Activists Hold Funeral For Frozen Chicken In Store

[Raev]

Sir, I am also the soft child of civilization. So I am not thrilled about this. But yes, I think it's quite likely that we will experience some sort of dramatic collapse that kills a lot of people. What happens when we can't borrow money on a 20 trillion debt at 0.5% interest any more? If we balance the budget, we have to cut over 1 trillion a year, and realistically that will be social programs since they take up most of it. What will the 45 million people on foodstamps do? Hint: they won't sit there and starve to death. I think eventually order is restored, but probably not before our inner cities explode. At that point the survivors (which may or may not include yours truly) will take prating clowns like Barkingturtle out back and beat them with a hose.

Anyway, I think that's about enough trolling for one day.

TLDR: vegetarians are the weak

[Raev]

I'd be genuinely curious to see a good logical argument why r/k theory is wrong. I find it highly predictive. So far no one in this thread has even tried.

I am actually a big fan of fermented foods. A quick google search suggests fermentation does not remove the soy isoflavones.

Also, people who write like Csihar "oh, this is really complicated, you couldn't possibly understand, I won't bother writing anything, you moron" are without exception pretentious tools who are projecting their own ignorance.

And *now* I'm done for the day ;p

[Baler]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[swilleville]

Not to stir the pot here... but while we are on the topic of not killings things because it is more convenient, I would love to hear this guys stance on abortion.

[Lhancelot]

I like Csihar. His posts make me think harder.

I don't understand why political extremists always have to interject political theory into every discussion and argument. How does every topic of discussion always turn into a "libtard" or "cuckservative" debate?

It reminds me how religious people funnel their religious beliefs into every possible topic you could discuss with them, which only narrows their perspective by only granting them the freedom to think within the tiny constraints of what their belief system allows them to believe. Ironically religious zealots see their rudimentary perspectives that are minimalised significantly by their religious beliefs as all knowing and the unquestionable truth.

I see all religious and political extremists as the same, neither think logically or objectively thanks to their personal choices to live in ignorance and darkness due to fanatical beliefs that do not allow them to ever see the other side of the fence. This is sad, because often times there is some truth to the different perspectives.

Personally I find it extremely presumptuous for any person to hold their own belief system as 100% true and everything else and all other belief systems as 100% garbage.

[Rader]

Originally Posted by swilleville [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not to stir the pot here... but while we are on the topic of not killings things because it is more convenient, I would love to hear this guys stance on abortion.

LOL, he is a huge fan of abortion, of course, all vegans are.

[Barkingturtle]

Abortion is an issue of body autonomy. Fetuses are not people, they are simply clumps of cells which are 100% reliant upon their host. Pretty simple, really. We require organ donors to opt-in so that we can harvest their bits at life's end because we understand that is wrong to tell someone what to do with their body--even after death. We should probably extend similar rights to living, pregnant women, right?

As it applies then to animal rights, it's rather simple, too. Animals have a right to not have you cut their body up and eat it. Der der.

Lot of posts in this thread since I last visited and I won't pretend that I've read any of them past the most recent page, really. I do see this discussion of r/k nonsense and I have to admit it's just another fascinating example of dissonance to see people whose food requires magnitudes more resources claiming they are more prepared to survive a period of scarcity. Like where the fuck you gonna find a thousand gallons of water to produce that pound of beef in your post-apocalyptic fantasy world? Truly a stunning lack of self-awareness going on there. To further debunk the myth, I'll share a couple interesting facts about myself that prove my unmitigated ruggedness.

1) I've spent more than 100 nights in the past three years tent-camping in the Colorado Rockies.

2) I'm looking to purchase a remote mountain property this next Spring where we will build an off-grid home complete with an underground greenhouse to eventually grow all our own food.

3) I single-handedly dominated this thread until the cavalry of kinder, gentler vegans arrived.

Frankly, I don't sense anyone in this thread would be a threat to me if we were set against one another in a contest of life-and-death. I'm clearly capable of imposing my will upon you all. If you had something and I wanted it, I would take it. Basically, you're very fortunate I'm filled with so much empathy and compassion, because if I were more self-centered I'd likely enslave the men of your family and impregnate the women.

[maskedmelon]

It's wrong to characterize vegans as simple products of r-selection. Csihar is right in the there is more to veganism as with every other social issue and empathy certainly plays a role, but not so straightforward as we might expect.

the purpose of my last post was to illustrate that there are highly empathic people who do not practice veganism. we could chock it up to social programming or we could think critically about why that might be.

many people follow their feelings. many others do not. why?

the best reason that I can offer is that those who reject their feelings in whole or in part, do so because they have witnessed the destructive capacity of allowing them to lead. as a result people naturally grow wary of their feelings and become dubious of conclusions which closely align with those feelings no matter how well reasoned.

in the case of veganism we see this in both directions. we see it in people with great empathy who reject the idea as well as in people of little empathy who support it. both have, at least in part, rejected their feelings in pursuit of bettering themselves.

[Lhancelot]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's wrong to characterize vegans as simple products of r-selection. Csihar is right in the there is more to veganism as with every other social issue and empathy certainly plays a role, but not so straightforward as we might expect.

the purpose of my last post was to illustrate that there are highly empathic people who do not practice veganism. we could chock it up to social programming or we could think critically about why that might be.

many people follow their feelings. many others do not. why?

the best reason that I can offer is that those who reject their feelings in whole or in part, do so because they have witnessed the destructive capacity of allowing them to lead. as a result people naturally grow wary of their feelings and become dubious of conclusions which closely align with those feelings no matter how well reasoned.

in the case of veganism we see this in both directions. we see it in people with great empathy who reject the idea as well as in people of little empathy who support it. both have, at least in part, rejected their feelings in pursuit of bettering themselves.

That's pretty much my thought on it too. ^

I believe I have tons of empathy, I love animals more than people (people are awful creatures) and I still am not a vegan. I rarely eat meat, but I do not abstain from all meats all the time.

Anyway, well put MM. I concur.

[Spyder73]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Abortion is an issue of body autonomy. Fetuses are not people, they are simply clumps of cells which are 100% reliant upon their host. Pretty simple, really. We require organ donors to opt-in so that we can harvest their bits at life's end because we understand that is wrong to tell someone what to do with their body--even after death. We should probably extend similar rights to living, pregnant women, right?

As it applies then to animal rights, it's rather simple, too. Animals have a right to not have you cut their body up and eat it. Der der.

Lot of posts in this thread since I last visited and I won't pretend that I've read any of them past the most recent page, really. I do see this discussion of r/k nonsense and I have to admit it's just another fascinating example of dissonance to see people whose food requires magnitudes more resources claiming they are more prepared to survive a period of scarcity. Like where the fuck you gonna find a thousand gallons of water to produce that pound of beef in your post-apocalyptic fantasy world? Truly a stunning lack of self-awareness going on there. To further debunk the myth, I'll share a couple interesting facts about myself that prove my unmitigated ruggedness.

1) I've spent more than 100 nights in the past three years tent-camping in the Colorado Rockies.

2) I'm looking to purchase a remote mountain property this next Spring where we will build an off-grid home complete with an underground greenhouse to eventually grow all our own food.

3) I single-handedly dominated this thread until the cavalry of kinder, gentler vegans arrived.

Frankly, I don't sense anyone in this thread would be a threat to me if we were set against one another in a contest of life-and-death. I'm clearly capable of imposing my will upon you all. If you had something and I wanted it, I would take it. Basically, you're very fortunate I'm filled with so much empathy and compassion, because if I were more self-centered I'd likely enslave the men of your family and impregnate the women.

TLDR - Unemployed vegan must move off grid into woods to escape eviction in Colorado. Supports killing babies but not chickens. Delusions of making rationale points that others find arbitrary, fabricated, or irrelevant.