-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 13935)
  2.   Help
  3. (for post and file deletion)
/hi/ - History and Culture
  • Supported file types are: JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 480 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2018-08-24 Show/Hide Show All

We are in the process of fixing long-standing bugs with the thread reader. This will probably cause more bugs for a short period of time. Buckle up.

There's a new /777/ up, it's /Moldy Memes/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Historian 13/09/20(Fri)15:59 No. 13935

File 137968558473.jpg - (323.30KB , 1280x960 , tumblr_mrfugegk2N1qz8q0ho1_r1_1280.jpg )

Is it more ethical to hunt or buy from a farm/market/shop?

Historian 13/09/20(Fri)22:36 No. 13936

is there any ethical consideration towards animals we eat?

I generally got that most "ethical considerations" seem to fall more or less neatly under two factors "health concerns" and "taste of food""

one of which requires animals to be reasonably content while fattened up because stress ruins the delicatessen experience of it's flesh

Historian 13/09/20(Fri)22:38 No. 13937


I have provided an audio module from tube of you, so that you may understand better

Historian 13/10/05(Sat)03:12 No. 13949

Here's something to mull over. I am a hunter, have hunted all my life, and I am good at it. That said, believe me when I say that that animal in the wild has a much, much, MUCH better chance of survival than that poor critter going up the chute at the slaughterhouse. Added to that, the animal in the wild will have lived a quality, natural life. The domestic animal lives it's life in gulag.

The big advantage of pre-processed meat? The consumer avoids the guilt that might come from actually seeing the blood. Everybody in our disconnected, schizophrenic, illiterate society knows that hamburgers grow on trees.

Historian 13/10/06(Sun)22:42 No. 13952

I always thought it was cheaper and afforded the people with them more control over the market

Historian 13/10/22(Tue)22:00 No. 14000

Buy. The animals are raised to be killed. It's inevitably going to continue. If you hunt an animal you're killing an animal that had a chance at living a natural life.

Historian 13/10/29(Tue)07:44 No. 14006

Yeh. If you're even remotely concerned about ethics, go vegetarian. There is no ethical argument for eating meat regardless of how you kill the animal, once you see the big-picture requirements and consequences of maintaining a population of 60 billion animals to feed a small minority of the worlds wealthiest gluttons. & the effects in species development recreational hunting & fishing has are just as fucked.

The only justification for eating meat, as well as hunting & fishing, is that the negatives are worth it because fuck it, I personally like it, and that's what matters to me most. I like burgers and sausages and grilled fish and exercising the power of a god, by holding the decision of life & death at the tip of a single finger, sending thunder and lightning to defenseless animals, because it makes up for my modern emasculated life. So I do. You can do whatever you want, OP, just, learn about what you're doing, don't be a typical unthinking urbanite fuckstick, and just be honest about what you're doing and why you're doing it.

Historian 13/10/29(Tue)19:10 No. 14008

Grim, bleak, nihilistic...and totally accurate, unfortunately. I don't sweat ethics and PETA bullshit because I am at the top of the food-chain. I don't concern myself with these things any more than a tiger, a lion, or a shark...eating meat is my omnivorous birthright, and the vegans are just out of touch with who...and WHAT...they are. And hunting is just FUN; not to mention that the quality of the meat is vastly superior; no injected fluids, steroids, or preservatives. Mmmm-mmm-good!

Historian 13/10/31(Thu)01:21 No. 14013

We were born to eat animals, yeah. But there's something wrong with you if you enjoy ending lives.

Historian 13/10/31(Thu)01:54 No. 14014

You know, before going to Iraq, I didn't enjoy ending lives.
We're omnivores on a good day, and only because we survived as scavengers during the genetic bottleneck, when the entire human population dropped down to nothing and almost died out. We still can't hunt, chew, or even really digest meat like a carnivore, for how much we love it. Neanderthals were the proper homo carnivores. ...but after thousands of years of living with and learning from them, our jackass ancestors executed the last of them that managed to survive the ice age.

Homo Sapiens is a savage, brutal, murderous species concerned only with its own short-term self-interest. It's in every bit of our physiology and culture, and the blind aggression will continue until we kill ourselves off with it.

Then the meek shall inherit the earth.

Historian 13/10/31(Thu)03:49 No. 14015


I cannot argue with your conclusion, but it does beg a question. Which is the wrong path; our instinctive, natural (violent, savage and bloodthirsty) inclinations? Or the modern, completely unproven conceptions of 'peace', 'tolerance', and 'love'?

Our savage and bloodthirsty nature elevated us to the top of the food-chain, made us the absolute masters of this planet; it is the time-proven method of our success. Do we really want to discard it for the fuzzy-headed, feel-good, illogical nonsense of Christianity and the New-Age gurus?

Historian 13/10/31(Thu)15:35 No. 14016


a little something(your immune system comprises of selectively predatory cells that would've been the type to be the first predators in existence on earth or something), and then on to the main thing on humans/predecessors

a little something from some site, it's better than the CBS one on the matter, but I think it has a bunch of creationist slanting at least near the end or the comments section


the main point I take from it is this, is something like the following, people are very prone to imaging other races as different species, or other aspects that over-estimate the differences between various human cultures

to some extent, the particular behaviour itself will reinforce with the environment to create a different ethnicity given enough time, but the basic starting point and interbreeding would mean things are kept relatively similar across the board in most ways

since all life on earth stems from the same basic concepts, MOST of the differences is merely an arrangement thing, with one of two systems, for any given function/purpose it would appear, possibly 3 ways to go about something

there's also the notion that homo sapiens and neanderthals didn't go to war and genocide but there was a fair bit of interbreeding

it's almost entirely certain that neanderthals more or less died off but it's not like their entire genetic line died off entirely if they're so similar to humans as a complex organism

don't forget that we have some *freakishly* big people in our midst sometimes, it would not surprise me if they weren't just another variation of the same purely homo sapiens lineage, but there was a deviation from whatever neanderthal and homosapiens came from and this shed most of the neanderthal genetics when they found each other and to some extent the lineages merged again after cro-magnon started moving from africa into the middle east and beyond (but that's just a theory, not a scientific theory)

Historian 13/11/15(Fri)03:17 No. 14032

Yeah and my dog eats styrofoam and leather shoes too. He pukes up what he can't digest properly later, but that doesn't mean it's a good fuckin idea to feed him the LaZBoy.

A deer or any other herbivore will try eating anything once food becomes scarce enough, because at some point ANY amount of reward becomes worth the risk. Humans have the same physiology and the same predictable difficulty digesting meat and dairy that other herbivores do. You can drink a glass of cows milk that has a cumbuckets worth of calcium, but unless you've got physiology of a cow to absorb the huge clumpy chunks of calcium, you're just pissing most of it out, which you are, while lacking the ability to break down the Caine and other bullshit that ruins your joints and gives you Alzheimer's and the creeping death or whatever. This shit is not a mystery.

Historian 13/11/15(Fri)08:45 No. 14034


you what mate?

the deer can handle eating meat, meat is food, styrofoam isn't

Historian 13/11/15(Fri)09:16 No. 14035


I like to comment on the first six words of a post while ignoring the rest of it too.

Historian 13/11/28(Thu)02:20 No. 14042

Sorry buddy, but if you're a human being you're eating meat, whether you want to or not.

Vegans like to think that because they have to take pills constantly that means they're not eating meat, conveniently ignoring that those pills are derived from animals.

Historian 13/11/30(Sat)11:27 No. 14046


Aaaand you'd be wrong. But don't let that dampen your smug sense of superiority over those pesky vegans. Doesn't it just bother you soooo much when someone makes an effort to improve their lives, and you don't? Best to slag them off, and if possible, convince yourself that you know more about what they're doing than they do.

I'll bet you're particularly fun at parties.

Historian 13/12/01(Sun)23:58 No. 14049

I thought the whole 'smug sense of superiority' was a purely vegan/animal right's activist concept?

Historian 13/12/02(Mon)09:57 No. 14050

File 138597465960.jpg - (36.58KB , 500x402 , No-Dog.jpg )

>and you'd be wrong

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]

Delete post []
Report post