Vegetarians taste better

Quote from: dionysusVegetarians taste better

Quote from: dionysusIs it just me or are a lot of people unable to read? Or, do they simply not understand that the large animal rights/welfare organizations really don't care about people eating meat?

I was specifically talking about anti-carnivores.  a.k.a.: militant vegetarians.  a.k.a.: the people that want to impose their will, ethics, and morals on others.  I do know the difference.

Quote from: dionysusNo more born means fewer dead. Understand?

Not really.  If the goal is to prevent animals from dying without regard to the survival of a species, the logical next step would be to kill off all the other carnivourous animals.  It's a little bit frightening to think about what this might do to the ecosystem.

I'd also submit that We (as a species) haven't had good success trying to willfully manipulate large-scale ecosystems...even with the best intentions (that is, without doing more damage than we prevented).

If you really want to be logical about things, the best thing to do most likely be to "thin the herd" of the human population...but that's not really a very popular position.

Look...I'm all for people who choose to be vegetarian, vegan, kosher, or whatever...for whatever reason they choose.  I also think causes to reduce unnecessary cruelty to animals are noble, but also seem to be plagued with the militant minority.  I also fall into the category of people willing to voice my opinion with my wallet and pay more for products from those that follow what I consider to be acceptable practices and not buy from those I don't...but I don't suffer from any delusions that the majority of the population will do the same....and:

I strongly believe that nothing will change unless there is an economic motivation.

Quote from: BadgerI'd also submit that We (as a species) haven't had good success trying to willfully manipulate large-scale ecosystems

Manipulation such as growing entire species just to feed ourselves, giving them hormones to make them grow bigger, and feeding them on themselves?

Backing off of that is less maniuplative than sustaining it.

And on the other hand, if all you care about is the human species, then you can feed a lot more of it on a diet that relies a lot less on meat.  So in that way, those who care about animals and humans and those who care about only humans, screw the animals, can find a common ground.

Quote from: BadgerNot really.  If the goal is to prevent animals from dying without regard to the survival of a species, the logical next step would be to kill off all the other carnivourous animals.  It's a little bit frightening to think about what this might do to the ecosystem.

I've never heard of anyone proposing killing off preditors.Humans, yes.. Though, I'd have to admit I was a little disapointed at the end of Rainbow 6 when the ecoterrorists failed...

QuoteI'd also submit that We (as a species) haven't had good success trying to willfully manipulate large-scale ecosystems...even with the best intentions (that is, without doing more damage than we prevented).

We, as a species, haven't been very good at many things other than pollution and overpopulation.

QuoteIf you really want to be logical about things, the best thing to do most likely be to "thin the herd" of the human population...but that's not really a very popular position.

Sounds good to me, birth control in water?

QuoteLook...I'm all for people who choose to be vegetarian, vegan, kosher, or whatever...for whatever reason they choose.  I also think causes to reduce unnecessary cruelty to animals are noble, but also seem to be plagued with the militant minority.

I guess it must be me, because I've never seen this "millitant minority" sure heard stories about them. But all second hand, from 25 years ago. Can't recall seing or reading a single instance of violent animal rights protests, but I was born in the 80s, so it could simply be leftover sentiment from before then.

QuoteI also fall into the category of people willing to voice my opinion with my wallet and pay more for products from those that follow what I consider to be acceptable practices and not buy from those I don't...

Cool! Keep it up!

Quote from: Roadstergal

Quote from: BadgerI'd also submit that We (as a species) haven't had good success trying to willfully manipulate large-scale ecosystems

Manipulation such as growing entire species just to feed ourselves, giving them hormones to make them grow bigger, and feeding them on themselves?

I knew someone was going to jump on this...I was more referring to introducing foreign sepecies to do population control of other foreign species we've inadvertently introduced, building dams and levies in general, trying to prevent wildfires (before 'controlled burns' were in vogue), and that kind of thing.  But...I didn't say we don't do it, I just pointed out that (in the long term) we haven't had good success.  Mad cow disease, anyone?  Bird flu?  You could probably extend it to potato blight, citrus cankar, and the banana thing that dionysus pointed out (hadn't heard of that one), and any of scores of other problems.  I think it's hard to discount that these things are the result of the manipulations you point out.  Thus I think the point still stands...not a good track record, we just haven't yet seen the final impact of our hubris.

Quote from: Roadstergal
And on the other hand, if all you care about is the human species, then you can feed a lot more of it on a diet that relies a lot less on meat.  So in that way, those who care about animals and humans and those who care about only humans, screw the animals, can find a common ground.

There is the other option:  trend toward -fewer- people, and thus the demand for all resources goes down (or at least stabilizes).  Regardless of how efficiently we can feed people, unrestricted population growth will inevitably allow consumption to outpace any efficiency.  I say, screw the humans.  I am of the opinion that We (as a species) are overly concerned with keeping people alive indefinitely, producing as many offspring as possible, and generally causing unsustainable population growth.

Like I said...not a very popular position.  I don't really hold the human race in general in very high regard sometimes.

That, and I'm in a grumpy mood today.

Quote from: Roadstergal

Quote from: dionysusVegetarians taste better

So do spinning instructors.  

 

Quote from: dionysusSounds good to me, birth control in water?

I'd settle for a 'breeding tax'...or a tax credit for sterilization with fewer than 2 children.  Remember:

Quote from: BadgerI strongly believe that nothing will change unless there is an economic motivation.

Screw the "breeding tax". What we need to do is stop giving such large tax breaks for people with children.

I think it is ABSURD that I can pay a good $4-5g a year and get nothing back, and my co workers who make the same amount get most, if not all, of their money back. One co-worker got back almost everything she paid in, because she has kids.

I say, if you have kids - YOU suport them - not me. Having children should not give anyone a tax break. Children are a CHOICE; a costly expensive yes, but still a choice.

Quote from: PhaedrusScrew the "breeding tax". What we need to do is stop giving such large tax breaks for people with children.

Sorry, I thought that was implied in the breeding tax.  Woudn't make much sense to tax people then give it right back, would it?

Quote from: PhaedrusI say, if you have kids - YOU suport them - not me. Having children should not give anyone a tax break. Children are a CHOICE; a costly expensive yes, but still a choice.

Must...resist...urge...to...post...about...current...administration's...policies. Gaaaaaah! That's probably the shortcut to the tard farm.

you mean to tell me you guys aren't in VHEMT?
http://www.vhemt.org/

it seems to me that we are lacking a predator at the top of the system.

Quote from: BadgerLike I said...not a very popular position.  I don't really hold the human race in general in very high regard sometimes.

I'm witcha.  Birth control is absofreakinglutely a big priority that is being ignored.  We're spending billions on fertility treatments when we have way too much fertility as a species.

Quote from: davipuit seems to me that we are lacking a predator at the top of the system.

You sir, are an idiot! (I was waiting for the right opportunity to say that, but could not hold it in any longer   )

Anyways, I think voluntary human extinction isn't as crazy as it sounds.   The site is interesting, anyway. Good find.

Quote from: davipuit seems to me that we are lacking a predator at the top of the system.

Are you looking for volunteers?  

Thats just great:

QuoteTwo is better than four, and one is twice as good as two, but to purposely set out to create even one more of us today is the moral equivalent of selling berths on a sinking ship.

Quote from: RoadstergalI'm witcha.  Birth control is absofreakinglutely a big priority that is being ignored.  We're spending billions on fertility treatments when we have way too much fertility as a species.

That's because the Republican God wants us to have 16 children each.  :dunno:

Quote from: pandy

Quote from: RoadstergalI'm witcha.  Birth control is absofreakinglutely a big priority that is being ignored.  We're spending billions on fertility treatments when we have way too much fertility as a species.

That's because the Republican God wants us to have 16 children each.  :dunno:

As long as they aren't very well educated.

Quotedavipu wrote:
it seems to me that we are lacking a predator at the top of the system.

Are you looking for volunteers?

yeah, I'm going to start a cult.


and how is that a idiotic statment? if we had a predetor that fed on humans we whouldn't have overpuplation problems.

From IRS Form 1040 instructions, Line 6c, Column (4):

QuoteIf you have a qualifying child, you may be able to take the child tax credit on line 51 and the additional child tax credit on line 67.

Those credits are, of course, in addition to the exemptions.

If there is a better indicator that the government wants people to "be fruitful and multiply" I haven't seen it.  I mean, give me a break...It's actually called the "additional child tax credit".  

I give up.

I would *like* to think it's due to the fact that children are not at fault for the fact that their parents might have had more children than they could afford. Most of the social programs (eg. Social Security, Welfare, etc) have come from the Democatic party. I wonder if this is true for the tax exemptions for children?

As a fiscal conservative, I do believe that we're in a world of money trouble in this country.

As a human being and a mother, I can't blame the children for something that's not their fault. Unfortunately, removing the tax exemptions would hurt those that are blameless: the children. Now, I couldn't disagree with the tax exemptions/credits disappearing when the parents reach a certain level of income, but that's not likely to happen under this administration.