Meat is Murder?

[Buzzetta]

What does "cheeky" mean to you UK'rs? Cannot find that meaning on the internet.

 

[nugz]

What does "cheeky" mean to you UK'rs? Cannot find that meaning on the internet.

i think its basically means naughty. and YOU are very naughty! *spank spank*

 

[Buzzetta]

For the record these were not some of my better photos. However, I cannot wait for "blah blah blah jack***" to respond.

 

[Amy]

What does "cheeky" mean to you UK'rs? Cannot find that meaning on the internet.

Depends on the context really. I guess 'naughty' would fit but only if you were referring to a child (No spanking, Nugz! ). It is more similar to 'flippant'. Eg, if a child backchats a teacher, is it being cheeky. Or if a child makes an insensitive comment, eg "you have a big arse, Miss" then it is being cheeky. The word isn't much used with adults.

 

[nugz]

Depends on the context really. I guess 'naughty' would fit but only if you were referring to a child (No spanking, Nugz! ). It is more similar to 'flippant'. Eg, if a child backchats a teacher, is it being cheeky. Or if a child makes an insensitive comment, eg "you have a big arse, Miss" then it is being cheeky. The word isn't much used with adults.

oh dammit!!! Buzzetta you are off the hook from spanking.....THIS TIME!

 

[Buzzetta]

Depends on the context really. I guess 'naughty' would fit but only if you were referring to a child (No spanking, Nugz! ). It is more similar to 'flippant'. Eg, if a child backchats a teacher, is it being cheeky. Or if a child makes an insensitive comment, eg "you have a big arse, Miss" then it is being cheeky. The word isn't much used with adults.

Ohhh.... I was just called cheeky in another thread and it went waaay over my head.

 

[vicarinatutugal]

What does "cheeky" mean to you UK'rs? Cannot find that meaning on the internet.

aww I confused you.. sorry. cheeky chops

 

[Amy]

aww I confused you.. sorry.cheeky chops

LOL, you called Buzzetta cheeky chops?

 

[vicarinatutugal]

LOL, you called Buzzetta cheeky chops?

I did, he is a little cheeky chops.

 

[vegan-soldier]

Well I would say Meat is murder. I just want to hear if all mozzers are vegetarians, if not why? And if you are, do you have anything smart I can say to people who eat meat. Cos I really tried to make them understand but they really love their steak. And I doubt most of them will ever understand.

I was a vegeterian before The Smiths came into my life. That just made it final with Meat is Murder.

You always get the arses who say..."You stepped on an ant, how dare you...Murderer! But you won't eat a piece of meat?"

These people have little of anything upstairs. I loved the comment about propaganda films. Showing what actually goes on in a factory farm is called a documentary I believe. Then when you also think of the type of people who could do that job and those people are the ones getting that decaying flesh all ready for the consumer. WOW. People who beat and abuse animals on a daily basis because they are so desensitized to it.

And I also find it amusing how people tend to say..."Oh, I don't think about what I'm eating" or "I don't like to think that this came from that cute little animal."

And to be a bigger arse, there are those who will go out of their way to post pictures of themselves eating some shite and actually think it's funny. I suppose, in some pathetic world it just might be funny. Glad I don't live in that strange place.

These threads about Morrissey's "Militancy" (OK)....always bring out the worst in folks.

I highly respect you for bringing the topic up. Very interesting to see what people think will make others angry. From a psychological point of view...these people are called A$$-Holes.

Sincerely,

 

[Not Right in the Head]

I was a vegeterian before The Smiths came into my life. That just made it final with Meat is Murder.

Posting in large-size Comic Sans is a worse crime than anything else that's been brought up in this thread.

 

[Amy]

Posting in large-size Comic Sans is a worse crime than anything else that's been brought up in this thread.

I think he's just trying to make sure his point is heard

 

[2-J]

You always get the arses who say..."You stepped on an ant, how dare you...Murderer! But you won't eat a piece of meat?"

Okay so what is the difference, enlighten us. Also, quit using the A$$-Holish font and text size, k?

 

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

This Thread Is Getting Even Too Hateful For Me, I'm Outa Here

 

[Amatis]

The claws come out.. Well, we can't argue very much on this point as it comes down to a matter of opinion. That killing animals for food is morally wrong. I think this should be done in the quickest and least painful manner, I won't eat veal (except for the extremely rare scenario where someone else has already prepared it, like a social event.) and I think the animals should be allowed to graze and not have to be pumped up with antibiotics. This is ultimately an unbridgeable chasm, as i said it's a matter of opinion.

True, it is basically a matter of opinion. Arguing over the internet is such great fun though. You say that you think that animals should be killed in the quickest and least painful manner possible, yet every day you're financially supporting an industry that subjects them to what amounts to torture. By giving your money to these people you're accepting the methods they use, the vast majority of which are far from quick or painless. Animals aren't allowed to graze, they're kept in vast sheds in pens not much bigger than themselves, and they're pumped full of antibiotics and all other manners of shit. This is the norm. Whatever your feelings are towards the way they are treated, by continuing to buy animal products you're basically saying "I don't agree with the methods you use but I'm going to continue buying meat from you so, you know, just carry on doing what you're doing." These practices are going to continue until it becomes unprofitable for the industry, which is sure as hell not going to happen if people keep their objections to themselves and continue buying bacon double cheeseburgers or whatever.

I didn't mean to suggest they do, but I bet more than a few KILL them, and they DO feel pain.

Ah, I see your point now. Undoubtedly some vegetarians do kill rodents and insects but any hypocrisy on their part only serves to make them look a bit daft; it doesn't absolve anyone else.

I bet most are probably just very poor people, probably quite a few immigrants, and it's probably a very well-paying blue-collar job, that someone without a degree could get to support they're family. I'd be much more wary of postal workers, as they seem to be the most likely to snap.

True, a lot of people don't have a choice in the matter and have families to support and such. A far better example would be people who hunt or fish. Deriving pleasure from killing another animal seems morally questionable to say the least.

Well, the "no gods" part applies to all species as god is a mythological construct, in many ways not so different from robin hood or the cat in the hat, but the masters part, absolutely. Exactly.

Well I think appointing our species as rulers over all others doesn't exactly reflect anti-authoritarian values. It's not doing away with hierarchy, it's just putting us at the top of it. Anarchism promotes liberty and equality and I think supporting these ideas while perpetuating our unquestioned dominion over animals doesn't make sense, just as racist, homophobic or patriarchal anarchism doesn't. They're all based on differences between us, silly differences like what someone's got between their legs or where they grew up, which are exploited to turn situations into "us vs. them" and alienate us from each other. I'm not saying we should give animals nice big hugs and invite them round for tea, it'd just be better if we didn't pointlessly kill them I reckon.

Well, actually, the DICTIONARY defines murder as the killing of a human being, specifically. This is EXACTLY why the word is used. Even if said individuals aren't actually retarded enough to believe that they are the same, is deliberately invoking the word to draw comparison where there shouldn't be.

My dictionary (Chambers) also defines it as: "slaughter or death that is felt to be needless, brutal or blameworthy, as a result of recklessness, excessive or foolish behaviour, etc." Who gives a toss about semantics anyway? Perhaps we should come up with another slogan. It has to be alliterative though. Meat is Minging?

I would prefer that the animals suffer as little as possible, as stated, but I have no illusions, I used to work in a butchers' shop, and I still do occasionally. They don't get WHOLE cows there, but many large segments, and they look like what they are. I have no illusions that a steak simply materializes on a plate.

I realise you don't but I think a lot of people do, particularly children. Up until I was a certain age I don't think I actually realised I was eating an animal. I mean I knew it was a chicken or whatever, if you held up a picture of a live chicken and a dead one on a plate I knew they were the same thing but you just don't make the mental connection of how one became the other. Even after realising it had to be killed for us to eat it, I thought it grew up in a nice field like on the packet and it died of old age or summat.

It COMPLETELY changes the morality of killing them. Anyone who kills animals not for food, safety, or survival, is a sadist. This is the biggest precursor to serial murder. (The REAL kind.) regardless of the fact that a grown human being CAN survive without eating meat, it is not killed and eaten for the joy of taking it's life, it is done to aid in survival, even if it is not imperative. Now you're doing something equally rediculous to the aforementioned slogan by comparing penned animals to slaves. If I was black i'd probably find that a lot more offensive, but regardless it's a rediculous analogy. You're doing the same thing, comparing those who keep livestock to slave traders. Preposterous.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think someone's background or past experiences makes torturing and killing them any less cruel or sadistic. It doesn't change the amount of pain they can feel. But is it really survival if it's not imperative? Killing an animal in the wild if you had no other possible food sources, that's survival. Nipping down to Tesco and picking between a hamburger or a veggie burger? It's not a question of survival if you have a choice.

Why is it a ridiculous analogy? Those who keep livestock and those who keep slaves are both confining a living creature against their will, inflicting pain and cruelty upon them for no reason other than the fact that it makes life more pleasant or convenient for them. Humans are animals. We are part of the animal kingdom. It's strange how some people find the mention of this offensive. True, we have evolved to the point of having intelligence and morality etc. but those things are completely irrelevant in relation to this issue. The fact that we can do calculus or create art has no bearing on the amount of pain we can suffer, it doesn't give us some sort of enhanced capacity for pain that makes it morally OK to kill other, 'lesser' animals.

Well, if you gorge yourself consistantly thats' probably true... However, a sensible diet that meets you're basic dietary needs is not necessarily harmful at all. Moreover, this generally only affects the obese, which i already discounted, and the middle aged, mostly men, as heart disease is rare in women. Also metabolism plays a huge part. My diet consists of pizza, whole milk, burgers, ribs, subs, etc, but i have a very fast metabolism and i eat sometimes four (or more) meals a day and retain a consistant weight, I'm even fairly thin, I didn't gain weight until I started drinking a lot of beer. How much vegetable matter would I have to consume to be equivalent?

True, but with 20% of the deaths in the United States caused by heart disease, it seems a fair number of people are gorging themselves nowadays. Metabolism does play a part, but so does the type of food you're eating. I went from being very overweight, perhaps verging on obese, to a healthy weight after doing nothing except cutting out animal products from my diet. I actually exercise less than I did when I was fat, yet I'm more toned and feel a lot more healthy overall. While I concede metabolism is a factor, I don't think it's any more so than diet. I'm not a nutritionist, I don't know your exact calorific requirements, and although I've never met a fat vegan I've never met an overly thin one either. All the things you mentioned can easily be made vegetarian or vegan, it's not as if you'd be counting on lettuce leaves and carrot sticks to fill you up.

 

[Amatis]

Is there anything printed by a PEDIATRICIAN that says that it is totally safe to raise a child vegan from birth? all I found was stuff written by vegans, not doctors, and even if a nutritionist says so, it's not the same.
I have to give you one thing, you're the smartest veggo I've ever argued with, however thats' not too much of a compliment.

A quick look on Google led me to an article by the American Dietetic Association which states that:

"Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer."

You asked about paediatricians specifically though, so here's an article about (get this) Dr. Benjamin Spock who advocates a completely vegan diet and here's one about Dr. Charles Attwood, who recommends a completely vegetarian diet for children, with a very limited amount of dairy. You might also want to check out 'Pregnancy, Children and the Vegan Diet' by Michael Klaper M.D.

Haha, er, thanks... I think.

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

Posting in large-size Comic Sans is a worse crime than anything else that's been brought up in this thread.

Amen to that. Possibly the most vile font ever. You can't imagine the uproar when I had to convince my workplace that it was not an appropriate font for business letters. You'd have thought I killed someone's kitten for the outrage that was expressed.

 

[Walkers Crisp]

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

I'm not going to requote Amatis' long posts, but I agree with most of what's been said.

I was always uncomfortable with eating animals, but did it anyway because it was easier not to challenge the status quo. But a realistic look at the practicalities of eating animal flesh in our society makes the decision an easy one. Creatures are commodified, brutalized, reared in conditions that anyone with eyes cannot fail to agree are inhumane. Then they are slaughtered by the most financially expeditious means possible. The industrialization of the food industry has served to decrease the healthfulness of our food as it has lowered the costs. Food is being centrally prepared, then shipped long distances, necessitating increased use of preservatives, and increasing the risk of spoilage and contamination.

In American culture, portion sizes are ridiculously distorted. No one really has any idea how much they should be eating, when they are hungry, when they are full, or even what tastes good.

We are killing ourselves with convenience foods. Not eating animal flesh is just one step in the process of paying attention to what you eat and whether it is actually going to help you or harm you.

I'm not perfect, if I were doing everything I should, I would eat a completely vegan diet of locally-grown food. But I'm not, I do what I can and that's a start.

 

[Buzzetta]

.

Well I think appointing our species as rulers over all others doesn't exactly reflect anti-authoritarian values. It's not doing away with hierarchy, it's just putting us at the top of it. Anarchism promotes liberty and equality and I think supporting these ideas while perpetuating our unquestioned dominion over animals doesn't make sense, just as racist, homophobic or patriarchal anarchism doesn't. They're all based on differences between us, silly differences like what someone's got between their legs or where they grew up, which are exploited to turn situations into "us vs. them" and alienate us from each other. I'm not saying we should give animals nice big hugs and invite them round for tea, it'd just be better if we didn't pointlessly kill them I reckon.

This is all under the notion that animals enjoy the same rights as humans. I have stated this in another thread and am simply going to repeat myself here. Lets talk priorities. To the parents out there.... the house is burning. You have time to save one the family dog or your daughter. Anyone who even considered saving the dog over your child, please go get yourself sterilized. Who has priority family or strangers? Obviously family. See where I am going with this? Human nature is we protect our own. Humans are valued to humans over any other creatures. I would save or assist one human stranger (and I do) before I would consider donating one cent to any cause assisting anything to do with animals.

My dictionary (Chambers) also defines it as: "slaughter or death that is felt to be needless, brutal or blameworthy, as a result of recklessness, excessive or foolish behaviour, etc." Who gives a toss about semantics anyway? Perhaps we should come up with another slogan. It has to be alliterative though. Meat is Minging?
I guess you could try to slant that towards your ideas that consumption of animals is murder if you ever considered animals to be of the same rights as people. Which I do not nor do others.

Killing an animal in the wild if you had no other possible food sources, that's survival. Nipping down to Tesco and picking between a hamburger or a veggie burger? It's not a question of survival if you have a choice.
The animals that are used as a food source were created bred and slaughtered to their end of being a food source. These are not animals removed from the wild. These animals exist for the sole purpose of being on my plate.

Why is it a ridiculous analogy? Those who keep livestock and those who keep slaves are both confining a living creature against their will, inflicting pain and cruelty upon them for no reason other than the fact that it makes life more pleasant or convenient for them.
Try this again, by simply cut and pasting what I wrote in another thread. Slavery involved people. Slavery did not involve animals.
Tired of the slavery argument. Animals are not people.

You PETA terrorist supporting sheep need to stop equating the dutch introduced enslavement of africans to the americas, the spanish enslavement of native americans and the roman enslavement of the poor (among others) to a hamburger.

Animals are not people - as I have so clearly mentioned elsewhere, I would save one human life over 1000 animals any day of the week and twice on Sunday.