Oklahoma Food Company recalls over 372,000 lbs of Hot Dogs & Corn Dogs

[Dreams_Of_Cheese]

Except what he did is literally the polar opposite of what I did. I post an image which is an example of his dense hard-head mentality by posting an element which perfectly resembles it. What he did was post a completely irrelevant definition of Smegma. He's done this before to make an attempt to diss image posts many times which honestly, is handicapped as all stuff.

You called him dense, he called you gross. This is as childish as it gets.



So we're Lord Tony now. Nice.

[Ad Bot]

[Conan]

Guys, McZealot is going more SJW than Jitank ever had.

Except what he did is literally the polar opposite of what I did. I post an image which is an example of his dense hard-head mentality by posting an element which perfectly resembles it. What he did was post a completely irrelevant definition of Smegma. He's done this before to make an attempt to diss image posts many times which honestly, is handicapped as all stuff.

honestly you're only making yourself look bad with the ways you attack others

its all namecalling and very little refutation which is just as bad as bringing up irrelevant stuff, if not worse, since irrelevant stuff and the non sequitur of smegma can be funny while your statements are not even ad hominem attacks, rather more on the level of playground bullying and shouting/whatever

you honestly should stay out of conflicts rather than jump in and add some unnecessary namecalling; this is probably the fifth or sixth time ive seen you do this and i barely frequent drama or off topic

[McZealot]

You called him dense, he called you gross. This is as childish as it gets.

I didn't call him gross, I posted the definition of smegma. Because it's totally unrelated, just like his post.

Okay, I'm sorry that post is bothering you. I've literally written that I shouldnt have phrased it that way multiple times now.
Why does that in particular piss you off? Far worse things have been sent to me.

You know I've had people PM me photographs of butchered animals? Just for fun I guess?

really though zealot i mean you did saywhich i don't even understand

how is it morally wrong/'less moral' to eat meat? don't give me that 'you wouldn't eat a dog' stuff either because a dog is a domesticated animal and useful to the man for things such as company, hunting, protection, etc. like cats are for company as well, and pretty much every other domesticated animal/pet out there (in the eyes of US culture that is)

so can you tell us what's bad about eating animals that have been used for meals since the start of civilization?

Hundreds of millions of animals live miserable and painful lives in factories where they are kept in cages and force-fed until they are so overweight they can be killed and eaten. I'm an animal lover. I wouldn't kill a dog. I wouldn't kill a chicken or a cow. Because I don't just love some animals. I don't eat meat because I want to prevent unwarranted suffering and death.

[Decepticon]

INH can you please go away you're acting like a child

honestly zealot nobody here actually thinks you're going to take away all meat. what they did see though was you saying you were pretty much better than them,

sorry for eating healthier and more morally than you guys though :(

and then you literally called anyone who didnt agree with the butcher of animals a cruel person,

I'm not even a vegetarian (sometimes vegan) for health reasons. It's just the moral thing to do. Anyone who doesn't believe it moral to stop unneeded death and suffering is a cruel person.

proceeded to compare the death of a domesticated animal/someone's pet to a (im pretty sure you knew the person you were replying to meant farm animals) farm animal,

You don't want me to kill your dog. You wouldn't be happy if someone killed a deer that jumped in the road.

It's always been immoral to cause unnecessary death and suffering.

you then started implying that being non-vegan was a wrong thing, and eventually the beliefs/morals of these forumers you're arguing against are going to be practically nonexistant

It's always going to be the right thing and I firmly believe that in a few decades it will be norm.

Sorry dude, but I'm 99% sure the world will be vegetarian by 2060. This is like someone in  the 1800s saying "HAH! Get rid of our slaves! It'll never happen!"

you compared meat to slavery,

Just as meat is delicious, slaves were vital to the economy at the time. But both can be replaced with other things.

and then you proceed to defend yourself saying you didn't just do what you did

okay when did i "give people stuff for eating meat". I literally wrote "another reason to go vegetarian." you're imagining hostility that doesn't exist.

i don't think you should be so surprised/angry to have provoked a lot of people from this, considering all the beliefs/ideas you just said won't be a majority in the future has been a majority for  as long as the first tribes on earth, and at the same time started poking at these beliefs and claiming people (who may also believe in themselves as morally rightful) are at a lower moral status than vegetarians. life on this earth has lived by killing other forms of life to live and grow through the future. plants, even

mcjob also does a good job at explaining it

Nature starts with life and ends with death. For countless millennia, life on this planet has continued to exist by killing off other life in order to survive. Even the plant life that you vegans love so much is alive.

Animals need to feed to sustain themselves and keep living, and their diets dictate what types of food will help them survive. For humans, as far as I understand, we're omnivores who require a balance of both meats and greens in moderation, and that means that we need to kill. It's not a nice practice, but that's how it works.

Yes, business practices often mean that the treatment of animals who are born to be eaten or as lab subjects could be seen as "cruel", but refusing to eat meat isn't going to change those practices at all. All you're doing is damaging your own body by lack of vitamin intake.

[McJob]

Nature starts with life and ends with death. For countless millennia, life on this planet has continued to exist by killing off other life in order to survive. Even the plant life that you vegans love so much is alive.

Animals need to feed to sustain themselves and keep living, and their diets dictate what types of food will help them survive. For humans, as far as I understand, we're omnivores who require a balance of both meats and greens in moderation, and that means that we need to kill. It's not a nice practice, but that's how it works.

Yes, business practices often mean that the treatment of animals who are born to be eaten or as lab subjects could be seen as "cruel", but refusing to eat meat isn't going to change those practices at all. All you're doing is damaging your own body by lack of vitamin intake.

[McZealot]

Dec, pretty much every point you made there seems to rely on this belief that I think people are good or bad.

If I say "It's good to donate to charity" that doesn't mean I think people who don't donate to charity are bad people. If someone said "I think it's a moral thing to go to church" they aren't saying people who don't go to church are bad people.

Yea, I think it's wrong to eat meat. Because as I've said, it's cruel to cause unneeded pain and death. I don't bring this up very often. I don't hate meat eaters, I don't even know any other vegans online. Let's not sit here and act like vegans hate meat-eaters.

I think the conditions of animals around the world today are comparable to slavery. They are lives being ruined on a global scale. I never gave anyone stuff. You keep complaining that I made one post being snarky. I've received an OCEAN of hateful stuff in response. But you don't care about that. It doesn't bother you.


And to McJob. Something being natural does not mean it is good. The defining trait of humanity is that it can go beyond nature.

Decepticon nailed it and so did McJob

They made points completely different to yours. So far you've been posting the definition of Osmium.

[Insert Name Here²]

Decepticon nailed it and so did McJob

They made points completely different to yours. So far you've been posting the definition of Osmium.

So that means I can't agree with them?

[McJob]

The defining trait of humanity is that it can go beyond nature.

That's the sad thing. No, we can't.

You might point to augmentations, such as prosthetic limbs or mechanical organs, as us going "beyond our nature". They really aren't; they simply imitate what nature intended for us, and most of these have limitations that prevent them from being better than the real thing.

Even if science will make better augmentations in the future, I honestly can't see us changing or controlling (at least, not for an EXTREMELY long time) the very core of what makes us work; the cells. We are made up of millions, maybe billions, of cells which are continuously being created and dying off. The creation of these cells is regulated by organs which are controlled by the brain, and these organs need access to specific types of chemicals in order to produce the cells perfectly.

There's a reason people with poor diets (like myself) typically develop health problems and don't last very long. Our bodies adapted to require specific foods so that we can continue to produce cells and survive. Just because you see something as morally "bad" doesn't mean that it's factually wrong.

[McZealot]

What? Humans can't go beyond nature because we still have cells? No, we can't transport our consciousness into a computer, I guess.

But we've got medicine that can drastically expand a natural human lifespan. We can perform surgery to save people with life-ending injuries. We're sending messages across continents through an online forum.

None of that stuff is in nature.

[Insert Name Here²]

What? Humans can't go beyond nature because we still have cells? No, we can't transport our consciousness into a computer, I guess.

But we've got medicine that can drastically expand a natural human lifespan. We can perform surgery to save people with life-ending injuries. We're sending messages across continents through an online forum.

None of that stuff is in nature.

Medicine which is made by chemicals which can be found my nature or can be made by combining other chemicals together

Surgery which is cutting into a human to fix things which has been going on for centuries

Messages which are just wavelengths of energy flowing through copper and zinc and silver and gold wires, everything which can be found in nature or be made by mixing stuff found by nature.

Anything and everything is made by using resources which can be found in nature or created by things that are also created by nature.

[McZealot]

Medicine which is made by chemicals which can be found my nature or can be made by combining other chemicals together

Surgery which is cutting into a human to fix things which has been going on for centuries

Messages which are just wavelengths of energy flowing through copper and zinc and silver and gold wires, everything which can be found in nature or be made by mixing stuff found by nature.

Anything and everything is made by using resources which can be found in nature or created by things that are also created by nature.

Human creations, by definition, are not natural, dude. That's... the whole point?

You're sounding like Lord Tony. "Emotions are just chemicals in our head, man!"

[McJob]

Humans can't go beyond nature because we still have cells?

Humans specifically can't change their diets to only require greens and never need to disturb animal life ever again.

But we've got medicine that can drastically expand a natural human lifespan.

And yet, there's articles about people who live without medicine or any of our "enhancements" well beyond the majority of us who live in technology-rich environments.

Medicine, btw, is just basic chemistry involving elements found in nature which are combined in order to create natural effects in our bodies. The only thing that's "unnatural" was the human learning involved to make people understand why those chemicals react that way, and in what ways that reaction could be useful to us.

We can perform surgery to save people with life-ending injuries. We're sending messages across continents through an online forum.

None of that stuff is in nature.

I'm not going to argue these because they don't have ANY affect on what you can/can't eat, nor do they have any relevance to the initial argument about the morality of killing animals for food, which you're trying to distract from.

EDIT: Then again, learning is quite natural; that's why we advanced past the other species in the chain. Many other animal species are also capable of learning; they simply don't have the lifespans, body parts or environments to put that learning to practical use.

[Insert Name Here²]

Human creations, by definition, are not natural, dude. That's... the whole point?

Give an explanation how they aren't then.

[McZealot]

Okay McJob, I'm failing to see your point. Everything is natural? Because the whole point of something being natural means it wasn't made by humans. It doesn't occur in nature, AKA a world unaffected by humans.

Give an explanation how they aren't then.

The hell?! It's the definition of the word!

the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

[McJob]

Okay McJob, I'm failing to see your point. Everything is natural? Because the whole point of something being natural means it wasn't made by humans. It doesn't occur in nature, AKA a world unaffected by humans.

What the forget are you on about?

I just showed you (even linking evidence!) how augmentations have yet to beat out people who live without the advances of technology, which is directly related to the point that your diet has huge importance to your survival. I said that the reason we must kill is because we simply aren't advanced enough to overcome our need for different types of food.

Stop derailing the bloody debate, because it's becoming annoying.