The Meat Thread

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
We've just had a paradigm shift. Our politicians realised that if they were lapdog to American adventurism again without a clear UN mandate,they would be destroyed at the next election. They put their own careers first to defy the Prime Minister for the first time since 1702 or some such date. As a result, Obama is actually forced to present a cogent argument to Congress. This is not trivial. No one can explain why we should act on Syria but ignore the catastrophes in North Korea and elsewhere. America is not the world, nor is the UK. I'm glad to see we're making some progress in accepting our post-hegemonic state. America is next to realise that there's only so many wars a Caesar can wage before the treasury is empty........

"Won't get fooled again"

That's it, in a nutshell.
 

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
I never said she was professional. You discovered that when you researched her and posted an anonymous rant you could respond to in the morning as realitybites after you cried yourself to sleep from not taking my opinions seriously. :D

Researched her? How? I have no clue what her real name is. I have known of her since 2004 from MorrisseyMusic. She has always been a kind and consistent--albeit infrequent--contributor. That is all I know.

You are too weird to describe with words.
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
Researched her? How? I have no clue what her real name is. I have known of her since 2004 from MorrisseyMusic. She has always been a kind and consistent--albeit infrequent--contributor. That is all I know.

You are too weird to describe with words.

I keep my culture and education and vagina hidden.
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
Trashy, unsophisticated, and unsightly things should be hidden from view. Good call.

You copy, mimic and recite. You barely know yourself, in what universe do you think you have me figured out?
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
I think I just found your flickr account. Will that help me figure you out?

You wax intellectual then judge others based on their poor writing style, yet you have nothing to say. You add nothing to discussion other than assertions of agreeing or disagreeing with a statement and backing up said assertions with some quote or tidbit designed NOT to add to the discussion but placed there to make you look smart. "Look reader, I am educated and reference other sources. Look reader, I read Salon because I'm an edge-y free-thinking liberal. Look reader, I have wikipedia on speed dial." You create nothing. You take pictures and claim the beauty as your own. You claim your city is beautiful but instead of referencing nature or the splendor of life, it is beautiful because you live there. You write a narcissistic blog that is all about you, you, you, and post here that people are less cultured than you yet are blind to seeing that rampant ego-mania is the epitome of not having any culture at all. The world revolves around you. When your lackey's leave, you change your tune faster than a politician pandering to a crowd of potential voters, NOW all of a sudden you are a Morrissey fan. Maybe Morrissey blurred the MIM video because he was being sensitive to the portion of the crowd he abhors, the selfish f***tards who care more about ME ME ME than the beauty and sensitivity of life. You take, you do not give. You have not a creative thought in your stupid skull, all you do is copy and paste and take credit for the beauty or the song or the idea conveyed and wait in the wings hoping someone will notice and you wonder why they don't. They don't notice because you are boring.
 

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
You wax intellectual then judge others based on their poor writing style, yet you have nothing to say. You add nothing to discussion other than assertions of agreeing or disagreeing with a statement and backing up said assertions with some quote or tidbit designed NOT to add to the discussion but placed there to make you look smart. "Look reader, I am educated and reference other sources. Look reader, I read Salon because I'm an edge-y free-thinking liberal. Look reader, I have wikipedia on speed dial." You create nothing. You take pictures and claim the beauty as your own. You claim your city is beautiful but instead of referencing nature or the splendor of life, it is beautiful because you live there. You write a narcissistic blog that is all about you, you, you, and post here that people are less cultured than you yet are blind to seeing that rampant ego-mania is the epitome of not having any culture at all. The world revolves around you. When your lackey's leave, you change your tune faster than a politician pandering to a crowd of potential voters, NOW all of a sudden you are a Morrissey fan. Maybe Morrissey blurred the MIM video because he was being sensitive to the portion of the crowd he abhors, the selfish f***tards who care more about ME ME ME than the beauty and sensitivity of life. You take, you do not give. You have not a creative thought in your stupid skull, all you do is copy and paste and take credit for the beauty or the song or the idea conveyed and wait in the wings hoping someone will notice and you wonder why they don't. They don't notice because you are boring.

You are abusive. Have no ability to have a normal discussion with anyone. What a shame. I honestly cannot interact with you an any level. You are like an angry, damaged child. Have fun talking to yourself in the off topic fight and symbolic threads. I'm in need of another mental cleanse. You have a way of draining the lifeblood from people. I'm certain you are told this often.
 
Last edited:

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
Yopur flickr account reve

You are abusive. Have no ability to have a normal discussion with anyone. What a shame. I honestly cannot interact with you an any level. You are like an angry, damaged child. Have fun talking to yourself in the off topic fight and symbolic threads. I'm in need of another mental cleanse. You have a way of draining the lifeblood from people. I'm certain you are told this often.

Nope.
 

kissmyshadestoo

Nobody ever looks at me twice
Went to my local racetrack today for a beer and BBQfest.....brisket sandwich....and rib sampler
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2013-09-01 at 9.45.48 PM.png
    Screen shot 2013-09-01 at 9.45.48 PM.png
    249.9 KB · Views: 3
  • Screen shot 2013-09-01 at 9.40.06 PM.png
    Screen shot 2013-09-01 at 9.40.06 PM.png
    353.5 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:

BrummieBoy

BrummieBoy
I agree. We don't need to eat animal flesh in the developed world. We have cheap access to vegetable and grain proteins. We also don't have to drive or fly on a plane... two things that make us dependent on oil--wreaking havoc on the environment and leading to global unrest. Nobody is exempt from making selfish choices out of convenience, greed, or for pleasure. No one. We all have our own causes. Yours is animal rights. I respect your decision. Just like I respect a woman who is opposed to abortion, or for it. It comes down to personal choice to me.

Asking someone who derives great pleasure from foods which contain animal products, to give that up, is like asking them to never have sex again and only to masturbate. No one needs sex to survive either. As long as fertility is at replacement levels, we will continue to propagate the Earth. But most prefer sex to masturbating. And most prefer a meat based diet to a meatless one. Most vegetarians I have met don't even like the taste of meat and feel like they are not missing anything. I, however, would feel greatly cheated and deprived. I have a wonderful palate that enjoys being spoiled.

Why is it acceptable to kill and eat and animal but taboo to have sex with them? If you were an animal, the trauma of being sexually abused would be disturbing, but would it be preferable to being killed for food? If animals have no rights over their bodies and their pain and discomfort is irrelevant, why shouldn't people be able to have sex with them? I'm not advocating for that, just do not see a meaningful distinction.

Most people don't make the connection between their lifestyle and other factors. They fly without realising they are damaging the planet and they eat meat without realising what actually happens to most of the animals they eat.

I'll leave your thread in peace!

regards.
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
Why is it acceptable to kill and eat and animal but taboo to have sex with them? If you were an animal, the trauma of being sexually abused would be disturbing, but would it be preferable to being killed for food? If animals have no rights over their bodies and their pain and discomfort is irrelevant, why shouldn't people be able to have sex with them? I'm not advocating for that, just do not see a meaningful distinction.

Most people don't make the connection between their lifestyle and other factors. They fly without realising they are damaging the planet and they eat meat without realising what actually happens to most of the animals they eat.

I'll leave your thread in peace!

regards.

Excellent point.
 

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
Why is it acceptable to kill and eat and animal but taboo to have sex with them? If you were an animal, the trauma of being sexually abused would be disturbing, but would it be preferable to being killed for food? If animals have no rights over their bodies and their pain and discomfort is irrelevant, why shouldn't people be able to have sex with them? I'm not advocating for that, just do not see a meaningful distinction.

Most people don't make the connection between their lifestyle and other factors. They fly without realising they are damaging the planet and they eat meat without realising what actually happens to most of the animals they eat.

I'll leave your thread in peace!

regards.

Great question. One which, admittedly, I hadn't given much thought to until now. So I am glad you asked.

Let's see, behavior is formally regulated by two major institutions: government and religion. Also, rights are regulated/granted/defined by these as well. Both animal and human.

At the begging of civilization, before there was a concept of animal rights, humans were thought to have dominion over animals. They could use them for food and labor... and sexual pleasure? Maybe. Maybe not. That is where religion stepped in and regulated sexual behavior. In all sorts of ways. Many things were off limits... sex before marriage, sex outside of marriage, sex with a person of the same sex, oral sex, anal sex, and sex with animals. The church/temple/tribal heads regulated this stuff and doled out sanctions to violators. Stoning anyone?

Ah, then came the Age of Enlightenment, thank god! No, no god; god is dead. Modernism... religion began to lose its power... Mill, Bentham... human rights... the end of slavery... women's suffrage... child labor laws... animal welfare... The Jungle... church replaced by government... regulation of sexuality under the banner, crimes against nature.

Postmodernism... Peter Singer, Peta... animal rights/liberation... secularism... gay rights... veganism.

Today, we are more relaxed in our regulation of sexuality. The church has taken a backseat to government. Separation of church and state. And the people have spoken... they want to do as they please. It is all about privacy now. Laws have been created to protect the individual's privacy. It's nobody's business. Many acts are no longer considered crimes against nature. But it is still a taboo to have sex with animals because it has been decided that animals cannot offer consent. Just like rape is not acceptable for the same reason... lack of consent. But what if an animal could give consent? What if a great ape showed measurable ability to offer such consent... be it through initiation and/or enthusiasm? Would that be considered consent? If not, why? What if Peter Singer gets his way and great apes are granted... not animal protection... but rights? Wouldn't they then have the right to privacy... and the right to have sex with whomever they wish, just like humans? Would we have to pass laws forbidding them to have sex with humans? Slippery slope, eh? Someone, or many, are thinking about these things... and sitting around discussing them in some think tank somewhere in the world, right now, as I am typing this. Btw, I am in my own think tank of one, at the moment.

At the same time, laws have been created to protect animals from cruelty, mistreatment, and exploitation. Dominion over animals is replaced with duty to protect.

Anyhow, so why can we eat animals and not have sex with them? Well, we can have sex with them in 17 of the 50 states in the US. Want to have a go with poochie, live in one of these states... Guam, American Samoa, Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia. Ohio? Interesting.

Until recently, there were no laws against it in Washington state. But this all changed in 2005 after a man died after having anal sex--and videotaping it--with a horse. Not sure if you heard about this. A documentary titled, Zoo, was made about it. Worth watching if you get a chance. Prior to this incident, zoophilia had been legal in Washington state for 117 years. Then a bill was passed to outlaw it. The bill states it is illegal on the grounds that it is cruel. Could be cruel. I bet some animal would beg to differ. It all depends on what was being done and by whom, where, and how. It may in fact be quite pleasurable for the animal. Manual stimulation of a dog's genitals by a human hand wouldn't seem to cause emotional or physical pain to the dog, would it?

This can change in the future in several ways... animals get more protection, and all states and more/all countries outlaw zoophilia. Or, maybe, great apes get rights and can now have sex with humans? Or not. Maybe there will be laws against it... extraspecies regulation... much like the current anti-zoophilia laws on the books. Or will it be a speciesism thing... like racism? Will apes fight for civil rights... the rights and privileges that humans are afforded? And then... comes same sex marriage between apes? Peter Singer, are you reading this?

So, it seems to be a dichotomy here. On one end of the pole, we have sexual liberation. On the other, animal liberation. At the moment, they seem to be at odds with one another. We want more freedom to have sex with whomever and whenever and wherever and however. At the same time, we want animals to be free from suffering and pain and cruelty and exploitation. Does protecting animals from these things mean we must give up some of out own sexual freedoms?

So to answer your question, Brummie, why is acceptable to kill and eat animals and not have sex with them? Because the government has passed laws against cruelty and the people have decided that eating/killing is not cruel, yet having sexual relations with them is. We are free to eat meat. It is morally and legally acceptable... except by some religions that have instituted dietary restrictions. Why? Because it is still not considered cruel to slaughter animals under the right conditions by the majority of folks. And in a democracy such as ours, the majority get to decide what is right and wrong. Bottom line, it is all about determining what is cruel. We have laws against cruelty. Want meat eating to be illegal? Convince the majority that it is cruel. The majority think it is cruel to have sex with animals, apparently. Really? I think that they just DON'T really need much convincing that it is not OK. Why? Because they don't want to have sex with animals. But people DO want to eat meat. Much harder battle to be won here.

But we may have another paradigm shift. And all this could change. Probably will.

That is all I know.
 
Last edited:

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
Oh Geezer... look at your simplistic reply to Brummie's thought provoking question...

Excellent point.

Now read mine. Again. And again.

You wax intellectual then judge others based on their poor writing style, yet you have nothing to say. You add nothing to discussion other than assertions of agreeing or disagreeing with a statement and backing up said assertions with some quote or tidbit designed NOT to add to the discussion but placed there to make you look smart. "Look reader, I am educated and reference other sources. Look reader, I read Salon because I'm an edge-y free-thinking liberal. Look reader, I have wikipedia on speed dial." You create nothing. You take pictures and claim the beauty as your own.

And no dear, it was not a copy and paste job. I am that intelligent. And capable of articulating a careful, intelligent, rational response. That is the difference between you and I. I am an intellectual, as is Brummie. You are not. You are average. Boring. Pedestrian. And mean. Very mean. Abusive. And you have no clue what the term intellectual means. Look it up.

You write a narcissistic blog that is all about you, you, you,...

My blog is about me because it is a blog written by me. No brainier. It kills you that I think highly of myself, doesn't it? Again, focus on yourself, not me. Read. Educate yourself. Yeah, you will never be as intelligent as me. No matter what. Unless I suffer from brain damage. I was born intelligent. It is genetics. Some can sing. Some can dance. I can think. There is nothing wrong with me acknowledging this fact. It makes me no more arrogant than an artist, athlete, or musician taking pride in his or her craft.

It kind of sucks--for you--that I am also prettier, funnier, and thinner. But life is unfair.

If you can write a better blog and make more interesting contributions of the forum, than by all means, knock yourself out! Who the hell is stopping you from trying? No one here. No one. If you aren't doing these things maybe you are incapable and consumed with envy over someone who can? That is my guess. That is what this witch hunt is all about. Jealousy/envy pure and simple. It isn't called one of the seven deadly sins for no reason. No one... and I mean no one, has tried to make me feel ashamed for being intelligent--that is, except you. It is appreciated. Only an abusive, damaged, hateful person would see it as something to be despised instead of cherished.

Now f*** off!
 
Last edited:

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
Oh Geezer... look at your simplistic reply to Brummie's thought provoking question...



Now read mine. Again. And again.



And no dear, it was not a copy and paste job. I am that intelligent. And capable of articulating a careful, intelligent, rational response. That is the difference between you and I. I am an intellectual, as is Brummie. You are not. You are average. Boring. Pedestrian. And mean. Very mean. Abusive. And you have no clue what the term intellectual means. Look it up.



My blog is about me because it is a blog written by me. No brainier. It kills you that I think highly of myself, doesn't it? Again, focus on yourself, not me. Read. Educate yourself. Yeah, you will never be as intelligent as me. No matter what. Unless I suffer from brain damage. I was born intelligent. It is genetics. Some can sing. Some can dance. I can think. There is nothing wrong with me acknowledging this fact. It makes me no more arrogant than an artist, athlete, or musician talking pride in his or her craft.

It kind of sucks--for you--that I am also prettier, funnier, and thinner. But life is unfair.

If you can write a better blog and make more interesting contributions of the forum, than by all means, knock yourself out! Who the hell is stopping you from trying? No one here. No one. If you aren't doing these things maybe you are incapable and consumed with envy over someone who can? That is my guess. That is what this witch hunt is all about. Jealousy/envy pure and simple. It isn't called one of the seven deadly sins for no reason. No one... and I mean no one, has tried to make me feel ashamed for being intelligent. It is appreciated. Only an abusive, damaged, hateful person would see it as something to be despised instead of cherished.

Now f*** off!

Wow. Where's the first aid kit, I'm gonna need some burn cream stat.
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
I was born intelligent. It is genetics. Some can sing. Some can dance. I can think.

Your rousing pinnacle of intelligence regarding Brummie's question was that it's okay to f*** and eat animals because the government says we can. American government. Fifty states. You narrowed the scope of your inquiry down to fifty states say it's okay to f*** and eat animals, so that's why. He asked a worldly, ethical question and your supreme intelligence could only come up with "Cuz they say we can so we can." This is the logic of MOUTH BREATHERS.

If the government said we could f*** our children, does that make it okay? I ask this since you've expressed an interest in Humbert Humbert. If the government said you could toke up together and give your son head after he got home from school, would that make it right? Is it ETHICAL to do something because it's legal? I'll go ahead and answer that for you despite my diminished mental capacity for thought and discourse. NO.

So the government says it is ethical to torture an animal and eat it, yet the government also declares it is not ethical to f*** an animal. There is a discontinuity in the scales of right and wrong. You have yet to address that issue despite using many words.

Last night I took a picture of something that reminded me of your posts. It's a metaphor, I'm assuming your highly evolved brain can deduce why I found it relevant.

9655277339_3c4d734449_z.jpg
 

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
^^^ The government are the people. The people decide what is right and wrong. It is called a democracy. Want to have the church decide what is right and wrong? Live in a theocracy such as Iran. Want the self-appointed rulers to decide? Live in a totalitarian state such as North Korea or a dictatorship such as Syria.

This is America. There are no moral absolutes. There is no god deciding what is right and wrong. When applied properly, the wall of separation between church and state, means that morality is defined by the people and regulated by government institutions erected and supported by the people. If having sex with animals is against the law, it is because the people have decided it is. That is it. No hidden reason. If eating animals is legal, it is for the same exact reason.

You have no critical thinking skills. You missed the central points of my argument. Were oblivious to its central tenants. And were paralyzed by your own prejudices.

Oh why am I not surprised?

You lack foundation, historical scope, and emotional regulation. So, here is your homework assignment for this month... read all about Utilitarianism, take an online American Government course, and then see if you can attend an anger management meeting or two.
 
Last edited:

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
^^^ The government are the people. The people decide what is right and wrong. It is called a democracy. Want to have the church decide what is right and wrong? Live in a theocracy such as Iran. Want the self-appointed rulers to decide? Live in a totalitarian state such as North Korea or a dictatorship such as Syria.

This is America. There are no moral absolutes. There is no god deciding what is right and wrong. When applied properly, the wall of separation between church and state, means that morality is defined by the people and regulated by government institutions erected and supported by the people. If having sex with animals is against the law, it is because the people have decided it is. That is it. No hidden reason. If eating animals is legal, it is for the same exact reason.

You have no critical thinking skills. You missed the central points of my argument. Were oblivious to its central tenants. And were paralyzed by your own prejudices.

Oh why am I not surprised?

You lack foundation, historical scope, and emotional regulation. So, here is your homework assignment for this month... read all about Utilitarianism, take an online American Government course, and then see if you can attend an anger meeting or two.

Is it ethical to f*** an animal. If someone came to your house and strapped Katie down to a table and f***ed her anus until it bled, is that ethical? It's a simple question.
 

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
Is it ethical to f*** an animal. If someone came to your house and strapped Katie down to a table and f***ed her anus until it bled, is that ethical? It's a simple question.

Katie is small. A human penetrating her would probably kill her. At the very least, it would result in measurable physical harm and cause great suffering. Thus, it would be regarded as animal abuse and against the law in all fifty states... prosecutable and punishable by the sanctions set forth in each state of the union.

Is it ethical? Who decides? The people. There is no god. We must decide what is right and wrong.
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
Katie is small. A human penetrating her would probably kill her. At the very least, it would result in measurable physical harm and cause great suffering. Thus, it would be regarded as animal abuse and against the law in all fifty states... prosecutable and punishable by the sanctions set forth in each state of the union.

Is it ethical? Who decides? The people. There is no god. We must decide what is right and wrong.

What justification is there that the "physical harm" and "great suffering" the cat is subjected to is ANY DIFFERENT than the physical harm and great suffering the farm animal is subjected to?
 
Top Bottom