A Very Horrible Story

[Abs.]

CAKE!!!!!!!!!

LIES!

Nuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

[Commi-Ninja]

CAKE!!!!!!!!!

LIES!

[ranger]

portal 2 8)

[PT]

CAKE!!!!!!!!!

LIES!

Nuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Muahahahahaha~!

[Eve]

Well, how strict of a vegetarian are you?  What about eggs?

No eggs , but honey and milk is fine, I'm not a strict vegan  

Well..do you eat like, pastries or like bakery goods because they use eggs in em :O

CAKE!!!!!!!!!

Nope, I don't eat those, also not jello

Abs. is trying to create his harem here also? building on "LYING CAKES???!!!"

[ranger]

;__;

[Eve]

;__;

?

[Kleene Onigiri]

Sorry, I forgot to mention that the reason he kills them is for their fur.

And what's wrong with that?

For one, it's "bad" to raise animals and get the fur out of them. On the other hand, synthetic cloths are bad too because you need energy for that and is chemical and bla bla.

So, what do you want? Everyone should walk around naked? Oh wait.... I see your point now

Hmm...if I said "animals are merely just a source of protein and labor"...what would happen?

I'd agree with it in term of biology, but also would recommend you to be a vegetarian because the energy you're consuming are what were left of the original amount of energy

In term of my own personal take on it, I would also agree, it's life cycle, you kill, eat, and die for natural reasons

like this: http://newslite.tv/2010/07/22/new-strongest-beer-goes-on-sal.html

makes me barf

Well. Theoretically, the cow eats the grass and stuff. Then you eat the cow. So, if you eat the grass  instead of the cow, you'll save energy ;p

But if you're vegetarian you eat salad, tomatoes etc. But for that you need insecticide/pesticide. You also need a lot of synthesized  fertilizer, which is produced mostly out of ammonia. For that, you need to put in a lot of energy again.
So, energy wise, being a vegetarian isn't a big difference to a meat eating person.

And if you want every human on earth to become a vegetarian, you wouldn't have enough space to produce all this food (since you need field for that). And a cow is happy with grass. And I don't think you want to start eating grass.
Depending on the region, it's also more profitable to have cows instead of planting crops. And transporting crops into that region would also cost transport energy again.

On the other hand, you can staple animals to save space ;p


But doing something like this:  http://newslite.tv/2010/07/22/new-strongest-beer-goes-on-sal.html is stupid D:

[Eve]

Well. Theoretically, the cow eats the grass and stuff. Then you eat the cow. So, if you eat the grass  instead of the cow, you'll save energy ;p

But if you're vegetarian you eat salad, tomatoes etc. But for that you need insecticide/pesticide. You also need a lot of synthesized  fertilizer, which is produced mostly out of ammonia. For that, you need to put in a lot of energy again.
So, energy wise, being a vegetarian isn't a big difference to a meat eating person.

And if you want every human on earth to become a vegetarian, you wouldn't have enough space to produce all this food (since you need field for that). And a cow is happy with grass. And I don't think you want to start eating grass.
Depending on the region, it's also more profitable to have cows instead of planting crops. And transporting crops into that region would also cost transport energy again.

On the other hand, you can staple animals to save space ;p


But doing something like this:  http://newslite.tv/2010/07/22/new-strongest-beer-goes-on-sal.html is stupid D:

In term of ecology wise, to feed a cow, there's a need for a significant amount of grass, over the course of the cow's life, before it was eaten, energy it has gotten through producer levels will be release in form of heat, respiration, and to produce bones and hair, so the parts that can be consumed will not be as much as what was consumed originally

"Energy wise", in term of "energy going into produce" (e.g. fuel) if that's what you're saying, then energy into ranching, feeding, and transporting:
"More that 1/3 of all fossil fuels produced in the United States go towards animal agriculture. According to a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1), the production of one calorie of animal protein requires more than ten times the fossil fuel input as a calorie of plant protein. This means that ten times the amount of carbon dioxide is emitted as well."
for more information, you can search environmental vegetarianism

[Jd-]

I just hope you never hear how the bird cage vanish is done.

[Kleene Onigiri]

Well. Theoretically, the cow eats the grass and stuff. Then you eat the cow. So, if you eat the grass  instead of the cow, you'll save energy ;p

But if you're vegetarian you eat salad, tomatoes etc. But for that you need insecticide/pesticide. You also need a lot of synthesized  fertilizer, which is produced mostly out of ammonia. For that, you need to put in a lot of energy again.
So, energy wise, being a vegetarian isn't a big difference to a meat eating person.

And if you want every human on earth to become a vegetarian, you wouldn't have enough space to produce all this food (since you need field for that). And a cow is happy with grass. And I don't think you want to start eating grass.
Depending on the region, it's also more profitable to have cows instead of planting crops. And transporting crops into that region would also cost transport energy again.

On the other hand, you can staple animals to save space ;p


But doing something like this:  http://newslite.tv/2010/07/22/new-strongest-beer-goes-on-sal.html is stupid D:

In term of ecology wise, to feed a cow, there's a need for a significant amount of grass, over the course of the cow's life, before it was eaten, energy it has gotten through producer levels will be release in form of heat, respiration, and to produce bones and hair, so the parts that can be consumed will not be as much as what was consumed originally

"Energy wise", in term of "energy going into produce" (e.g. fuel) if that's what you're saying, then energy into ranching, feeding, and transporting:
"More that 1/3 of all fossil fuels produced in the United States go towards animal agriculture. According to a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1), the production of one calorie of animal protein requires more than ten times the fossil fuel input as a calorie of plant protein. This means that ten times the amount of carbon dioxide is emitted as well."
for more information, you can search environmental vegetarianism

Would this mean that cows are using up too much energy and shouldn't live at all? D:


And I guess in that study they don't count in the producing cost of fertilizer and pesticides and stuff. But I can't tell because it doesn't say anything about it (in your quote).
But never mind ;p

[Eve]

I just hope you never hear how the bird cage vanish is done.

Hmmm... I'm not into magic trick ^_^

@Kleene Onigiri

It doesn't mean "cows have to die", but it means "Cow should not be mass produced in farmlands that look like this as demands for meat rise"

This means:


Farms with no grass, these cows are there because of their meat, I'm pretty sure that's not how it should be naturally, ethically, or even environmentally

A look at the pigs:


On the topic of pesticides, improvements have been made, organic food are being produce, not to mention pesticides are known to affect human health as well, thus, when humans health is concerned, pesticides are being regulate and in the process of changing, the more people converting to vegetarianism, the more effort will be focus on this issue.

[Kleene Onigiri]

I just hope you never hear how the bird cage vanish is done.

Hmmm... I'm not into magic trick ^_^

@Kleene Onigiri

It doesn't mean "cows have to die", but it means "Cow should not be mass produced in farmlands that look like this as demands for meat rise"

This means:


Farms with no grass, these cows are there because of their meat, I'm pretty sure that's not how it should be naturally, ethically, or even environmentally

A look at the pigs:


On the topic of pesticides, improvements have been made, organic food are being produce, not to mention pesticides are known to affect human health as well, thus, when humans health is concerned, pesticides are being regulate and in the process of changing, the more people converting to vegetarianism, the more effort will be focus on this issue.

How do you want to solve it then? People need to eat. They can't just stop eating.
There are regions where crops aren't growing good because of the climate. So they use livestock for food. Since grass is growing without problems.

And naturally? You want wolfs to get used to vegetarian stuffs instead of meat? That's not natural for them.
Same for humans. We have teeth for meat and vegetables. So it's just natural to eat meat and vegetables (basically anything)

There are also examples where animals are "cruel". Dolphins for example are able to kill sharks. They gang up on them. They kill them and don't eat them. I don't know why they really do that. But they don't do that to survive (aka eating the meat or if that they were threatened)

[Akonyl]

I just hope you never hear how the bird cage vanish is done.

Hmmm... I'm not into magic trick ^_^

you could at least watch The Prestige

As for 'The End of History', and thinking it's disgusting because it's bottled in animal bodies, the creators have claimed that all of the animals used in the bottles were previously roadkill. There is nothing wrong with reuse of materials imo.

[Eve]

How do you want to solve it then? People need to eat. They can't just stop eating.
There are regions where crops aren't growing good because of the climate. So they use livestock for food. Since grass is growing without problems.

And naturally? You want wolfs to get used to vegetarian stuffs instead of meat? That's not natural for them.
Same for humans. We have teeth for meat and vegetables. So it's just natural to eat meat and vegetables (basically anything)

There are also examples where animals are "cruel". Dolphins for example are able to kill sharks. They gang up on them. They kill them and don't eat them. I don't know why they really do that. But they don't do that to survive (aka eating the meat or if that they were threatened)

I'm not a radical who wish everything to just halt to a stop at an instant, these are my beliefs and the reason why I've become a vegetarian.

The examples of dolphins and sharks are natural, it's nature, and yes, it's natural for human to eat other animals, we are after all predators, but then we are not just animals, we have thoughts and choices, and as an individual, I chose to be a vegetarian based on the above reasons ^^, and one of my beliefs is in a the long run, our population far exceeds the natural cycles, there will be times when we have to make choices to save the next generations, I'm making mine now, that's all ^_^.

@Akonyl

you could at least watch The Prestige

Meh, I'll look for time later... maybe

As for 'The End of History', and thinking it's disgusting because it's bottled in animal bodies, the creators have claimed that all of the animals used in the bottles were previously roadkill. There is nothing wrong with reuse of materials imo.

That's one take to it, the other would be: So then humans after death is nothing but material, we should stuff them lol,  my real point: the "creators" claimed as such, but really, I've seen road kills, maybe I'm not lucky enough to see a "totally perfect for stuffing roadkill" to make a connection, most I've seen was a really tattered body and the head was practically the only thing that seems intact, not to mention, if they kill them, then claim it was roadkill, how are we to know? And if these things becomes "sought after items" will it just be a limit to road kill? ^^ Just my take on it ^_^