Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

ontels · Jul 20, 2011 10:42 PM

Yes the feilds that are used to grow livestock feed could be used to grow crops, same go's for the feilds that livestock graze in.

We may not seem rich but onlly countries like ours can afford to eat meat at the rate we do, it's much cheaper to eat non-meat products.

G-Man_93 · Jul 20, 2011 10:53 PM

ontels wrote:

Yes the feilds that are used to grow livestock feed could be used to grow crops, same go's for the feilds that livestock graze in.
We may not seem rich but onlly countries like ours can afford to eat meat at the rate we do, it's much cheaper to eat non-meat products.

Hate to break it to ya, but being a vegetarian or a vegan (whom I absolutely despise) is actually more expensive when you really break it down to the bare numbers. Furthermore, I think that livestock should eat the grass that grows out of the ground instead of the livestock feed we feed most our livestock with. It would help to make our meats less fattening overall. smile

Neotyguy40 · Jul 20, 2011 11:08 PM

JazzJackrabbit wrote:

Anyone read about Mark Zuckerburg's personal challenge for 2011? His challenge is to only eat meat from animals he kills.
http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/ … -he-kills/

The only steak our family eats is the venison that we hunt ourselves. Same with turkey, but chickens are pretty hard to come by in the woods out here...

ontels wrote:

My brother and sister are vegetarians and are just as healthy as anyone.

You completely misunderstood what I said, or otherwise ignored or didn't respond to it.

I never said being a vegetarian is unhealthy, but I said it is a much more unstable diet. My sister is a vegetarian, and she needs to get a certain amount of proteins and fats to stay healthy. I've seen a few of my friends get sick from not knowing how to eat right.

My point is that there are people in the world that can't go vegetarian just because they will get sick. Some people don't eat correctly even with meat.

Clock-la wrote:

Aceedwin wrote:
Someone didn't pay attention in Biology. It strikes me as confusing when you say animal testing has no reason. Animal testers aren't people who just inject animals with dangerous chemicals for the lulz. They work for drugs companies, who have to pass strict tests on their drugs, tests that usually take years. Without animal testing, drugs that would save thousands of lives have to be held back for months or longer.
actually in biolagy the main reson for not to animal test was due to fact animals they test on are not humans, therefor the testing is pointless.

so realy killing an animal to eat is crule, yet blinding a bunny with shampooh to see how it will effect human eyes is fine, tbh i'd rather be killed and eaten, then tested on and torcherd.

1. Spellcheck... PLEASE...
2. From this point onwards, you will not use shampoo, makeup, soap, or any toothpaste.
3. In 2 weeks, please post a picture of your face smiling so we can see the effects.
4. If you aren't completely hideous, we will email ALL THE THINGS your picture and tell them to stop animal testing.

Stormy wrote:

Livestock are fed food that's fit for human consumption? Only the rich eat meat? This is news to me.

Fooled me. I didn't know I could eat GRASS...

ontels wrote:

Yes the feilds that are used to grow livestock feed could be used to grow crops, same go's for the feilds that livestock graze in.
We may not seem rich but onlly countries like ours can afford to eat meat at the rate we do, it's much cheaper to eat non-meat products.

Does everyone eat grass? I should try this!

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · Jul 20, 2011 11:35 PM

Does everyone eat grass? I should try this!

how do you get that out of what ontels said?

Yes the feilds that are used to grow livestock feed could be used to grow crops, same go's for the feilds that livestock graze in.

he's saying the space could be used to make crops instead of feeding livestock.

on an unrelated note, what kind of idiot pours shampoo into their eyes, anything with a substance like that should stay out of your eyes. spare those bunnies, teach people not to be idiots. problem solved, less animal testing.

JazzJackrabbit · Jul 21, 2011 12:44 AM

There are some things where animal testing is preferable. We don't want humans to die from an experimental cancer-killing drug.

Neotyguy40 · Jul 21, 2011 1:00 AM

36IStillLikeSpyro36 wrote:

Does everyone eat grass? I should try this!
how do you get that out of what ontels said?
Yes the feilds that are used to grow livestock feed could be used to grow crops, same go's for the feilds that livestock graze in.
he's saying the space could be used to make crops instead of feeding livestock.

It's called comedic sarcasm. Don't be so serial.

But space isn't a problem for growing food. It is the amount of people who are growing food that is the problem.

I think everyone should have a small garden to grow food.

36IStillLikeSpyro36 wrote:

on an unrelated note, what kind of idiot pours shampoo into their eyes, anything with a substance like that should stay out of your eyes. spare those bunnies, teach people not to be idiots. problem solved, less animal testing.

Why would you actually assume people purposely pours that stuff in their eyes? :-P

(Don't answer that by the way)

They need to test the chemicals on animals for the accidental moments. I'm sure even you accidentally got some soap in your eyes or mouth before. The testing is just to make sure it is safe in those aspects before they sell it.

JazzJackrabbit wrote:

There are some things where animal testing is preferable. We don't want humans to die from an experimental cancer-killing drug.

No humans = No problems

Stormy · Jul 21, 2011 1:29 AM

ontels wrote:

Yes the feilds that are used to grow livestock feed could be used to grow crops, same go's for the feilds that livestock graze in.
We may not seem rich but onlly countries like ours can afford to eat meat at the rate we do, it's much cheaper to eat non-meat products.

Wait, so what, are we going to donate all the extra food from the fields we would have used to feed livestock to poorer countries or what? I don't see what you're trying to say here. How does raising livestock for meat in this country affect poorer countries at all?

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people being vegetarian or vegan, but I think it should be a personal choice. It doesn't affect anyone else except the person who chooses that lifestyle.

Edit: typo

Swaffy · Jul 21, 2011 4:18 AM

I can't live without my meat. Especially hickory smoked ham.

prince-Dari · Jul 21, 2011 7:04 AM

Reason for eating meat? It tastes good, and no substitutes taste as good.
I don't care about any arguments for vegetarianism, because none solve the problem of tasty meat.

ontels · Jul 21, 2011 8:14 AM

See your all just making up bad excuses for eating it, can't you just accept the fact that it's not the best option? You don't HAVE to stop eating it you just should.

Clock-la · Jul 21, 2011 10:10 AM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

JazzJackrabbit wrote:
Anyone read about Mark Zuckerburg's personal challenge for 2011? His challenge is to only eat meat from animals he kills.
http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/ … -he-kills/
The only steak our family eats is the venison that we hunt ourselves. Same with turkey, but chickens are pretty hard to come by in the woods out here...
ontels wrote:
My brother and sister are vegetarians and are just as healthy as anyone.
You completely misunderstood what I said, or otherwise ignored or didn't respond to it.
I never said being a vegetarian is unhealthy, but I said it is a much more unstable diet. My sister is a vegetarian, and she needs to get a certain amount of proteins and fats to stay healthy. I've seen a few of my friends get sick from not knowing how to eat right.
My point is that there are people in the world that can't go vegetarian just because they will get sick. Some people don't eat correctly even with meat.
Clock-la wrote:
Aceedwin wrote:
Someone didn't pay attention in Biology. It strikes me as confusing when you say animal testing has no reason. Animal testers aren't people who just inject animals with dangerous chemicals for the lulz. They work for drugs companies, who have to pass strict tests on their drugs, tests that usually take years. Without animal testing, drugs that would save thousands of lives have to be held back for months or longer.
actually in biolagy the main reson for not to animal test was due to fact animals they test on are not humans, therefor the testing is pointless.

so realy killing an animal to eat is crule, yet blinding a bunny with shampooh to see how it will effect human eyes is fine, tbh i'd rather be killed and eaten, then tested on and torcherd.
1. Spellcheck... PLEASE...
2. From this point onwards, you will not use shampoo, makeup, soap, or any toothpaste.
3. In 2 weeks, please post a picture of your face smiling so we can see the effects.
4. If you aren't completely hideous, we will email ALL THE THINGS your picture and tell them to stop animal testing.
Stormy wrote:
Livestock are fed food that's fit for human consumption? Only the rich eat meat? This is news to me.
Fooled me. I didn't know I could eat GRASS...
ontels wrote:
Yes the feilds that are used to grow livestock feed could be used to grow crops, same go's for the feilds that livestock graze in.
We may not seem rich but onlly countries like ours can afford to eat meat at the rate we do, it's much cheaper to eat non-meat products.
Does everyone eat grass? I should try this!

When did i say i'll stop using clening products?

oh i did'nt.

so please STFU

Neotyguy40 · Jul 21, 2011 10:38 AM

ontels wrote:

See your all just making up bad excuses for eating it, can't you just accept the fact that it's not the best option? You don't HAVE to stop eating it you just should.

No, we aren't. You just ignore the reasons that we present.

There are very good reasons to eat as a vegetarian, but there are also equally good reasons to eat meat. You can't just say "You should" as an argument, because that neither helps your case or disproves ours. The fact is our body was designed to eat fruits, vegetables, grains, AND meat. It is healthy for us to eat meat, and that isn't just "making an excuse".

Look at someone who needs to constantly eat lots of food (for example, Olympic athletes). Someone like Michael Phelps would probably die if he tried to become a vegetarian for 3-4 days. Not joking.

Clock-la wrote:

When did i say i'll stop using clening products?
oh i did'nt.
so please STFU

1. It was a joke. I was being sarcastic.
2. I like lists.
3. There is no #4
4. I lied on #3

ontels · Jul 21, 2011 10:58 AM

Hmmm you might be right about needing it if you’re an athlete...but that’s about 1% of the world population.

Clock-la · Jul 21, 2011 11:33 AM

prince-Dari wrote:

Reason for eating meat? It tastes good, and no substitutes taste as good.
I don't care about any arguments for vegetarianism, because none solve the problem of tasty meat.

no they realy don't big_smile YUMMY

Aceedwin · Jul 21, 2011 11:37 AM

Clock-la wrote:

Actually, in biology, the main reason for not to use animals for testing was due to the fact animals they test on are not humans, therefore the testing is pointless.
So really killing an animal to eat is cruel, yet blinding a bunny with shampoo to see how it will effect human eyes is fine, to be honest I'd rather be killed and eaten, then tested on and tortured.

Spellcheck time.

Anyway, the stages of testing for safety are that we first test a substance on small patchs of lab-grown cells, which are looked at for side effects. If the side effects are non-existent or very mild, we test it on animals, to see if the substance has an effect on entire organs. Animal organs are very similiar to human organs in some cases. I mean, comparing cow stomaches to the human stomach isn't going to work, but a rat's heart is very similiar to a human's.

Besides, I've never said that animal testing isn't cruel. It is. So is torturing a terrorist to release information on a bomb somewhere in a crowded city. Cruelty is sometimes necessary. Whereas meat-eating is not necessary. It is illogical and hedonistic.

Clock-la wrote:

When did i say i'll stop using clening products?
oh i did'nt.
so please STFU

So you are in effect supporting companies that use animal testing? You can't think it's that bad. You realise that economically speaking, by buying and using those sorts of products, you vote to keep them in production?

prince_Dari wrote:

eason for eating meat? It tastes good, and no substitutes taste as good.
I don't care about any arguments for vegetarianism, because none solve the problem of tasty meat.

So you accept that you eat meat simply because you are a hedonist? That's fine, just remember that your position is fundamentally illogical.

ontels wrote:

Hmmm you might be right about needing it if you’re an athlete...but that’s about 1% of the world population.

Here's a thought, prescription meat. People have to be prescribed meat by their doctor. Problem being it might go the same way as people being prescribed cannabis, if Swaffles, Clock-la and Dari are anything to go by.

Stormy wrote:

Wait, so what, are we going to donate all the extra food from the fields we would have used to feed livestock to poorer countries or what? I don't see what you're trying to say here. How does raising livestock for meat in this country affect poorer countries at all?
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people being vegetarian or vegan, but I think it should be a personal choice. It doesn't affect anyone else except the person who chooses that lifestyle.

Stormy, I could've sworn you read most of that debate over vegetarianism we had a year back. If everyone who produced meat began to produce plant matter instead, we'd have ten times as much energy in the food they produce. That means that food prices would go down globally, allowing poorer countries to buy food when droughts come.

The flip-side is that they'd end up with their main source of income greatly reduced, but I have a solution. Biofuels. People can start to use biofuels, and we all know how much space those things take up. That'll balance the food market a bit better, and a more profitable opportunity is given out. Not only that, but by using biofuels, the enviroment is made cleaner, and we buy a few more years for scientists to develop nuclear fusion. Not to mention wars over dwindling oil stocks and food would become less frequent.

You see that if everyone changed to vegetarianism, the effects would be huge, and I think, mostly beneficial. A change would effect everyone. But it suffers from that problem that strikes enviromental campaigners. People are just a drop in the ocean. None of us could make the slightest difference on our own by becoming a vegetarian on our own. It has to be a major movement of billions. And that's why it's pretty unlikely to ever happen.

Clock-la · Jul 21, 2011 11:44 AM

^Pretty much yes but my mom gets my products big_smile so technically I’m not the one supporting it tongue

Neotyguy40 · Jul 21, 2011 4:59 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

Whereas meat-eating is not necessary. It is illogical and hedonistic.
So you accept that you eat meat simply because you are a hedonist? That's fine, just remember that your position is fundamentally illogical.

Time for you to come up with a new argument than just using condescending words like "illogical" or "hedonistic". It doesn't prove anything, and anyone can just say "Using a toilet is illogical", or "There is no reason to go into space", or "Playing video games is completely hedonistic."

Aceedwin wrote:

Here's a thought, prescription meat. People have to be prescribed meat by their doctor. Problem being it might go the same way as people being prescribed cannabis, if Swaffles, Clock-la and Dari are anything to go by.

You would have doctors prescribe meat for everyone who needs it? Sounds like a waste of time. I think the majority of the world has been on a sports team at least once in their life. Not to mention everyone who is underweight or has an eating disorder. That will add up to be much more than "less than 1%".

Aceedwin wrote:

Stormy, I could've sworn you read most of that debate over vegetarianism we had a year back. If everyone who produced meat began to produce plant matter instead, we'd have ten times as much energy in the food they produce. That means that food prices would go down globally, allowing poorer countries to buy food when droughts come.

Economics 101: If that much more food was made, there would be a huge amount of supply, and prices would drop. This would cause many farmers to go bankrupt due to them needing to sell their produce at a much lower price. This would cause less farms and supply and demand would eventually balance itself into the point we have now. Only effect this would have is many farms would go out of business. The only thing that could save hunger is by donations or the country becomes wealthier. Extra food production will follow in it's heels, not the other way around.

Stormy · Jul 21, 2011 5:47 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

Stormy wrote:
Wait, so what, are we going to donate all the extra food from the fields we would have used to feed livestock to poorer countries or what? I don't see what you're trying to say here. How does raising livestock for meat in this country affect poorer countries at all?
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people being vegetarian or vegan, but I think it should be a personal choice. It doesn't affect anyone else except the person who chooses that lifestyle.
Stormy, I could've sworn you read most of that debate over vegetarianism we had a year back. If everyone who produced meat began to produce plant matter instead, we'd have ten times as much energy in the food they produce. That means that food prices would go down globally, allowing poorer countries to buy food when droughts come.
The flip-side is that they'd end up with their main source of income greatly reduced, but I have a solution. Biofuels. People can start to use biofuels, and we all know how much space those things take up. That'll balance the food market a bit better, and a more profitable opportunity is given out. Not only that, but by using biofuels, the enviroment is made cleaner, and we buy a few more years for scientists to develop nuclear fusion. Not to mention wars over dwindling oil stocks and food would become less frequent.
You see that if everyone changed to vegetarianism, the effects would be huge, and I think, mostly beneficial. A change would effect everyone. But it suffers from that problem that strikes enviromental campaigners. People are just a drop in the ocean. None of us could make the slightest difference on our own by becoming a vegetarian on our own. It has to be a major movement of billions. And that's why it's pretty unlikely to ever happen.

I don't remember that debate; the closest thing I can think of to that is the one about wolf hunting where everyone was complaining that it was so bad and wrong to shoot wolves because they're so beautiful or whatever.

Anyway, I have very little knowledge of most of this subject matter, I'll admit, so I can't really argue about it. I would, however, like to see some sources proving this other than just your word so I can learn about it. Why would food prices go down globally if one country produced more plant products? Neotyguy40's explanation of this seems to make more sense.

Also, to the original poster: if you think the current discussion is too off-topic, please say so, and I'll try to get it back on track.

prince-Dari · Jul 21, 2011 5:58 PM

It's illogical to eat something for pleasure? To most people that's pretty much the goal of life - to have fun, so if eating meat helps me enjoy life, I don't see how it is in any way illogical (also implying logic doesn't take into account your own opinion/judgement).

ontels · Jul 21, 2011 6:20 PM

It gives you pleasure but it kills another living being. You can have pleasure without killing anything.

prince-Dari · Jul 21, 2011 6:30 PM

I can have more pleasure by killing and eating something. smile

Clock-la · Jul 21, 2011 6:32 PM

I say I did'nt kill it so not eating it would be a waiste big_smile

ontels · Jul 21, 2011 6:33 PM

Dosent that make you feel bad? That you would end a life that could have cone on for many years just for a meal that you could get without killing?

prince-Dari · Jul 21, 2011 6:38 PM

EeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeNOPE.
Think of it this way;animals get eaten in nature all the time, most of the time it is out of necessity, sure, but what difference does it make? Animals get eaten anyway, what difference does a few more make?

Stormy · Jul 21, 2011 6:45 PM

I used to feel the same way you do, ontels (unless you're trolling, then disregard this I suppose) but I just don't think killing an animal is such a crime anymore, especially if its death provided me with food. I'm not about to go vegetarian just because some animals have to die for me to eat. It's too much of a hassle, probably won't make me any healthier, and will probably even cost me more because of all the extra vitamins and stuff I'll have to buy to make up for not eating meat.

Also, just out of curiosity, how many of you who are arguing for vegetarianism are actually vegetarians? Ontels, I saw you mentioned that some of your relatives are vegetarians, but what about you?

#151 Jul 20, 2011 10:42 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#152 Jul 20, 2011 10:53 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#153 Jul 20, 2011 11:08 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#154 Jul 20, 2011 11:35 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#155 Jul 21, 2011 12:44 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#156 Jul 21, 2011 1:00 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#157 Jul 21, 2011 1:29 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#158 Jul 21, 2011 4:18 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#159 Jul 21, 2011 7:04 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#160 Jul 21, 2011 8:14 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#161 Jul 21, 2011 10:10 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#162 Jul 21, 2011 10:38 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#163 Jul 21, 2011 10:58 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#164 Jul 21, 2011 11:33 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#165 Jul 21, 2011 11:37 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#166 Jul 21, 2011 11:44 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#167 Jul 21, 2011 4:59 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#168 Jul 21, 2011 5:47 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#169 Jul 21, 2011 5:58 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#170 Jul 21, 2011 6:20 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#171 Jul 21, 2011 6:30 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#172 Jul 21, 2011 6:32 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#173 Jul 21, 2011 6:33 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#174 Jul 21, 2011 6:38 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#175 Jul 21, 2011 6:45 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

Board footer