Go to bottom

Random image thread

category: residue [glöplog]
uncle-x: of course, but I wanted to gather the ones I most enjoyed :]
added on the 2007-09-09 13:49:29 by bdk bdk
Don't burn the kittens, yet don't be so hard on dila and joop (Really, at least their points were interesting to me, however I dislike watching any rotten picture here which though I can't avoid because it's the random image thread and their is nearly no censorship or administration) and post boobs, MORE BOOBS!!!
added on the 2007-09-09 15:07:50 by Optimonk Optimonk
BB Image
added on the 2007-09-09 15:41:08 by arca arca

BB Image
added on the 2007-09-09 15:45:18 by Stelthzje Stelthzje
Anime barf

BB Image
BB Image

added on the 2007-09-09 15:50:54 by Stelthzje Stelthzje
Even vegans use flesh substitutes BTW, because obviously the human mind still needs to see or taste something that appears to be flesh, because it seems to be in the human nature to eat it.

Ehm, no.

If it was part of human nature to eat flesh we would simply grab a chicken, bite its neck to kill it and start eating its raw flesh. We do not do that, at least I hope you don't.

If you give a small child (who still have instinctive taste) a kitten and an apple it will eat the apple and play with the kitten. Would you as a parent not be distraught if your kid did the opposite?

We have no need for flesh. It was already known in the 19th century that we are fruitarians like chimpansees.

Do some research.

The reason some (lame) vegetarians eat flesh subsitutes is because of moral weakness and unability to control taste. These kind of people also take eggs, drink milk, consume additives made from animals like gelatin and sometimes even eat chicken (don't ask me why!).

Come to the Netherlands and I can introduce you to huge groups of raw vegans who only take vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds and don't even cook.

Stop comparing apples with pears here. There is a difference between slowly killing an animal because you enjoy seeing it in pain or killing it because you need its flesh for food.

And the maker of that video is not feeding some part of his sick psyche? A very sick part no doubt, but maybe he is not even able to live (sanely) without it. Speculation, certainly; but it doesn't stand on any more unstable ground than your assumed needs.
added on the 2007-09-09 16:04:50 by Joop Joop
BB Image
added on the 2007-09-09 16:07:24 by Joop Joop
Spoiler: eating animals == eating processed food. Animal fat is just a higher energy state of normal plant food. And for that reason alone we should eat meat. Our stomachs may be CAPABLE of processing plants, but while they do it, they use helluva lot energy, to the point where eating an apple will actually tire you more than give you any energy. This is evolution, baby.
added on the 2007-09-09 16:09:05 by Xtense Xtense
I only attacked his perceived need of humans for flesh, not any use flesh can be to us. I couldn't care less if people eat flesh or not. It is their choice not mine. That Maddox article is hilarious.

Point to a comparison study of the energy level of (raw) vegans and flesh eaters. If you have one that is.
added on the 2007-09-09 16:17:54 by Joop Joop
You should find one in every biology school book :) . It looks more or less like this: Plants convert energy from sunlight into low-energetic sugars, glucose and fructose if i remember correctly. This then goes into plant-eating organisms, and there it is converted into high-energy sugars, oligosaccharides or polisaccharides. The process of conversion requires lots of the simpler, low-energy sugars, which means eating more of them, and using more energy to convert them - if a specific treshold (individual to everyone, no minimum/maximum given) of eaten plants isn't reached, eating will just tire you. The converted sugars are then stored away as normal animal fat, and, umm... is eaten by carnivores. High-energy sugars, as the name suggests, produce a lot more energy and require less of them to be eaten to sustain the organism.

Sorry for keeping it long and simple, english is not my primary language ;) . The point here is that to keep yourself fully-nutritioned only from plants, you'd have to either eat lots of them at once, or spice up your food with various animal non-meat products, for example milk, or anything else that contains proteins capable of sustaining this diet. From biology's point of view, it is a lot simpler and more economic to chomp down on meat than to eat plant food, and this is where our evolution has brought us thousands of years ago.

Oh, and plants make you fatter btw. - they contain much more hydrocarbons that bind sugar into fat than meat does. :)
added on the 2007-09-09 17:04:22 by Xtense Xtense
And I've just noticed I'm ruining the thread. So, here we go again:
BB Image
added on the 2007-09-09 17:12:39 by Xtense Xtense
BB Image
added on the 2007-09-09 17:42:19 by kb_ kb_
How fitting..
added on the 2007-09-09 17:46:48 by Stelthzje Stelthzje
The point here is that to keep yourself fully-nutritioned only from plants, you'd have to either eat lots of them at once

Thanks for the explanation. We seem to agree though. One indeed has to indeed a lot to live of plants.

All this nutrion is not taken pure however. It comes in flesh or as you name milk.

These things bring their own problems to the digestive system due to lack of fiber, excess muscus production, and rotting before excretion.

All this can be countered though by always eating in moderation and perhaps the occasional fast.
added on the 2007-09-09 18:12:06 by Joop Joop
Look up McDougall. Plants do defintely not make you fatter.
added on the 2007-09-09 18:13:43 by Joop Joop
BB Image
added on the 2007-09-09 18:21:33 by Fuzz Fuzz
BB Image
added on the 2007-09-09 18:22:46 by Fuzz Fuzz
BB Image
added on the 2007-09-09 18:23:43 by Fuzz Fuzz
BB Image
added on the 2007-09-09 19:11:18 by TOMPCpl TOMPCpl
salinga said :
that the kitten cannot defend itself against a human beeing, while humans can defend themselfs

as evident here

BB Image

This image should render people ten times more angry than any burning little critter, but it doesnt. Sure its not honorable what the idiot who killed the cat did, but the reaction of people here shows that you need to have your priorities and heads sorted out. Hipocrate fucks!
added on the 2007-09-09 20:18:09 by NoahR NoahR
BB Image
added on the 2007-09-09 20:30:15 by bdk bdk
This is not about priorities, but about being able to relate, emotions etc..
It is hypocritical to deny that.

added on the 2007-09-09 20:44:44 by Stelthzje Stelthzje
If everything was about priorities just a cost-benefit analysis should be done. But in that case you should not complain about outcomes like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Safety_problems (Dont talk about figth club..)
added on the 2007-09-09 20:55:35 by Stelthzje Stelthzje


Go to top