick minds are logical. People failing on diets are not logical, and they are functioning members of society. You want to mete out justice based on a logical approach. when you go to take lives with that justice, I will always fight you. |
This pre-supposes that everyone that does terrible things to others is sick. I do not buy into that fashionable belief. There is such a thing as evil. If the person understood at the time that he was doing something horrible to another that society believes is wrong and made the decision to go ahead and do it anyway whether or not he is "sick" in the moral sense, if he is not sick in the legal and medical sense then it is irrelevant IMHO.
And if you are going to "fight" me, be prepared for a long and difficult fight.
Post by: mgod on December 26, 2007, 01:16:50 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 10:07 |
This pre-supposes that everyone that does terrible things to others is sick. I do not buy into that fashionable belief. There is such a thing as evil. If the person understood at the time that he was doing something horrible to another that society believes is wrong and made the decision to go ahead and do it anyway whether or not he is "sick" in the moral sense, if he is not sick in the legal and medical sense then it is irrelevant IMHO. |
How then excuse soldiers? How excuse the killing of people anywhere by others? You consistently shift your opinion based on numbers. One person killing another is punishable by death penalty. A few killing others is terrorism. Thousands killing hundreds of thousands is only war, and its OK - especially when "your" side is winning (i.e. doing more killing). By your definition warmakers are punishable by death. (Not that I'd argue the point...)
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 10:07 |
And if you are going to "fight" me, be prepared for a long and difficult fight. |
Oh, Jay - you're a teddy bear. (But I won't tell anyone.)
DS
Post by: Daniel Farris on December 26, 2007, 01:17:26 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 10:07 |
This pre-supposes that everyone that does terrible things to others is sick. I do not buy into that fashionable belief. There is such a thing as evil. |
I believe there is absolutely a difference between "sick" and "evil."
Again, this is a qualitative judgment that I don't think any bureaucracy (like the government or a court) is qualified (or authorized) to make on our behalves, given how much is at stake.
Think about how often bureaucracies err... and how egregiously! Imagine if the IRS or the USPS were to determine whether you lived or died. You want that? Not me.
DF
Post by: Ashermusic on December 26, 2007, 01:46:52 PM
| mgod wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 18:16 | ||||
How then excuse soldiers? How excuse the killing of people anywhere by others? You consistently shift your opinion based on numbers. One person killing another is punishable by death penalty. A few killing others is terrorism. Thousands killing hundreds of thousands is only war, and its OK - especially when "your" side is winning (i.e. doing more killing). By your definition warmakers are punishable by death. (Not that I'd argue the point...)
Oh, Jay - you're a teddy bear. (But I won't tell anyone.) DS |
There is a moral difference between killing and murdering which is why the commandment translates to Thou Shalt Not Murder, not Thou Shalt Not Kill..
I shift my opinion not on numbers but on the purpose of the killing.
A soldier who kills an enemy combatant is killing but he is not murdering.
A person who kills an intruder trying to hurt him s killing but he is not murdering.
A rapist or robber who cold-bloodedly kills his victims in a grisly fashion is murdering.
A terrorist who blows up innocent people in a pizza parlor where there is no military target is murdering.
Why is this distinction not obvious?
Post by: Ashermusic on December 26, 2007, 01:55:10 PM
| Daniel Farris wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 18:17 | ||
I believe there is absolutely a difference between "sick" and "evil." Again, this is a qualitative judgment that I don't think any bureaucracy (like the government or a court) is qualified (or authorized) to make on our behalves, given how much is at stake. Think about how often bureaucracies err... and how egregiously! Imagine if the IRS or the USPS were to determine whether you lived or died. You want that? Not me. DF |
Respectfully, you cannot seriously compare the layers of bureaucracy between a court and a bloated mess like the IRS or USPS.
The founding fathers believed in judgement by a jury of our peers and as imperfect as it is, it is still the best method.
OK, guys, I have made my best arguments so I will now bow out. I recognize that this is one of those issues where people have very emotional views. I was against the death penalty for many years until I read Dennis Prager's book "Think A Second Time." After reading his chapter on the death penalty, which in my mind destroyed every argument I had against it, I realized that my opposition was based on emotion, not reason. And so, I thought a second time and changed my mind.
Post by: wwittman on December 27, 2007, 02:01:35 AM
antithetical
there is no proof of the slightest "benefit" to society from a death penalty.
only the FEELING of vengeance.
it's the very opposite of 'reason'
Post by: maxdimario on December 27, 2007, 09:31:48 AM
There is one unfortunate aspect to murderers and some people who live on the dark side: some do not fear death, but welcome it.
whether this is caused by mental imbalance or choice, or poverty of spirit is not so important.
some people are searching for destruction.
I personally believe that SOME murderers should be put to sleep eternally, by injection or whatever, just because they are of no good to anyone but perhaps the military.
but the biggest influence on murders worldwide is not a result of punishment or death sentence but of the modern entertainment business and the media.
people are far more likely to kill for 'evil' reasons when they have been conditioned by the media from their early childhood.
from seemingly harmless advertising which tends to de-humanize to full-on violence and killing in movies, TV and video games.
Post by: rphilbeck on December 27, 2007, 10:06:00 AM
If you study you will quickly realize that our criminal justice system is NOT designed to punish. It is designed to detain. Think about that for a second.
Post by: mgod on December 27, 2007, 10:56:16 AM
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 10:46 |
Why is this distinction not obvious? |
Because the only distinction is the rationale for killing. And the numbers - quantity of death. The Saudis who flew Americans into skyscrapers regarded themselves as soldiers in a war. Its just that their definition of war is different than yours. But not mine - I see it all a war. They killed about 3,000 innocents, and themselves in the process. When we invaded Iraq for not attacking us, we killed hundreds of thousands of innocents. By your definition, US behavior in Iraq is mass murder. Who goes to the chair for it?
DS
Post by: Ashermusic on December 27, 2007, 11:37:34 AM
| mgod wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 15:56 | ||
Because the only distinction is the rationale for killing. And the numbers - quantity of death. The Saudis who flew Americans into skyscrapers regarded themselves as soldiers in a war. Its just that their definition of war is different than yours. But not mine - I see it all a war. They killed about 3,000 innocents, and themselves in the process. When we invaded Iraq for not attacking us, we killed hundreds of thousands of innocents. By your definition, US behavior in Iraq is mass murder. Who goes to the chair for it? DS |
First of all, please link me to the source of your numbers of innocent Iraqi deaths. And please let it b e from a more creditable source than some anti-war group.
1. I am a soldier wearing a uniform. I see you, an opposition solider with a bunch of other soldiers in uniforms in a group. I throw a grenade, killing the soldiers but also I find out some civilians that were standing nearby.
2. Although I consider myself a "soldier" I am not a member of a military group nor am I wearing a uniform. I see you, a soldier wearing a uniform and standing not too far away are some innocent civilians. I walk over to all of you and blow myself up, killing a bunch of civilians as well as you by intention.
In your mind these are morally equivalent acts? If so, respectfully, your moral compass is broken.
Post by: mgod on December 27, 2007, 01:04:58 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 08:37 |
First of all, please link me to the source of your numbers of innocent Iraqi deaths. And please let it b e from a more creditable source than some anti-war group. |
Jay, I'm not even going to address that, its sooooo far out in right field. Its the classic, lame-ass retort from defenders of their preferred wars. Even BushCo itself acknowledges well over 100,000. You my friend, are not the "centrist" you claim, by any stretch of any imagination. But you're the only one that doesn't seem to know that.
http://www.afsc.org/iraq/refugee-crisis.htm
Some wacko, anti-war group - the Quakers (Nixon was one).
| Ashermusic wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 08:37 |
1. I am a soldier wearing a uniform. I see you, an opposition solider with a bunch of other soldiers in uniforms in a group. I throw a grenade, killing the soldiers but also I find out some civilians that were standing nearby. 2. Although I consider myself a "soldier" I am not a member of a military group nor am I wearing a uniform. I see you, a soldier wearing a uniform and standing not too far away are some innocent civilians. I walk over to all of you and blow myself up, killing a bunch of civilians as well as you by intention. In your mind these are morally equivalent acts? If so, respectfully, your moral compass is broken. |
You attempt to manipulate the language you use in order to try to make a situation so specific that it exists only in your perception of the world. So for you, the "moral" distinction comes down to whether or not one considers himself to be in a military group, or more importantly whether others do, and whether or not that person wears a uniform?
And you want to raise the idea of a moral compass?
I'm sorry I just ate breakfast.
DS
Post by: danickstr on December 27, 2007, 01:37:34 PM
I meant that logic will not work against a sick mind. I honestly believe that evil is simply due to a social sickness. Usually it begins at a young age, for a multitude of reasons.
There can be a perverse thrill from evil ,but it is outweighed (in healthy minds) by the rewards of doing good.
NOt that any of us are truly 100% healthy, since our DNA is coded with violent responses that have saved our ancestors' lives, but we have to choose the good path to have a positive part in our society.
What I meant was that logic is no defense against a sick mind.
And killing the guilty is wrong on many levels, as has been eloquently pointed out above, unless it is during an act of self-defense.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 27, 2007, 01:40:54 PM
| mgod wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 18:04 | ||||
Jay, I'm not even going to address that, its sooooo far out in right field. Its the classic, lame-ass retort from defenders of their preferred wars. Even BushCo itself acknowledges well over 100,000. You my friend, are not the "centrist" you claim, by any stretch of any imagination. But you're the only one that doesn't seem to know that. http://www.afsc.org/iraq/refugee-crisis.htm Some wacko, anti-war group - the Quakers (Nixon was one).
You attempt to manipulate the language you use in order to try to make a situation so specific that it exists only in your perception of the world. So for you, the "moral" distinction comes down to whether or not one considers himself to be in a military group, or more importantly whether others do, and whether or not that person wears a uniform? And you want to raise the idea of a moral compass? I'm sorry I just ate breakfast. DS |
So your source is the "Wage Peace" campaign. Wow, I am sure they are coldly objective as they have no agenda. Now, I am the one about to lose breakfast. The Quakers are pacifists and pacifism is an immoral philosophy IMO.
The distinction to me is simply whether one's main objective is to specifically target and kill innocents or an unfortunate byproduct of a military attack. It is not a small difference.
Post by: danickstr on December 27, 2007, 01:57:06 PM
And the few times I have been not quite angry enough to kill someone, life imprisonment was enough of a deterrent to me
Post by: Ashermusic on December 27, 2007, 02:08:17 PM
| danickstr wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 18:57 |
How can you possibly think that someone deranged or angry enough to kill someone will be deterred by the punishment difference being death or life in prison? And the few times I have been not quite angry enough to kill someone, life imprisonment was enough of a deterrent to me |
Are you talkin' to me ?
Are you talkin' to me ?
Where did I argue that deterrence was a reason for capital punishment?
Post by: danickstr on December 27, 2007, 02:31:21 PM
But that does not mean I have accurately addressed your argument.
Post by: rphilbeck on December 27, 2007, 02:41:15 PM
Post by: CCC on December 28, 2007, 01:17:22 AM
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 13:55 |
I was against the death penalty for many years until I read Dennis Prager's book "Think A Second Time." After reading his chapter on the death penalty, which in my mind destroyed every argument I had against it, I realized that my opposition was based on emotion, not reason. And so, I thought a second time and changed my mind. |
Interesting how a religious Christian who advocates for a state that is rooted in Judeo-Christian values has apparently forgotten the spirit of Christian charity, forgiveness, and that messy business about the first stone being cast by the person without sin. I would have thought that a person with a fairly literal view of the Bible, and a deep attachment to the Bible, might be aware of the contents of that book. Evidently not. I guess he's hung up on the "eye for an eye" stuff. The Bible, it would seem, is a convenient supermarket for whatever you "moral" argument you need to make.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 28, 2007, 02:17:54 AM
| JS wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 06:17 | ||
Interesting how a religious Christian who advocates for a state that is rooted in Judeo-Christian values has apparently forgotten the spirit of Christian charity, forgiveness, and that messy business about the first stone being cast by the person without sin. I would have thought that a person with a fairly literal view of the Bible, and a deep attachment to the Bible, might be aware of the contents of that book. Evidently not. I guess he's hung up on the "eye for an eye" stuff. The Bible, it would seem, is a convenient supermarket for whatever you "moral" argument you need to make. |
You are totally wrong about Prager. He is a devout Conservative Jew, not a Christian, and while he respects Christianity he does see it as very different from Judaism especially when it comes to the role of God as a moral judge in the universe.
He certainly does NOT believe that the Torah is literally the word of God. He views it much more allegorically. I took at class from him on Genesis at the University of Judaism here in LA several years ago and he really made it come alive.
I disagree with him about 75% of the time and we got into a long, very heated argument on the radio about 5 years ago but I like that he challenges my assumptions and makes me re-think them. And as I say, on the death penalty he succeeded in changing my mind.
Post by: Daniel Farris on December 28, 2007, 04:51:19 AM
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 10:55 |
Respectfully, you cannot seriously compare the layers of bureaucracy between a court and a bloated mess like the IRS or USPS. |
Oh yes I can.
The death penalty is incompatible with a system where prosecutors are elected officials who actually raise funds and campaign for re-election based on number of convictions.
Many prosecutors simply could not care less about the guilt or innocence of the person they're prosecuting. They're politicians, and they care about being re-elected.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/pm/default.aspx
DF
Post by: Hank Alrich on December 28, 2007, 09:58:33 AM
| Ashermusic wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 10:40 |
The Quakers are pacifists and pacifism is an immoral philosophy IMO. |
So in your line of "reasoning" Mahatma Gandhi was immoral?
If so, your "moral compass" must have some unusual cardinal points.
Post by: mgod on December 28, 2007, 10:40:11 AM
| Ashermusic wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 10:40 |
So your source is the "Wage Peace" campaign. Wow, I am sure they are coldly objective as they have no agenda. Now, I am the one about to lose breakfast. The Quakers are pacifists and pacifism is an immoral philosophy IMO. |
| Ashermusic wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 10:40 |
The distinction to me is simply whether one's main objective is to specifically target and kill innocents or an unfortunate byproduct of a military attack. It is not a small difference. |
I agree with that.
Now put yourself on the ground in Iraq. You lose your daughter in a war started by a distant, invading country. You don't know who actually did the killing because there are fighters and weapons all around. All you know is, you've lost your child who you've raised for 24 years.
Please tell me: how big is the difference between "terrorism" and "shock and awe" to you, the father of the dead girl?
DS
Post by: Ashermusic on December 28, 2007, 11:09:15 AM
| Hank Alrich wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 14:58 | ||
So in your line of "reasoning" Mahatma Gandhi was immoral? If so, your "moral compass" must have some unusual cardinal points. |
Gandhi's way worked because he knew that the British people were decent enough that they would respond eventually to moral outrage and pressure their government, a democracy, to put an end to it.
If Gandhi tried the same tactics against Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia he would have been quickly executed.
What is Burke's quote, something like "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
In specific situations when fighting is the only thing that can succeed, to be pacifistic is immoral. Fighting should always b e the last resort but sometimes it is necessary.
Obviously I am using pacifism with a capital P here.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 28, 2007, 11:14:24 AM
| mgod wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 15:40 | ||||
I agree with that. Now put yourself on the ground in Iraq. You lose your daughter in a war started by a distant, invading country. You don't know who actually did the killing because there are fighters and weapons all around. All you know is, you've lost your child who you've raised for 24 years. Please tell me: how big is the difference between "terrorism" and "shock and awe" to you, the father of the dead girl? DS |
I don't know who has reliable stats, that is why I asked you. But mgod you know FULL WELL that they are not my "friends in the administration " and that I don't trust them at all.
You are absolutely right that in your scenario that to the father it would make no difference just as is would make no diffeence to me if my daughter were killed i.e. by a drunk driver or a cold=blooded rapist/murderer.
But that fact would not make the manners of my daughter's death morally equivalent nor should they be treated as such.
Post by: mgod on December 28, 2007, 11:23:38 AM
| Ashermusic wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 08:09 |
In specific situations when fighting is the only thing that can succeed, to be pacifistic is immoral. Fighting should always b e the last resort but sometimes it is necessary. Obviously I am using pacifism with a capital P here. |
But you're blurring the line all over the place. If some wars are necessary, as I think pretty much the world agrees WWII was, then what of many other wars? Is it sufficient to simply be a soldier in uniform in an unnecessary immoral war to say that its not terrorism that is being practiced on the innocent non-uniformed people in an invaded country?
And if BushCo is right that the US has "only" killed somewhat over 100,000 civilian Iraqis, is this somehow better than your definition of terrorism, simply because thy weren't specifically targeted? Our smart bombs in the first Iraq war were stupid - we knew well by the time of "Shock and Awe™" that we would kill civilians. And we killed away, willingly, for our strategeristic purposes. And this isn't terrorism? Weren't the people of Baghdad terrorized by our uniformed soldiers?
How is that a nation can define itself as exempt from terrorism? Just so we can sleep at night, knowing we've paid for it?
Your concept of moral equivalence is I think very shaky, and morally dubious. It can easily be made to serve what's easy for the perpetrators of violence and death-dealing. Which in this case, in Iraq, is us.
Some Saudis used planes to kill 3000 innocent Americans. In response we invaded a sovereign nation not involved in that act and killed between 100,000 and 655,000 innocents - and not coincidentally, now about 4000 of our own. Somehow, you find a way to justify that response as legitimate and NOT terrorism. The message to the world is "Don't fuck with us! Did you see what we did to those asshole Iraqis who didn't attack us? Just imagine what we'll do to you if you do - unless you're Saudi."
Its beyond me.
DS
Post by: Ashermusic on December 28, 2007, 01:24:46 PM
| mgod wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 16:23 |
[. |
1. Is it sufficient to simply be a soldier in uniform in an unnecessary immoral war to say that its not terrorism that is being practiced on the innocent non-uniformed people in an invaded country?
2., is this somehow better than your definition of terrorism, simply because thy weren't specifically targeted?
3. Your concept of moral equivalence is I think very shaky, and morally dubious. It can easily be made to serve what's easy for the perpetrators of violence and death-dealing. Which in this case, in Iraq, is us.
4. Some Saudis used planes to kill 3000 innocent Americans. In response we invaded a sovereign nation not involved in that act and killed between 100,000 and 655,000 innocents - and not coincidentally, now about 4000 of our own. Somehow, you find a way to justify that response as legitimate and NOT terrorism. The message to the world is "Don't fuck with us! Did you see what we did to those asshole Iraqis who didn't attack us? Just imagine what we'll do to you if you do - unless you're Saudi."
5. Its beyond me.
DS[/quote]
1. Yes, it is sufficient. We don't consider Nazi soldiers terrorists, do we?
2. Yes, there is a huge moral difference in my mind when the targeting of innocents is the PRIMARY goal.
3. Any concept of morality can be twisted.
4. The last line should be, "Don't fuck with us! If you attack our innocent civilians on our own soil and you allow the perpetrators to come and go and train in your country, arm them and support them we are coming after you." And yes, it should have applied to the Saudis as well.
5. Clearly
Post by: PaulyD on December 28, 2007, 01:28:49 PM
I used to work with a young woman who was very much against medical researchers using rats or rhesus monkeys, yet she had no problem regularly dashing out for lunch and returning with various fast-food burgers, chicken nuggets, milkshakes, etc. Like the suffering of rats and small primates for medical research was a horrible thing, but the suffering of cows, pigs and chickens for food is okay. That is ironic.
Paul
Post by: danickstr on December 28, 2007, 02:14:34 PM
Post by: mgod on December 29, 2007, 12:05:29 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 10:24 |
2. Yes, there is a huge moral difference in my mind when the targeting of innocents is the PRIMARY goal. |
This is where we part. The Pentagon has plenty of experience with its own methods and tools. The term collateral damage came about during the Viet Nam war as a way of describing what the men running "our" side of this war had determined for themselves to be acceptable civilian death. Acceptable to them of course, sitting in Virginia.
Its irrelevant what the PRIMARY goal is when both sides know going in that they are causing civilian death. The terrorists intend it as their means, the war machine includes it and calls it "acceptable."
It seems to me that there is something considerably more honorable about suicide bombers taking their own lives while intentionally killing civilians, than fat old mean sitting half a world away sending in young men to kill what they might term "legitimate" targets, with full knowledge that they will also acceptably be taking civilian lives. And as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, likely 100 to 200 times more civilian deaths.
No - we don't call the Nazi soldiers terrorists. But tell me how they're different. Their primary purpose was to terrorize and kill civilians. As was the Allies, in firebombing Dresden.
Even BushCo didn't try very hard to push the lie that Al Qaeda was training in Iraq. Why are you?
DS
Post by: Ashermusic on December 29, 2007, 08:02:13 PM
| mgod wrote on Sat, 29 December 2007 17:05 | ||
This is where we part. The Pentagon has plenty of experience with its own methods and tools. The term collateral damage came about during the Viet Nam war as a way of describing what the men running "our" side of this war had determined for themselves to be acceptable civilian death. Acceptable to them of course, sitting in Virginia. Its irrelevant what the PRIMARY goal is when both sides know going in that they are causing civilian death. The terrorists intend it as their means, the war machine includes it and calls it "acceptable." It seems to me that there is something considerably more honorable about suicide bombers taking their own lives while intentionally killing civilians, than fat old mean sitting half a world away sending in young men to kill what they might term "legitimate" targets, with full knowledge that they will also acceptably be taking civilian lives. And as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, likely 100 to 200 times more civilian deaths. No - we don't call the Nazi soldiers terrorists. But tell me how they're different. Their primary purpose was to terrorize and kill civilians. As was the Allies, in firebombing Dresden. Even BushCo didn't try very hard to push the lie that Al Qaeda was training in Iraq. Why are you? DS |
We can endlessly rebut each other here and change no one's mind. I weigh intent as a bigger factor than you do so at this point we shall simply have to agree to disagree and cast our votes accordingly.
Post by: danickstr on December 29, 2007, 11:54:50 PM
Post by: mgod on December 30, 2007, 10:44:53 AM
What to call them?
DS
Post by: phantom309 on December 30, 2007, 11:10:31 AM
| mgod wrote on Sun, 30 December 2007 08:44 |
I've been thinking this morning about the Blackwater "guards", uniformed mercenaries paid by every US taxpayer, who assassinated 16 innocents in a village a few months ago. What to call them? DS |
Mercenaries.
Post by: maxim on December 30, 2007, 06:24:17 PM
Post by: mgod on December 31, 2007, 12:37:17 PM
| maxim wrote on Sun, 30 December 2007 15:24 |
crack troops?... waffen ss?... murderers?... |
Terrorists?
DS
Post by: RSettee on January 02, 2008, 01:32:14 PM
| maxim wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 21:03 |
http://fiendfolio.blogspot.com/2007/05/hand-wound-monday-cro codile-attack.html |
I have to hand it to that croc--he is one baaad mofo. Geez man, that's ROUGH.
Post by: mgod on January 13, 2008, 05:02:18 PM
http://www.meat.org/index-1.asp?c=MYMblogad1207
Post by: danickstr on January 13, 2008, 08:18:15 PM
The one i saw was called "meet your meat".
I thought it was a porno and it turned out to be a veggie promo.jk
Post by: Tomas Danko on January 14, 2008, 08:00:24 AM
| danickstr wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 01:18 |
IT was a video like that one that finally convinced me to forgo meat products. The one i saw was called "meet your meat". I thought it was a porno and it turned out to be a veggie promo.jk |
Stellar.
I never knew the desire to masturbate could turn someone into a vegetarian!