The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Don't get me wrong, I love eating meat and I'm not going to stop.
But I might start avoiding KFC a little more.
[URL]http://www.peta.org/[/URL] Check out Pammie's video. It's explicit, and there were quite a few scenes that really sickened and shocked me.
I like PETA's methods, but I still don't think about becoming a vegetarian. Animal cruelty, however, is a different subject.
But I might start avoiding KFC a little more.
[URL]http://www.peta.org/[/URL] Check out Pammie's video. It's explicit, and there were quite a few scenes that really sickened and shocked me.
I like PETA's methods, but I still don't think about becoming a vegetarian. Animal cruelty, however, is a different subject.
Page:
lcarus wrote:
"Death is bad. Torturing while alive is worse. But there's more to what I said (your short attention span playing up, I guess) - we've (as in the human race) have killed our prey viciously in the past, yes? I find it bizarre that we can actually place a morality side whilst bringing death at the same time."
"For example, place yourself stealing money from your parents and then asking them for more money. It's the sheer cheek of the two sides of humanity that I find strange."
That's a rather confusing example in the context you're trying to give. I'm assuming here that the stealing is the immoral and the asking is the moral? Or are they both immoral? I thought you were saying killing something is immoral? At least, as Mr Putting Words in Your Mouth here, it seems that way, as you're saying that putting a morality side to it is bizarre.
What I'm trrryying to get at through numbless babbling is, is what's so immoral and bad about killing an animal to eat it? I understand that yes, once upon a time we were savage creatures and tore it apart whilst alive to eat it. Sure.
But we are now evolved creatures, er, I think. We are capable of thought, of understanding and we have developed some sort of morality to what we do to things.
And if there's nothing immoral about killing an animal to eat it, what's the arguement here? Perhaps a better and harsher example would be to say you rape a woman, then you kill her for no reason, right? But that's not what's happening here, we're killing animals to chew them up and poo them out so we can eat sleep and breathe. It's a valid reason. If there was no reason, then I understand completely, but otherwise I'm still confused over why it's bizarre.
"Bless."
Thanks, I'm a sweet guy.
"Care to explain that?"
Ok, about "thinking outside the box".
The reason I think it's stupid is because of the assumption that it's 'the' box and the one and only one. That suddenly, there's no limitations on your thought processes and you have an open mind!
Having an open mind is no more than illusion. Of course some of us are going to be more open minded than others, but I'm sure even Buddha wasn't truly open minded. To say we can possible escape from the 'box' is ridiculous, it can't happen. We can push ourselves, we can open the box -wider- but we can't go outside. Just increase the space inside. That's why I find it stupid.
"Again, of course there isn't. Shame it's not what I said. Ifyou genuinely, subconciously even, cared - then can you say you've given thought to how every animal you've eaten was killed and prepared beforehand?"
Nope. Being naive doesn't mean you don't care, or even if your mind slips from some of the more important things.. Our brains just aren't powerful enough, too many voices and we'd all go insane. We're not designed to think constantly about every little detail.
That doesn't mean we don't care. It doesn't make it bizarre, and it doesn't make it ironic either. It means, with our quite pathetic little minds, we're able to make some sort of distinction, at one point or another, that what is going on is BAD. Those that care don't think about it constantly, that's just stupid. But they may make an effort to change what's going on, even if it is just a small protest and not eating at certain places that they know are doing baaaad things to animals.
"Ugh. How to be a pri ck 101. There was no need for that at all."
Haha, sorry, it was honestly a joke, it wasn't meant to upset you. Seriously, there are no hard feelings here, I only think you're an ass because of all the crap you posted in the secret forums, but this isn't a personal attack, I promise, it's just your viewpoint on a few things I find a little confusing. If I'm repeating myself, contradicting, point me out, I tend to do that occasionally.
"Death is bad. Torturing while alive is worse. But there's more to what I said (your short attention span playing up, I guess) - we've (as in the human race) have killed our prey viciously in the past, yes? I find it bizarre that we can actually place a morality side whilst bringing death at the same time."
"For example, place yourself stealing money from your parents and then asking them for more money. It's the sheer cheek of the two sides of humanity that I find strange."
That's a rather confusing example in the context you're trying to give. I'm assuming here that the stealing is the immoral and the asking is the moral? Or are they both immoral? I thought you were saying killing something is immoral? At least, as Mr Putting Words in Your Mouth here, it seems that way, as you're saying that putting a morality side to it is bizarre.
What I'm trrryying to get at through numbless babbling is, is what's so immoral and bad about killing an animal to eat it? I understand that yes, once upon a time we were savage creatures and tore it apart whilst alive to eat it. Sure.
But we are now evolved creatures, er, I think. We are capable of thought, of understanding and we have developed some sort of morality to what we do to things.
And if there's nothing immoral about killing an animal to eat it, what's the arguement here? Perhaps a better and harsher example would be to say you rape a woman, then you kill her for no reason, right? But that's not what's happening here, we're killing animals to chew them up and poo them out so we can eat sleep and breathe. It's a valid reason. If there was no reason, then I understand completely, but otherwise I'm still confused over why it's bizarre.
"Bless."
Thanks, I'm a sweet guy.
"Care to explain that?"
Ok, about "thinking outside the box".
The reason I think it's stupid is because of the assumption that it's 'the' box and the one and only one. That suddenly, there's no limitations on your thought processes and you have an open mind!
Having an open mind is no more than illusion. Of course some of us are going to be more open minded than others, but I'm sure even Buddha wasn't truly open minded. To say we can possible escape from the 'box' is ridiculous, it can't happen. We can push ourselves, we can open the box -wider- but we can't go outside. Just increase the space inside. That's why I find it stupid.
"Again, of course there isn't. Shame it's not what I said. Ifyou genuinely, subconciously even, cared - then can you say you've given thought to how every animal you've eaten was killed and prepared beforehand?"
Nope. Being naive doesn't mean you don't care, or even if your mind slips from some of the more important things.. Our brains just aren't powerful enough, too many voices and we'd all go insane. We're not designed to think constantly about every little detail.
That doesn't mean we don't care. It doesn't make it bizarre, and it doesn't make it ironic either. It means, with our quite pathetic little minds, we're able to make some sort of distinction, at one point or another, that what is going on is BAD. Those that care don't think about it constantly, that's just stupid. But they may make an effort to change what's going on, even if it is just a small protest and not eating at certain places that they know are doing baaaad things to animals.
"Ugh. How to be a pri ck 101. There was no need for that at all."
Haha, sorry, it was honestly a joke, it wasn't meant to upset you. Seriously, there are no hard feelings here, I only think you're an ass because of all the crap you posted in the secret forums, but this isn't a personal attack, I promise, it's just your viewpoint on a few things I find a little confusing. If I'm repeating myself, contradicting, point me out, I tend to do that occasionally.
I'm glad as a vegetarian I don't support KFC :S
As such a superior race I'd hope that if we're using chickens as meat we might at least make sure they are killed humanely. What kind of person are you who would rather an animal suffered, even if it is going to end up dead anyway?
As such a superior race I'd hope that if we're using chickens as meat we might at least make sure they are killed humanely. What kind of person are you who would rather an animal suffered, even if it is going to end up dead anyway?
Grix Thraves wrote:
> lcarus wrote:
> "Well, what would you call it then? As I said, to develop
> "morals" for something we'd eventually kill is rather
> bizarre."
>
> Yes, and you're suggesting that death is worse than bad treatment in
> life, while someone we know for SURE can still feel? What pain can we
> do once something is dead? And why is it bizarre?
Ugh, la de la to the "words in mouth guy" again. What makes you think I'm suggesting that's better? Of course it's not. To simplify for you:
Death is bad. Torturing while alive is worse. But there's more to what I said (your short attention span playing up, I guess) - we've (as in the human race) have killed our prey viciously in the past, yes? I find it bizarre that we can actually place a morality side whilst bringing death at the same time.
For example, place yourself stealing money from your parents and then asking them for more money. It's the sheer cheek of the two sides of humanity that I find strange.
>
> "Before I go on, you seem to have taken this the wrong
> way."
>
> I kinda did, I just got annoyed at the irony thing, sorry :)
>
Bless.
> "in an ideal world I want to see them being treated with dignity
> and *respect*, but (think outside the box remember)"
>
> Will do! *thumbs up* Thanks! (actually the false pretence that you're
> thinking outside the box or are free whatsoever of thoughts that trap
> you is ridiculous and that saying is incredibly stupid)
Care to explain that?
>
> "as killers do we really care as long as the end product is the
> same?"
>
> Er.. yes? Well I do. I would prefer to kill out of necessity, not out
> of cruelty and fun. There's nothing bad about killing for survival.
Again, of course there isn't. Shame it's not what I said. Ifyou genuinely, subconciously even, cared - then can you say you've given thought to how every animal you've eaten was killed and prepared beforehand?
>
> Yeah, you did! You wrote something else but I ignored that.
Ugh. How to be a pri ck 101. There was no need for that at all.
> lcarus wrote:
> "Well, what would you call it then? As I said, to develop
> "morals" for something we'd eventually kill is rather
> bizarre."
>
> Yes, and you're suggesting that death is worse than bad treatment in
> life, while someone we know for SURE can still feel? What pain can we
> do once something is dead? And why is it bizarre?
Ugh, la de la to the "words in mouth guy" again. What makes you think I'm suggesting that's better? Of course it's not. To simplify for you:
Death is bad. Torturing while alive is worse. But there's more to what I said (your short attention span playing up, I guess) - we've (as in the human race) have killed our prey viciously in the past, yes? I find it bizarre that we can actually place a morality side whilst bringing death at the same time.
For example, place yourself stealing money from your parents and then asking them for more money. It's the sheer cheek of the two sides of humanity that I find strange.
>
> "Before I go on, you seem to have taken this the wrong
> way."
>
> I kinda did, I just got annoyed at the irony thing, sorry :)
>
Bless.
> "in an ideal world I want to see them being treated with dignity
> and *respect*, but (think outside the box remember)"
>
> Will do! *thumbs up* Thanks! (actually the false pretence that you're
> thinking outside the box or are free whatsoever of thoughts that trap
> you is ridiculous and that saying is incredibly stupid)
Care to explain that?
>
> "as killers do we really care as long as the end product is the
> same?"
>
> Er.. yes? Well I do. I would prefer to kill out of necessity, not out
> of cruelty and fun. There's nothing bad about killing for survival.
Again, of course there isn't. Shame it's not what I said. Ifyou genuinely, subconciously even, cared - then can you say you've given thought to how every animal you've eaten was killed and prepared beforehand?
>
> Yeah, you did! You wrote something else but I ignored that.
Ugh. How to be a pri ck 101. There was no need for that at all.
lcarus wrote:
"Well, what would you call it then? As I said, to develop "morals" for something we'd eventually kill is rather bizarre."
Yes, and you're suggesting that death is worse than bad treatment in life, while someone we know for SURE can still feel? What pain can we do once something is dead? And why is it bizarre?
"Before I go on, you seem to have taken this the wrong way."
I kinda did, I just got annoyed at the irony thing, sorry :)
"in an ideal world I want to see them being treated with dignity and *respect*, but (think outside the box remember)"
Will do! *thumbs up* Thanks! (actually the false pretence that you're thinking outside the box or are free whatsoever of thoughts that trap you is ridiculous and that saying is incredibly stupid)
"as killers do we really care as long as the end product is the same?"
Er.. yes? Well I do. I would prefer to kill out of necessity, not out of cruelty and fun. There's nothing bad about killing for survival.
"Well, I seem to have made a linguistic mistake."
Yeah, you did! You wrote something else but I ignored that.
"Well, what would you call it then? As I said, to develop "morals" for something we'd eventually kill is rather bizarre."
Yes, and you're suggesting that death is worse than bad treatment in life, while someone we know for SURE can still feel? What pain can we do once something is dead? And why is it bizarre?
"Before I go on, you seem to have taken this the wrong way."
I kinda did, I just got annoyed at the irony thing, sorry :)
"in an ideal world I want to see them being treated with dignity and *respect*, but (think outside the box remember)"
Will do! *thumbs up* Thanks! (actually the false pretence that you're thinking outside the box or are free whatsoever of thoughts that trap you is ridiculous and that saying is incredibly stupid)
"as killers do we really care as long as the end product is the same?"
Er.. yes? Well I do. I would prefer to kill out of necessity, not out of cruelty and fun. There's nothing bad about killing for survival.
"Well, I seem to have made a linguistic mistake."
Yeah, you did! You wrote something else but I ignored that.
It is heartbreaking. A simple gun to the head or any other frickin' quicker way would be so much more better. Well, not better, but y'know. I suppose it's OH!-so much more hassle to have to find the bullet..
The cutting off of the beaks I never knew they did. They're just helpless little creatures. :( Oh well. I guess it's who we are. Shame we have to eat things which once had feelings.
Someone's gotta help them. I think I'll go walkies at midnight and release all the chickens in the country.
The cutting off of the beaks I never knew they did. They're just helpless little creatures. :( Oh well. I guess it's who we are. Shame we have to eat things which once had feelings.
Someone's gotta help them. I think I'll go walkies at midnight and release all the chickens in the country.
The best of the forum, eh? Pull out your CV, it's time to edit!
Ayyeeee *thumbs up*
Hear that everybody else? I'm the best.
Iams are bad too, as are that company that makes Pringles, as are.. everyone. I'd eat paper but they'd cut all the trees down. I think the only solution really is to just eat yourself, it's the only humane way where we can't harm or do anything.
Hear that everybody else? I'm the best.
Iams are bad too, as are that company that makes Pringles, as are.. everyone. I'd eat paper but they'd cut all the trees down. I think the only solution really is to just eat yourself, it's the only humane way where we can't harm or do anything.
Grix Thraves wrote:
> i·ro·ny (ī'rə-nē,
> ī'ər-) pronunciation
> n., pl. -nies.
Well, what would you call it then? As I said, to develop "morals" for something we'd eventually kill is rather bizarre.
Before I go on, you seem to have taken this the wrong way. I don't condone the excessive cruelty displayed, neither do I want to be a cautious veggie the first sign I see of cruelty. I'll continue to eat chicken, and even if I didn't, I wouldn't disagree with the need to shove mass crowds of the blighters in for mass consumption. It's a modern way of life, something that is required for our lives to tick over.
>
> Which would you prefer? Live your life out, get married, have
> children, explore, learn, then go to sleep one night and not wake up,
> then get eaten by me.. or would you rather I kicked you around,
> slammed you into walls and cut your nose off, THEN kill you slowly
> and eat you?
Aha, yes - but now you're thinking from the PoV that is the victim. What would *I* want? Well decisively, I would never have that opportunity, as the decision would ultimately go to the killer i.e. factory chicken worker here. Of course, in an ideal world I want to see them being treated with dignity and *respect*, but (think outside the box remember), as killers do we really care as long as the end product is the same?
Or at least, visit the butcher.
> Being a half-assed predator and respecting your prey isn't really irony.
Well, I seem to have made a linguistic mistake. I'm sure that automatically makes the other points a low priority.
> i·ro·ny (ī'rə-nē,
> ī'ər-) pronunciation
> n., pl. -nies.
Well, what would you call it then? As I said, to develop "morals" for something we'd eventually kill is rather bizarre.
Before I go on, you seem to have taken this the wrong way. I don't condone the excessive cruelty displayed, neither do I want to be a cautious veggie the first sign I see of cruelty. I'll continue to eat chicken, and even if I didn't, I wouldn't disagree with the need to shove mass crowds of the blighters in for mass consumption. It's a modern way of life, something that is required for our lives to tick over.
>
> Which would you prefer? Live your life out, get married, have
> children, explore, learn, then go to sleep one night and not wake up,
> then get eaten by me.. or would you rather I kicked you around,
> slammed you into walls and cut your nose off, THEN kill you slowly
> and eat you?
Aha, yes - but now you're thinking from the PoV that is the victim. What would *I* want? Well decisively, I would never have that opportunity, as the decision would ultimately go to the killer i.e. factory chicken worker here. Of course, in an ideal world I want to see them being treated with dignity and *respect*, but (think outside the box remember), as killers do we really care as long as the end product is the same?
Or at least, visit the butcher.
> Being a half-assed predator and respecting your prey isn't really irony.
Well, I seem to have made a linguistic mistake. I'm sure that automatically makes the other points a low priority.
Yeah..you babble, hunny. Mumble a lot with the Welshy accent, too. :P But, the difference between you and most others around here is that you actually have something worthwhile to say. *mwah* I love you for that.
God I babble.
Page: