Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No distinction was made between "food" and "people"
Exactly my point. Most of us do not feel that people and ham sandwiches deserve the same levels of emotional involvement and tend to question the sanity of those who do.
How intelligent does someone have to be to understand that there is a distinction between people and food for most of us.
^ You can choose to boil a ham sandwich. I do not think it would be a cruel act in itself. However, if you choose to boil a live pig, that would be extremely cruel. Slaughtering a pig is also a cruel act but not as cruel as boiling it alive especially if the slaughter takes place in a humane manner. It does not require a PhD to understand the distinction.
No distinction was made between "food" and "people";
Exactly my point. Most of us do not feel that people and ham sandwiches deserve the same levels of emotional involvement and tend to question the sanity of those who do.
No, it's the exact opposite of your point. You posted this:
How intelligent does someone have to be to understand that there is a distinction between people and food for most of us.
Now you're saying that NO distinction is "exactly your point".
Up is down, war is peace, ignorance is strength...
By the way a ham sandwich is not a living being with fully developed central nervous system. So you can boil it if you like.
ever have Maine lobsters....mmmmmEverybody is against cruelty. The problem is that you have some very strange ideas about how you define the term.
I consider boiling alive a living being with fully developed central nervous system a cruel act. What is so strange about it?
So you're against boiling up a big pot of mudbugs? Thats a real shame,you dont know what you're missing.
No distinction was made between "food" and "people";
Exactly my point. Most of us do not feel that people and ham sandwiches deserve the same levels of emotional involvement and tend to question the sanity of those who do.
No, it's the exact opposite of your point. You posted this:
How intelligent does someone have to be to understand that there is a distinction between people and food for most of us.
Now you're saying that NO distinction is "exactly your point".
Up is down, war is peace, ignorance is strength...
By the way a ham sandwich is not a living being with fully developed central nervous system. So you can boil it if you like.
Your post: No distinction was made between "food" and "people";
Now you're saying that NO distinction is "exactly your point".
No, the fact that no distinction was made in the post you referred to (not made by me) was why I disagreed with the post. I think the distinction is obvious and necessary. And I don't care if a ham sandwich has a central nervous system.
Read slower. Think. Maybe you'll begin to understand.
^ All we are asking of him is to understand the difference between boiling a ham sandwich and live pig and he does not seem to grasp it. We have to stop and ask ourselves where as humanity have we gone wrong when we run into people like him?
No, it's the exact opposite of your point. You posted this:
Now you're saying that NO distinction is "exactly your point".
Up is down, war is peace, ignorance is strength...
By the way a ham sandwich is not a living being with fully developed central nervous system. So you can boil it if you like.
Your post: No distinction was made between "food" and "people";
Now you're saying that NO distinction is "exactly your point".
No, the fact that no distinction was made in the post you referred to (not made by me) was why I disagreed with the post. I think the distinction is obvious and necessary. And I don't care if a ham sandwich has a central nervous system.
Read slower. Think. Maybe you'll begin to understand.
If you would just use the quote feature like normal people do and quit trying to cut and paste, you wouldn't have misattributed quotes like the one above where my words become yours. I had to fix it in my last post, and then you fucked it up again. "No distinction was made between "food" and "people"' is MY post -- not yours.
^ The topic raised in this thread was in response to someone boiling a living being with developed central nervous system. There are two groups on this forum - the first group believes that the act is extremely cruel. The second group to which you belong maintains that it is not a cruel act. I gave you the example of slaughter to illustrate the different options you have if you must eat meat. You have an option of killing an animal in humane manner. You seem to insist in killing an animal in the most inhumane way possible. Why are you that way? Do you enjoy inflicting pain and suffering?
Hungry children do not need to eat pork. They can eat rice, beans, vegetables, fruits, grains, etc. which combined together provides adequate nutrients. But no one is stopping you from devouring pigs even though I do not know why a sane person would choose an unhealthy diet like pork. You do not need to give 'hungry children' excuse. Just kill the animal in a humane manner. Is it too much to ask?
^ The topic raised in this thread was in response to someone boiling a living being with developed central nervous system. There are two groups on this forum - the first group believes that the act is extremely cruel. The second group to which you belong maintains that it is not a cruel act. I gave you the example of slaughter to illustrate the different options you have if you must eat meat. You have an option of killing an animal in humane manner. You seem to insist in killing an animal in the most inhumane way possible. Why are you that way? Do you enjoy inflicting pain and suffering?
Hungry children do not need to eat pork. They can eat rice, beans, vegetables, fruits, grains, etc. which combined together provides adequate nutrients. But no one is stopping you from devouring pigs even though I do not know why a sane person would choose an unhealthy diet like pork. You do not need to give 'hungry children' excuse. Just kill the animal in a humane manner. Is it too much to ask?
Reality is nowhere near as simplistic as you pretend and your "two groups" construct is a good example. You would be entirely mistaken to claim that I am a part of either of your supposed two groups. I firmly believe that animals should be dispatched as quickly and painlessly as possible. However with crabs, lobsters, and possibly turtles that may include dropping them into a pot of boiling water as that seems to be about as instantaneous as it gets for them.
Diet is an entirely different subject and not one I am really interested in discussing here other than to say that I believe that anyone that would allow children to starve rather than feed them doesn't have much claim to being humane.
Lol. Double standard noted.
I mean no offense, but what double standard?
I think I've been very pragmatic in my disdain for minority thuggery, and unnecessary animal cruelty. I can find no good reason why anyone not living in swamp would need to eat a turtle. I don't care if they're black or white. Rednecks in my world just shoot turtles from their trucks for sport while drinking a beer. It's nonsense, and If I ever catch one I'll beat the life out of him. Ditto for some black dude. People with morals deserve no quarter and should be hated, spat on, beaten or in extreme cases, exterminated.
^ The topic raised in this thread was in response to someone boiling a living being with developed central nervous system. There are two groups on this forum - the first group believes that the act is extremely cruel. The second group to which you belong maintains that it is not a cruel act. I gave you the example of slaughter to illustrate the different options you have if you must eat meat. You have an option of killing an animal in humane manner. You seem to insist in killing an animal in the most inhumane way possible. Why are you that way? Do you enjoy inflicting pain and suffering?
Hungry children do not need to eat pork. They can eat rice, beans, vegetables, fruits, grains, etc. which combined together provides adequate nutrients. But no one is stopping you from devouring pigs even though I do not know why a sane person would choose an unhealthy diet like pork. You do not need to give 'hungry children' excuse. Just kill the animal in a humane manner. Is it too much to ask?
Reality is nowhere near as simplistic as you pretend and your "two groups" construct is a good example. You would be entirely mistaken to claim that I am a part of either of your supposed two groups. I firmly believe that animals should be dispatched as quickly and painlessly as possible. However with crabs, lobsters, and possibly turtles that may include dropping them into a pot of boiling water as that seems to be about as instantaneous as it gets for them.
Diet is an entirely different subject and not one I am really interested in discussing here other than to say that I believe that anyone that would allow children to starve rather than feed them doesn't have much claim to being humane.
I don't understand the bolded. Are you saying that putting crabs, lobsters and possibly turtles in boiling waters kills them instantaneously, or that any other form of killing them takes just as long for them to die?
Reality is nowhere near as simplistic as you pretend and your "two groups" construct is a good example. You would be entirely mistaken to claim that I am a part of either of your supposed two groups. I firmly believe that animals should be dispatched as quickly and painlessly as possible. However with crabs, lobsters, and possibly turtles that may include dropping them into a pot of boiling water as that seems to be about as instantaneous as it gets for them.
Diet is an entirely different subject and not one I am really interested in discussing here other than to say that I believe that anyone that would allow children to starve rather than feed them doesn't have much claim to being humane.
I don't understand the bolded. Are you saying that putting crabs, lobsters and possibly turtles in boiling waters kills them instantaneously, or that any other form of killing them takes just as long for them to die?
Yes. As far as I know both of those is true.
^ All we are asking of him is to understand the difference between boiling a ham sandwich and live pig and he does not seem to grasp it. We have to stop and ask ourselves where as humanity have we gone wrong when we run into people like him?
Maybe that's what eating pork does to your brain...?
^ The topic raised in this thread was in response to someone boiling a living being with developed central nervous system. There are two groups on this forum - the first group believes that the act is extremely cruel. The second group to which you belong maintains that it is not a cruel act. I gave you the example of slaughter to illustrate the different options you have if you must eat meat. You have an option of killing an animal in humane manner. You seem to insist in killing an animal in the most inhumane way possible. Why are you that way? Do you enjoy inflicting pain and suffering?
Hungry children do not need to eat pork. They can eat rice, beans, vegetables, fruits, grains, etc. which combined together provides adequate nutrients. But no one is stopping you from devouring pigs even though I do not know why a sane person would choose an unhealthy diet like pork. You do not need to give 'hungry children' excuse. Just kill the animal in a humane manner. Is it too much to ask?
Reality is nowhere near as simplistic as you pretend and your "two groups" construct is a good example. You would be entirely mistaken to claim that I am a part of either of your supposed two groups. I firmly believe that animals should be dispatched as quickly and painlessly as possible. However with crabs, lobsters, and possibly turtles that may include dropping them into a pot of boiling water as that seems to be about as instantaneous as it gets for them.
Diet is an entirely different subject and not one I am really interested in discussing here other than to say that I believe that anyone that would allow children to starve rather than feed them doesn't have much claim to being humane.
I don't understand the bolded. Are you saying that putting crabs, lobsters and possibly turtles in boiling waters kills them instantaneously, or that any other form of killing them takes just as long for them to die?
Yes. As far as I know both of those is true.
What is it about the biology of those species that causes them to die instantly upon contact with boiling water?
^ The topic raised in this thread was in response to someone boiling a living being with developed central nervous system. There are two groups on this forum - the first group believes that the act is extremely cruel. The second group to which you belong maintains that it is not a cruel act. I gave you the example of slaughter to illustrate the different options you have if you must eat meat. You have an option of killing an animal in humane manner. You seem to insist in killing an animal in the most inhumane way possible. Why are you that way? Do you enjoy inflicting pain and suffering?
Hungry children do not need to eat pork. They can eat rice, beans, vegetables, fruits, grains, etc. which combined together provides adequate nutrients. But no one is stopping you from devouring pigs even though I do not know why a sane person would choose an unhealthy diet like pork. You do not need to give 'hungry children' excuse. Just kill the animal in a humane manner. Is it too much to ask?
Reality is nowhere near as simplistic as you pretend and your "two groups" construct is a good example. You would be entirely mistaken to claim that I am a part of either of your supposed two groups. I firmly believe that animals should be dispatched as quickly and painlessly as possible. However with crabs, lobsters, and possibly turtles that may include dropping them into a pot of boiling water as that seems to be about as instantaneous as it gets for them.
Diet is an entirely different subject and not one I am really interested in discussing here other than to say that I believe that anyone that would allow children to starve rather than feed them doesn't have much claim to being humane.
There are millions of children who grow up to be healthy adult on balanced vegetarian diet. Just because you are not eating pork (or any meat) does not mean you are starving. Your logic is bizarre and gives an impression that you are deliberately trying to be disingenuous.
