Stop eating animals/ and WHY?

Fact, the human race is part of the ecosystem and the biosphere and the universe etc.

Fact, Human beings are omnivorous animals by nature.

Fact, omnivores eat both meat & veg. This is totally natural.

There is no rational argument for human beings becoming strict vegetarians as a natural course of action.

Hence my disparriaging "religous conceit" remark.

Whilst I agree that it is up to the individual to decide how to lead their lives, I cannot bear to be preached at by zealots and veggie facists.

I eat meat- not an awful lot. I kill animals personally to do so as well as occassionally let others kill animals for me. I do not support cruel treatment of animals.

Meat eating is not unusual in higher primates (of which I consider myself to belong). Life in itself is wholly dependent on a cycle of living beings eating living matter to carry on living. Even vegetables are alive and themselves depend on the life cycle of organisms to grow.

Whilst I agree that battery farming and selective breeding and other dubious practices should be outlawed, I personally see nothing wrong with controlling the popullation of Organic free ranging animals for food or for taking milk from a cow without removing the calve from the equation.

Some vegans hide behind a selective peity in their consumption of soya- an industry that is not only causing large scale deforestation, the destruction of habitats but also the wholesale extinction of species that is inestimatable. Or by smoking, or using medications or by wearing cosmetics- all of which support animal testing.

I would wholeheartedly support any vegans right to their beliefs. But, I'm totally sick of being preached at by hypocrites. I know that some points I'm making do not apply to 100% of vegans, but there are a significant amounts of people who fall into that category to warrant the observation.

Big up the proper vegans who walk the walk. Do your own thing and I'll do mine, thanks.

who dreamt up the idea of speciesism? Of course I care about my own species above all others. That's a large part of what makes me human.

Middle-class kids who rebel against their upbringing descend into the absurd when they decide that we are imperialists as a species.

White men who wear dreadlocks and weep over exploited cows are enough to make anyone puke
john

The question, dear Mole, is not WHY? But perhaps WHY NOT?

Here all previous arguments will be applicable, such as Barcode's, or such as mine

"I like eating meat...taste, smells, touch..."
"Carnivourous human male animals have a richer sexual life than not or in other words:
"Non human animals' meat helps maintaining good human male animals' erections"
"My GP insists i should be eating a diversified diet"
"I don't see why not"
"They don't provide for vegan kids at public schools meal services"
"A steak is easier and quicker to cook than a vegan meal".
"I don't care what i eat provided it nurtures me"

Ecologist's comment only prove how highly civilized he/she is (no irony here). Cruelty (or indifference) to animals is prevalent in many parts of this world, at least that I know of. But in the previous comment there is talk of free range, battery breeding and so on --that's quite a developed view point.
Yet i disagree with "omnivorous animals eath both meat and not meat... This is natural"
When talking about the human species (used to be called human RACE), is there anything that is natural? Since everything is permeated by CULTURE, even the notion of omnivorous is a culturally built notion, a construct perhaps.
Religious thought and standards were frequently provided for medical/hygiene purposes : stop eating pork, or its opposite, if you don't eat pork, you are deported as an heretic (Muslim, Jew, whatever)

Anyway, zealots will be zealots, but they are not in power, it's the carnivorous culture which is in power, carnivourism is part of this culture/society that Mole and her likes would like to see... revolted.


Mole the other

"I like eating meat...taste, smells, touch..."
Paedophiles like fucking young children (smell, taste, touch). Not really a valid argument though is it ?


"Carnivourous human male animals have a richer sexual life than not or in other words:
"Non human animals' meat helps maintaining good human male animals' erections"


Hahhaa. You are not being serious are you ? Erectile dysfunction is caused by poor circulation. Eating meat causes fatty arterial deposits and thus damages sexual performance in men. If you don't believe me, I will fuck you up the arse and then you can get a meat eater to fuck you up the arse and you can see the clear improvement in aveggie hard-on.

"My GP insists i should be eating a diversified diet"
They also tell you eating meat is bad for your heart, your arterial system and it also damages your DNA. You can get all the nutrients you need from other sources.


"I don't see why not"
That'll be the fat clogging up the arteries in your brain.

"They don't provide for vegan kids at public schools meal services"
YANK ALERT !!! Stick to US websites or at least learn what 'public school' means in the UK. All British schools provide non-meat dinners, even the shittiest public schools.

"A steak is easier and quicker to cook than a vegan meal".
A steak isn't a meal. Surely you eat some veg ? Not even chips - sorry, what do YANK BASTARDS call chips again ? Freedom fries ?

"I don't care what i eat provided it nurtures me"
Well, meat doesn't. It isn't good for you, it isn't good or the billions of animals you exploit, and idiots raising factory farmed meat are responsible for the cross-species spread of most viruses in the world - ie even vegetarians are threatened by your choice.


Eat steak, eat steak eat a big ol' steer
Eat steak, eat steak do we have one dear?
Eat beef, eat beef it's a mighty good food
It's a grade A meal when I'm in the mood.

Cowpokes'll come from a near and far
When you throw a few rib-eyes on the fire
Roberto Duran ate two before a fight
'Cause it gave a lot of mighty men a lot of mighty might

Eat steak, eat steak eat a big ol' steer
Eat steak, eat steak do we have one dear?
Eat beef, eat beef it's a mighty good food
It's a grade A meal when I'm in the mood.

Eat meat, eat meat, filet mignon
Eat meat, eat meat, ear it all day long
Eat a few T-bones till you get your fill
Eat a new york cut, hot off the grill

Eat steak, eat steak eat a big ol' steer
Eat steak, eat steak do we have one dear?
Eat beef, eat beef it's a mighty good food
It's a grade A meal when I'm in the mood.

Eat a cow, eat a cow 'cause it's good for you
Eat a cow, eat a cow it's the thing that goes "Mooooo"

Look at all the cows in the slaughterhouse yeard
Gotta hit'em in the head, gotta hit'em real hard
First you gotta clean'em then the butcher cuts'em up
Throws it on a scale throws an eyeball in a cup

Saw a big Angus Steer standing right over there
So I rustled up a fire cooked him medium rare
Bar-B-Q'ed his brisket, a roasted his rump
Fed my dog that ol' Brangus Steer's hump

Eat steak, eat steak eat a big ol' steer
Eat steak, eat steak do we have one dear?
Eat beef, eat beef it's a mighty good food
It's a grade A meal when I'm in the mood.

New York ( a denunciation ) - Federico Garcia Lorca

Under the multiplications,

A drop of duck’s blood;

under the divisions,

a drop of sailor’s blood;

under the additions, a river of tender blood.

A river that sings and flows

Past bedrooms in the boroughs-

And it’s money, cement, or wind

In New York’s counterfeit dawn.

I know the mountains exist.

And wisdom’s eyeglasses,

too, but I didn’t come here to see the sky.

I’m here to see the clouded blood,

The blood that sweeps machines over waterfalls

and the soul towards the cobra’s tongue.

Every day in New York, they slaughter

Four million ducks,

Five million hogs,

two thousand pigeons to accommodate the tastes of
the

dying,

one million cows,

one million lambs,

and two million roosters

that smash the skies to pieces

It’s better to sob while honing the blade

Or kill on the delirious hunts

Than to resist at dawn

The endless milk trains,

the endless blood trains

and the trains of roses, manacled

by the dealers in perfume.

The ducks and the pigeons,

the hogs and the lambs

lay their drops of blood

under the multiplications,

and the terrified bellowing of the cows wrung dry

fills the valley with sorrow

where the Hudson gets drunk on oil.

I denounce everyone

who ignores the other half,

the half that can’t be redeemed,

who lift their mountains of cement

where the hearts beat

inside forgotten little animals

and where all of us will fall

in the last feast of pneumatic drills.

I spit in all your faces.

The other half hears me,

devouring, pissing, flying in their purity,

like the supers’ children in lobbies

who carry fragile twigs

to the emptied spaces where

the insect antennae are rusting.

This is not hell but the street.

Not death, but the fruit stand.

There is a world of broken rivers and distances just
beyond

our grasp

in the cat’s paw smashed by a car,

and I hear the earthworm’s song

in the hearts of many girls.

Rust, fermentation, quaking earth.

You yourself are the earth as you drift in office
numbers.

What shall I do now? Set the landscapes in order?

Order the love that soon becomes photographs,

That soon become pieces of wood and mouthfuls of
blood?

No, no: I renounce it all.

I denounce the conspiracy

of these deserted offices

that radiate no agony,

that erase the forest’s plans,

and I offer myself as food for the cows wrung dry

when their bellowing fills the valley

where the Hudson gets drunk on oil.

The human body is designed to eat meat. No we don't HAVE to, but we clearly have evolved for meat consumption to be our biological norm.

Like I said I fully support many vegan objections regarding the treatment of animals, but to claim that eating meat is wrong on any other level than personal belief is plainly bonkers.

>The human body is designed to eat meat.

No, we are omnivores not carnivores.

>No we don't HAVE to, but we clearly have evolved for meat consumption to be our biological norm.

No, that is patently untrue. We have evolved to eat many things.

>Like I said I fully support many vegan objections regarding the treatment of animals, but to claim that eating meat is wrong on any other level than personal belief is plainly bonkers.

No, human meat consumption at current levels requires factory farming, which carries serious risks to non-meat eaters (SARS, avian flu, CJD etc).

Now if you think it is moral to hunt and kill meat, or even to keep your own domesticated animals for your own use/abuse, that's fine by me. But you don't. You use factory farmed meat. So whatever the morality is between you and the animals you want slaughtered, you impinge upon my life-expectancy by your methods. And if you threaten my life, it perhaps rational for me to threaten yours. Even if animals were morally neutral like rocks - and if you can look into a cows eyes and proclaim that then so be it - I am not morally neutral and my life has value even if yours doesn't.

You going for an award in pedantry Danny. I never claimed that humans were exclusively carnivores.
I do kill to eat- did you read my comment at all? I have also reared & killed animals personally for that purpose and I wholly agree with your points abouts health issues (already implied above).

I'll repeat: the human body is designed for eating meat... as well as other things. The choice not to is a belef issue and not grounded in any self-evident fact.

I disagree that current levels of consumption requires intensive factory farming. That situation has come about economically rather than logistcally. I think it is totally feasible that we could get back to a situation of smaller scale local famring. Which would most likely in turn bring meat prices back up to a level which could support farmers again and also lower meat consumption.

The centralisation of the meat industry is the byproduct of the supermarket monopoly and shareholder greed- just one of many examples of how economics has fucked our communities, local economies and local cultures.

Yeah, I read your comments and don't belive I misrepresented you ( even if I had your comments were still visible). And i do think it is commendable that if you choose to eat meat than you do raise and slaughter the animals yourself.

I'm not religious about it. If you offer me meat and I am really hungry, with no other source of food, I'll eat it without a qualm.

However, you don't pretend to raise ALL your own meat, nor do you pretend it is sustainable for everyone to eat meat all the time (it isn't without oil).

Nor do you pretend that the factory farmed meat doesn't have health risks for herbivores. I live in Scotland, and I can't smoke in pubs now in case it damages your health, nor can I drive home drunk afterwards, in case it harms your health.

What I am asking you is do you really understand how factory-farming risks my life for your pleasure - and if so, can you justify that ?

"the human body is designed for eating meat..."

Well if you have read the earlier comment mentioning heart disease, blocked arteries and many other diseases and disfunctions caused by eating meat then you must have just ignored it.

The human body was *once* built for eating meat but it isn't really anymore. We suffer major problems if we eat meat - some caused by us, some caused by meat itself.

Also, before you come up with any lame arguments about teeth etc... try visiting the website i've linked to. There is lots of information there.

AS The fatty bloodied animal flesh stagnates in the feces colon and muscle bloodied canals of the wanna-be carnivores body-i will be cheering like a heretic anti-humanist can-imploring the heart beat and mental world to stop like that of the individual pigs,sheep,cows,calfs,lambs,turkeys,chickens,ducks and fishes does.


May the slaughterhouse expand,may the "food chain" be inclusive!

No there are no excuses for factory farming and the threat to public health and no given its reliance on environmentally hostile substance it is by no means sustainable in its present form.

No, I have to admit that I do very occassionally submit to an urge and buy conveniently pre-killed meat with no clue whatsoever to what the welfare of the animal was or any other surrounding issues.

To put things into perspective, I probably eat shop-bought meat about 4 times a year now. My regular meat intake is 99% tinned fish (dolphin friendly).

As I said, I am totally behind any calls for a more ethically sound sound solution to the meat industry, I totally respect any individual's wishes not to eat meat, but I'm not going to apologise for being omnivorous... only for my occassional weakness in what I buy- which at least is drastically lower than it was five years ago.

P.S. To the poster arguing medical facts and meat eating: that's probably more to do with changes of lifestyle as most people are being battery farmed in call centres and getting no real cardiovascular exercise. But yeah, the teeth are a bit of a give away.

was I wouldn't eat anything that hadn't been brutally murdered, it cut all the self-sanctimonious crap from the argument straight-away. I was raised in a family of professional poachers and could skin a rabbit by the age of 8 though I lived in a town. I moved to the countryside with a vegetarian girlfriend, and being a lazy bastard was inclined not to cook an extra meal for myself just to satisfy my 'learned' cravings. That cut me down on meat, laziness, not morality, I'm not judging you. But being in the country, I'd be sitting eating my Sunday dinner when the farmer would drive his sheep by, and I'd see the lambs clumsily shorn, bleeding from the poor animal husbandry that is typical in the UK, scared and scarred and domesticated, and I'd know that example of poor care would be typical of all their lives. I once fell asleep in a field and woke to bunch of those lambs jumping over me, and queuing up in a circle for the privelge. So I voluntarily stopped eating British meat and rationalised it was just British farmers who were so uncaring.

And then I moved abroad, and saw the animals in Europe and the US at least are treated just as shoddily if not worse.

Like I say, I still eat meat if it is my only option to avoid hunger, as hunger is such an awful pain and a even a greater motivating force than sex for humans, I just try to keep my wits together enough to have some other source of nutrients. All food has an evrinonmental cost and most of them have a health risk to yourself, but it is silly for anyone to say 'even vegetables are alive' for vegetables aren't sentient and sheep certainly are.

Eating 'dolphin-friendly' tuna is a good half-way house, a good-starting point, at least the fish lead a free, undomesticated life before they are killed, but even then, in your heart of hearts, you know it is wrong. The seas are being vacuumed and so there are no truly dolphin-friendly fish meats. If you haven't caught it or raised it you shouldn't eat it.

You know you can live without meat perfectly healthily - more healthily - and it does take work and investigation and it does take commitment, and no, you shouldn't be judgemental about the issue but you should understand more when others who have made that commitment are being judgemental about it.

You eat meat if you want to, but do me one favour, if you ever have kids raise them to be veggie from birth as then they won't notice the change and besides, they are unlikely to have any sources of meat when they grow up. It really isn't sustainable and never was, for instance, all the non-veggie dishes you buy in an Indian restaurant are simply Indian dishes with meat added - most poor people in history have rarely tasted meat. It is hard giving up meat, it is hard giving up cigarettes but even I know I should both for myself and others. And once you have given it up, it's plain sailing.

So as you ignored the site I linked and made a moronic reference to teeth, here are some snippets for you:

Our pointed canine teeth show that we should eat meat. It is natural

Our teeth are far better suited to eating plants than eating meat. Just try eating a complete cow carcass using only your mouth and see how well our teeth are suited to eating animals. Gorillas, as an example, have far larger canines than us - and gorillas are vegetarians.

Basically, we are a mainly vegetarian species who can also make use of meat. This was probably important for cave-men, but today in the Western world we have such a range of plant foods available to us that we have no need for animal products. We are not very well adapted to eating meat, unlike carnivorous species. For instance, carnivores do not get "furred up" arteries from eating too much animal fat - but we do. They have a short digestive tract (three times their body length) - we have a herbivorous sized one (12 times our body length). We also have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of carnivores, as do herbivores.
"Usually, the first thing a country does in the course of economic development is to introduce a lot of livestock. Our data are showing that this is not a very smart move . . . We are basically a vegetarian species and should be eating a wide variety of plant food and minimizing our intake of animal foods . . ."
--T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D., of Cornell University

To those who defend meat-eating by saying that it is natural, and we have always done it - remember that just because we have always done something does not mean that it is right! Rape, murder and child abuse have always been around too, this does not mean that we should all do these things.
(An interesting point is that the person who is so interested in eating "naturally" should, in theory, be opposed to the use of milk, which is unnatural. This is rarely the case, as the person who uses this argument is usually just looking for excuses to defend their current eating habits, and so would be just as opposed to giving up dairy products as they would meat.)
"Once we start appealing to the past as an argument we are being false to the past itself, because we have removed it from the circumstances that gave it logic and integrity and have started recasting it to suit our own very different needs."
--Bishop Richard Holloway

What about killing animals for food if they have good lives and are slaughtered painlessly?

This is rarely the case, and impractical- see the free-range and organic page. And even if animals were generally treated well, there would always be neglectful or abusive owners, or just human error that would lead to suffering. In any case, for as long as we continue to see animals as a means to an end - machines for producing meat - rather than an end in themselves, it is unlikely that we can be trusted to give enough consideration to their interests. The fact that blatantly cruel farming methods could become the norm in the Western world, yet still have the support of almost everyone, shows that we can not be trusted. Most people accept that it is wrong to be cruel to pets, but they are willing to overlook cruelty that is supplying them with cheap meat. For instance, laws in the UK say that if anyone keeps a bird then they must keep it in a cage that at least allows it to spread its wings - this law excludes poultry.

"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men."
--Alice Walker - foreword to "The Dreaded comparison: Human and Animal Slavery"

However, in a purely hypothetical situation where it is possible to raise and kill animals for meat without ever causing them and suffering or distress, is it acceptable to do so? Some animals can be said to have less of a right to life than most humans, as the question of intelligence can rationally be used in arguments about killing, unlike those about suffering. For instance, it can be said that a being who can think about and plan for the future should have more right to a future that one who can't. I will leave you to make your own conclusions about this, but bear in mind that the only rational way that you could justify rearing animals for food is if you also said that it would be acceptable to raise humans of the same intelligence for food.

Also, why do you say you buy fish? Do fish not deserve a thought? They are animals to:

Fish don't feel pain, so it is okay to harm them

This belief is usually based on the brains of fish, which are not as advanced as the brains of other animals. A recent scientific study concluded that fish don't feel pain or fear. However, almost every scientific experiment before this concluded that they do, and this recent study was carried out by a confirmed angler, James Rose, who has long insisted that fish don't have feelings so may have subconsciously (or consciously!) interpreted his data to back up his preconcieved opinion.

Professor Donald Broom of Cambridge University (government animal welfare advisor) has said that "The pain system in fish is virtually the same as in birds and mammals." Work currently coming out of Norway is showing that fish feel pain from a physiokinetic approach, and study in 2000 in New Zealand showed that fish are able to recognize anglers as a threat, a behaviour they claim is only achievable by an ability to feel pain.

Basically, fish have the same evolutionary need for pain and fear as all other animals - if they did not feel them, they would not avoid predators or other dangerous situations. Fish certainly react as though the can feel pain and fear, but it has been said that this does not mean that they can actually feel. However, fish have the same nerve endings, the same chemicals for transmitting and blocking pain, and the same receptor sites for anxiety-reducing chemicals as mammals do.

Because the issue has not been resolved conclusively, it is better to refrain from harming fish, just in case they do feel pain. This goes for other creatures we are uncertain about, too. And large scale fishing, even if it is not cruel to the fish, causes harm to other animals and also to humans. See the fish section (coming soon).

Another question you might like:

Animals can not understand the concept of morality, therefore they are outside of our moral sphere.

Neither can mentally retarded humans, or babies and young children. This does not mean that it is impossible to be immoral towards them.
But it is sometimes said that because MOST humans have certain characteristics (ie the ability to understand the logical process of morality) then ALL humans should be treated as though they have them. For instance, some say that we can morally eat a pig (even a pig that can use logic), because pigs as a species can not use logic, but we can't morally eat a human (even a human who can not use logic), because humans as a species can use logic. This argument seems ridiculous - we should not treat others as a part of a group, we should treat them according to their individual characteristics. For instance, just because MOST women do not make good mechanics, we do not say that ALL women should be treated as the "average" woman and be banned from being mechanics. Treating the mentally retarded as "normal" members of the species would mean that we would have to let them vote, make their own decision to leave home or hospital (even though they could not look after themselves and would die), etc. Obviously, this is not right - we should treat them according to their abilities, not according to the "norm" of the species.

In any case, it is not true that humans are the only animals with any kind of morality. For instance, in a classic experiment in 1964, scientist Stanley Wechlin showed that a hungry rhesus monkey would not take food if doing so meant that another monkey recieved an electric shock. In a variation of this experiment, as related in "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors", by Drs. Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, "macaques were fed if they were willing to pull a chain and electrically shock an unrelated macaque whose agony was in plain view through a one-way mirror. Otherwise, they starved. After learning the ropes, the monkeys frequently refused to pull the chain; in one experiment only 13% would do so–87% preferred to go hungry. One macaque went without food for nearly two weeks rather than hurt its fellow. Macaques who had themselves been shocked in previous experiments were even less willing to pull the chain."
Rats also hold back in this way. This suggests that some animals are capable of feeling empathy and compassion, and putting others before themselves. In another study, Hal Markowitz from San Francisco State University reported that after training Diana monkeys to insert a token into a slot to get food, he observed a male helping the oldest female who had failed to learn the task. On three occasions the male picked up the tokens she had dropped, put them into the machine, and allowed her to have the food.

Besides these laboratory examples, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of animals seeming to show a kind of morality. Most people have heard stories about dolphins rescuing drowning humans, or pets risking their lives to save humans from fires. Buffalo have been known to team up to save a member of the herd that has been pulled down by lions (when the sensible but selfish thing to do would be to let them eat it, as then the lions' appetites would be fulfilled and the rest of the herd would be safe for a few days). They chase the lions away, and stay with the injured animal until it has recovered enough to move on with the herd. Herds of cows have been known to protect farmers from angry bulls in this way (although farmers usually have no qualms about sending cows to be killed!). In other cases, when a parrot's mate suffers a stroke and is partially paralysed, the well bird has been known look after its partner and feed it regurgitated food until it can find food by itself again - this may be many months. There are many other cases like these.

Hope you take the time to read them... Afterall, 99% of arguments that meat-eaters make against veganism are just trying to cover a feeling of guilt and to try and make yourself feel morally superior regardless of the actual facts.

“Animals are fond of us” “Animals like Us”
“Animals like to be eaten”
“Animals like to be fed”
“Human species is not superior to other animal species, superiority/inferiority/ is a master-slave link, from an ancient way of life and thought, the same that used to place female beneath male... etc.
“Human species is dependent on other animal species. But not vice versa, animals have lived on this planet long before human beings were developed. But the contrary has yet to be proved.
“Human species has not proved their moral “superiority" over non human animals”...
The question of course is could you live on a planet without any non human animals? Would you like it?

NB: The scribbler of the above was an avid reader of Philip V. Dyke (Blade Runner was based on his Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) and G. Orwell (Animal Farm...etc)

"You eat meat if you want to, but do me one favour, if you ever have kids raise them to be veggie from birth as then they won't notice the change and besides, they are unlikely to have any sources of meat when they grow up. It really isn't sustainable and never was"


Yes darling, we are following similar trends of thought.



Yes!!

So whatever the morality is between you and the animals you want slaughtered, you impinge upon my life-expectancy by your methods. And if you threaten my life, it perhaps rational for me to threaten yours. Even if animals were morally neutral like rocks - and if you can look into a cows eyes and proclaim that then so be it - I am not morally neutral and my life has value even if yours doesn't.


Strong words there! Too strong for my delicate palate...

And if you threaten my life...

heck what would you do to me as a smoker!!! Would you consider me as BAD as a car driver-owner for his/her own pleasure?
True i don't grow my own tobacco leaves... but i certainly would enjoy doing it if anyone told me how to. Danni and her likes won't teach you that...

The final lines hide some truth anyway.

And if you threaten my life, it perhaps rational for me to threaten yours. "

"You ISRAELI SOLDIER or what??""""???

I'd be happy to teach you how to grow tobacco plants, feel free to come and the ones I'm growing.
Growing tobacco plants is relatively easy, have a read :  http://www.coffinails.com/growing.html
You are supposed to pay a £10 licence fee in the UK but nobody ever gets prosecuted for it as most cops couldn't tell a tobacco plant from a cactus.

Despite Danny's usual hyperbole (which definitely requires personal acquaintance to get the intrinsic Scottishness of it) I think he's 100% correct in his observations.

People don't get pissed off enough about other people making them ill through their lifestyles and personally I voted for the smoking ban in the public consultation and gladly stand in the rain in an effort not to affect others through my carcinogenic indulgence.

If you think lung cancer and road deaths (and related illnesses) are appropriate topics of "political correctness gone mad" type sneers perhaps you should have a word with my old Grandma who watched her husband rot from the inside out in a hospice with nothing but morphine for comfort, or to the parents of the guy I went to school with who had his head smashed open by a car driver.

It isn't zealorty to ask for people to respect others' right to live. It probably seems like it is because we are conditioned to be far too forgiving.

That kind of preaching is wholehearted welcome and a damn site more relevant than some daft website in denial of human physiology.

"It probably seems like it is because we are conditioned to be far too forgiving."

I never thought of that, it's an interesting idea.

I don't really believe in any evidence that passive smoking kills, ("The effect of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me." - Sir Richard Doll ). Passive smoking certainly doesn't kill active smokers and I don't see why you can't have smoking venues. I remember always being told to at least eat my meat, that it was good for me.

"
Marianne Harvey, 25, from Stepaside, near Tenby, Richard Cole, 30, of Kilgetty, and Richard Roberts, 18, of Carmarthen, all died from the human form of mad cow disease between 1999 and 2002. The 2004 inquiry found they had all eaten school dinners in 1987 and 1988 - Ms Harvey and Mr Cole at Greenhill School in Tenby, and Mr Roberts at Johnstown Primary School in Carmarthen. The inquiry suggested their deaths may have been linked to eating school dinners after it was discovered the abattoir used to supply the schools they attended was also being used to slaughter animals deemed unfit for human consumption. But the report decided there was no firm evidence to prove contamination.Tonight ITV current affairs programme Wales This Week is set to reveal that offal deemed unfit for human consumption could have been processed in exactly the same area in which meat was being prepared for shipment to schools at the Pwll Bach abattoir in Llanelli. The programme will reveal the information from the newly-discovered Keane Report, named after the barrister who chaired the inquiry way back in 1990. And the National Public Health Service for Wales has confirmed that it is now reopening the inquiry into the three deaths. But Terry Roberts, a retired police officer whose son Richard died of CJD in 2002, is angry that the Keane Report, commissioned by Llanelli Borough Council in 1990, has taken so long to surface. He said, "The meat scandal was high profile at the time, and everyone knew that Mr Keane QC had held an inquiry. We were able to obtain copies of many of the statements, but not the report. "It seems incredible that the inquiry team, with their access to all kinds of public records, weren't able to find a copy.
"
 http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_objectid=17176420&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=shock-twist-in-welsh-cjd-deaths-name_page.html#story_continue

"
THE number of people infected with the human form of mad cow disease could be far higher than experts thought. Scientists today said they believe the incubation period for vCJD may be longer than previously thought, increasing the potential number of victims.They believe the time between infection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and developing variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease could be more than 50 years. The worrying findings come just a couple of months after Scottish researchers found evidence that vCJD could lie dormant in the body for years without showing any symptoms. There have been 161 cases of vCJD in humans in the UK - 155 people are thought to have died from the disease and more than 40 deaths have yet to be confirmed.
"
 http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_objectid=17278540&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=fears-that-vcjd-could-lie-dormant-for--more-than-50-years--name_page.html

"
Some of the 4,000 received transfusions from people who then developed variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (vCJD). Others donated blood to people who then developed it. It is thought some people may carry the incurable disease while seeming perfectly healthy. In its remit to the committee, the Department of Health said: "There are now a significant number of people identified as 'at risk' [of developing vCJD] and given that the numbers identified may grow, the department has set-up the CGAG to review the current arrangements." It asks the group, which includes lay people, neurologists and blood transfusion service staff to advise on "follow-up care and support... [and] on the appropriate monitoring of these individuals, taking account of their views, and to better understand the disease".
"
 http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=883592006

I second that!

I think there is valid reason for discussion, but it just really isn't activism news.

"The Myth of Canada!" is news is it ?
"UK - India relations sour up because of Aamir Khan act in Bollywood"
"a vision on the political parties in Brazil. "
"Image Scan Dot Org - 'Quitline' mp3 "
" http://www.policestateplanning.com/"
"MINDERBINDERS OCTOPUS STARS IN "EX-SECRET POLICE ACADEMY 22""
All great news stories eh ?

The IM volunteer who promoted the 'non-news' additions obviously agrees, so do I, so if the volunteer didn't think it was news why was the thread allowed to stand ? Smacks of hypocracy that. Why not hide it - all the other keech that gets posted here ?

As is, IM is quickly becoming THE place to catch up on the latest theories reposted from US consiparcy websites. Real citizen journalism that, a boon for those of us who can't be bothered reading through rense.com, wrh.com, davidicke.com and all those other wondeful 'activist' sites.

bored bokononon and hyperbolic Scottish,

be honest: you dislike this thread because it's the only one with 22 comments


Yes, you've been trained to forgive: we have been taught and trained by CHristians, or what do you think? And they teach to forgive.

BTW the world is going round, i will stick to that and leave retaliations and the rest to Israeli Soldiers, bored bokononon and E-collogist, who seem otherwise intelligent chaps



bye for ever


Mole