Sorry your browser is not supported!

Raven -- the point is that these are all just terms people have invented to describe the world. Just because we have these words does not mean they are accurate.

We impose these concept on the world, and then are surprised when -- BAM! -- none of it works.

A huge amount of things like "order", "balance", "structure" are just concepts to justify imposing our will on everything around us.

"Well, this is out of balance." = "Better smack this back into place."

The minute you assume there is a balance, you are conveying a power relationship. Naturally, as the being expressing that relationship, you are in the superior position.

Thus, we assume thought gives us moral imperative, and therefore justifies our actions.

This is the basis of human conflict. We're animals who rate ourselves smart, and then get frustrated -- and eventually violent -- because the world does not match what our intelligence tells us it should be.

As for defining "balance" the scales are a good example of what is wrong with "balance".

The scales themselves don't give a damn if they tip totally to one side. It is only the human standing there saying "They're not balanced" that makes it an issue.

Atoms staying together?

C'mon. Take a look at the bigger universe. Just because we exist in one of the rare pockets where the atoms have made the mistake of sticking together long enough to create mankind does not make that a general rule.

In fact, the vast majority of the universe's mass is not in atomic form (hence the great unaccounted dark matter hunt).

I quote from the infamous Maddox...


You think you're saving the world by eating a tofu-burger and sticking to a diet of grains and berries? Well here's something that not many vegetarians know (or care to acknowledge): every year millions of animals are killed by wheat and soy bean combines during harvesting season
Oh yeah, go on and on for hours about how all of us meat eaters are going to hell for having a steak, but conveniently ignore the fact that each year millions of mice, rabbits, snakes, skunks, possums, squirrels, gophers and rats are ruthlessly murdered as a direct result of YOUR dieting habits

That's right: the gloves have come off. The vegetarian response to this embarrassing fact is "well, at least we're not killing intentionally." So let me get this straight; not only are animals ruthlessly being murdered as a direct result of your diet, but you're not even using the meat of the animals YOU kill? At least we're eating the animals we kill (and although we also contribute to the slaughter of animals during grain harvesting, keep in mind that we're not the ones with a moral qualm about it), not just leaving them to rot in a field somewhere. That makes you just as morally repugnant than any meat-eater any day. Not only that, but you're killing free-roaming animals, not animals that were raised for feed. Their bodies get mangled in the combine's machinery, bones crushed, and you have the audacity to point fingers at the meat industry for humanely punching a spike through a cow's neck? If you think that tofu burgers come at no cost to animals or the environment, guess again.

There's no way out of this one. The only option left for you dipshits is to buy some land, plant and pick your own crops. Impractical? Yeah, well, so is your stupid diet.

Even if combines aren't used to harvest your food, you think that buying fruits and vegetables (organic or otherwise) is any better? How do you think they get rid of bugs that eat crops in large fields? You think they just put up signs and ask parasites to politely go somewhere else? Actually, I wouldn't put that suggestion past you hippies. One of the methods they use to get rid of pests is to introduce a high level of predators for each particular prey, which wreaks all sorts of havoc on the natural balance of predator/prey populations--causing who knows what kind of damage to the environment. Oops, did I just expose you moral-elitists for being frauds? Damndest thing.

A number of people have pointed out that the amount of grain grown to feed animals for slaughter every year is greater than the amount of grain grown for humans. So I guess the amount of grain grown for human consumption suddenly becomes negligible and we can conveniently ignore the fact that animals are still ruthlessly murdered either way because of your diet, right? Not to mention that the majority of grain grown for livestock is tough as rocks, coarse, and so low-grade that it's only fit for animal consumption in the first place. Spare me the "you could feed 500 people with the grain used to feed one cow" line of shit; it's not the same grain. Then there are the people who jump on the bandwagon with "you could plant billions of potatoes on the land used for cows"--good point, except for the fact that not every plot of land is equally fertile; you think farmers always have a choice on what they do with their land? Also, many vegetarians don't know (or care to acknowledge) that in many parts of the United States they have "control hunts" in which hunting permits are passed out whenever there is a pest problem (the pest here is deer, elk and antelope) that threatens wheat, soy, vegetable and other crops; this happens several times per year. Then some of you throw out claims that "we are trying to limit the suffering." How about you limit MY suffering and shut the hell up about your stupid diet for a change; nobody cares. Even if the number of animals that die in combine deaths every year isn't in the millions, even if it's just one, are you suggesting that the life of one baby rabbit isn't worth saving? Are you placing a value on life? Enjoy your tofu, murderers

Limit the suffering? That's like me saying I'm going to eat meat only 364 out of 365 days of the year in an effort to "limit" the suffering, I'm doing my part to prevent suffering. "BUT MADDOX, YOU COULD LIMIT A LOT MORE SUFFERING BY NOT EATING MEAT AT ALL!!!1" Exactly, and vegetarians could limit a lot more suffering by planting their own crops, but where do you draw the line? You claim to have compassion for animals, but just as soon as it gets too inconvenient you decide to call it quits? Cowards. You're no better off. Not in my book. A murderer who kills 10 people is no better off than a murderer who kills 20. Of course, from the perspective of a suggestible young vegetarian I'm sure being responsible for half as many murders as the next guy means you're off the hook, right?

vegetarians love to boast outrageous figures like "it takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef and only 20 gallons to produce one pound of wheat." I've heard figures ranging from 2,000 to 5,000, and vegetarians will be damned if they include a source so we'll take the mean (that means "average") and go with 3,500. The average person consumes 1.5 million gallons of water every year (it takes water to grow and produce the food you eat in addition to the water you drink, quit emailing me you morons). Why isn't PETA protesting overpopulation of humans on the street corners? Why isn't PETA passing out free condoms or throwing javelins in your cock when you walk down the street if they really cared about water consumption? It's not like that water just suddenly disappears. The earth has had about the same amount of water for 2 billion years. So if a pound of beef takes 3,500 gallons of water, what difference does it make? How many vegetarians drive a car? To make a car (including tires), it takes about 40,000 gallons of fresh water. That's not including the gas it takes to run the car, the electricity to run the gas station, the water used to create the boat that brought your precious oil, the water used to create the pavement you drive on, the destruction of toxic chemicals that went into creating your clothes, and the electricity you use every day to send me stupid emails over the internet. Every year you are directly responsible for the consumption of billions of gallons of water. There are 26 million people suffering preventable brain damage from iodine deficiency, and another 1.5 billion people at risk. Nevermind that, you have animals to save. By driving your cars, you pump billions of tons of poison into the atmosphere and you're slowly killing us all. The computer you use requires 250 watts of electricity, let alone the billions of computers required to keep you on the internet. All consuming energy. All contributing to pollution. Let's just ignore those minor hypocrisies. Someone wants to enjoy a burger and you'll be damned if you're going to let them

What makes you think that animals suffer in slaughter houses anyway? I think it would rule to be raised for slaughter. Get all the free steroids you want, free meals and plenty of good company--hell, you have it made. Then when you're at the prime of your life, you get your head generously chopped off so you don't have to live through the suffering of old age. Not only that, but you can die with the satisfaction of knowing that somebody is going to enjoy eating a burger made out of you. What's more humane? Being slaughtered for meat or having to spend 8 hours a day, 40 hours per week in a cubicle for the rest of your life with assholes who listen to shitty music without headphones, then retiring and withering away with old age and cancer as your obnoxious kids grow up and treat you like shit? Slaughter please.


And im done

If you have a bit of ground, I can highly recommend growing your own food. Each year, my medium size Organic garden produces a variety of delicious fresh vegetables and fruit.
What I have noticed is that the taste in homegrown produce is much more prevalent than the purchased stuff. Commercially, 90% of Tomatoes, for example are grown Hydroponically. (Water and chemicals). They look good in the shop but I suspect that they aren't real Tomatoes.
When you buy a nice rosy red Apple, it looks that way because it has been sprayed with a chemical which enhances the colour, making it more sellable..true, without the spray it wouldn't look like that at all.
With genetically altered food coming on the scene, Organics will become the preferred food of many.

gbuilder.

All supermarket fruit and vegtables taste like crap. I can understand my generation who mostly have never tasted anything different but I can't understand why people who used to eat fresh fruit and vegtables stand for the supermarket stuff. It's no wonder children don't eat fruit or vegables anymore because the quality is so bad. When it finally makes it to the shop all the taste is gone and it is noticably more rubbery.

As a the organic market has exploaded and a lot of it comes from far off lands I don't have any confidence that it is actually organic or grown in land that wasn't sprayed with chemicals as little as a year earlier. I am sure in a few years time the farmers that are spraying crops and selling them as organic will be useing gm crops and selling them as none gm crops.

if ppl always restrict themselve & be choosy when eating, they won't live life to the fullest
(i forgot how the original qoute goes, but thats the best i can remember!)

Isn't it weird how, in a rather irreligious age, we have simply invented new reasons to tell people their culinary choices are bad? We go from don't eat cows because they are holy to don't eat cows because they will kill you in the end.

exactly my point.

i guess these days , they called it 'diet' lmao!

Fun world. I hate to quote movies (especially popular movies) as wisdom . . . However, dare I say, the Matrix is right to the extent that man demands a reality of imposed suffering as the mark of good work.

You might also say that came from post-modernism, but that never made me smile at the end . . .