Meat should not eat meat.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
TaintedDeity
Posts: 4003
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:22 pm UTC
Location: England;

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby TaintedDeity » Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:54 pm UTC

You people are the one making the claim that "killing and eating lions is not immoral."

At that, thc, I'm out of here. Discussions are not 'us VS them' affairs. There are many different people involved and many different opinions.
At no point does "you people" apply to me.
Ⓞⓞ◯

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Gelsamel » Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:17 pm UTC

Possibly OT;
Spoiler:
nowfocus wrote:I'd argue that meat eating takes up massive quantities of water

So what? Water is everywhere and perfectly renewable... I doubt there are very many places at all that farm meat-animals and have trouble getting water supply for them.

Since when has "Use of Water" ever been equated with environmental damage (except when it's an argument made against meat eating)? We should ban toilets and showers (after all we can live without them)!
uses massive quantities of arable land

Why would it use massive quantities of arable land? Any profit (or environment) driven enterprise will never use expensive arable land for meat when they could be using it for crops (or selling it to someone for use with crops and buying some cheap non-arable land). Unless you think all the meat farms purposely use arable land just to be inefficient.

More importantly, since when has "Amount of Arable Land efficiently used" been equated with environmental damage (except when it's an argument made against meat eating)? I guess any buildings not essential to the suvival of the human race are just a cheap thrill that is destroying the environment (after all we can live without cities, stadiums, train tracks, etc.)! I suppose the fact we have way too much space to do stuff in already (and climate change will give us way more arable land) is inconsequential.
is the leading emitter of green house gasses

Except that is the wrong metric... the problem is EXTRA greenhouse gasses, gasses that were previously out of the atmospheric system like coal/oil desposits, getting into the atmospheric system. Both animal and crop farming has always been a closed cycle. I guess I should stop breathing out CO2 since it contributes to a fuck ton of CO2 in the atmosphere. I guess all those animals and crops that have existed SINCE FOREVER have ruined the environment over the last millions of years and it's not our fault at all.
and releases plenty of conventional pollutants.

As does every form of farming which produces animals or crops that have FDA approval.
If you go an eat a carnivore who eats herbivores, you'll need far more than 1250 calories of the herbivore (as carnivores don't process food as efficiently as cows), which costs much more than 15,625 calories of grains.

In other words - for every one person eating a carnivore, you could feed far more than 10 eating a herbivore, and far more than 150 eating vegetables.

No you couldn't. That grain is total crap (not to mention anything about nutrients etc). I wouldn't eat that stuff if someone paid me 1,000,000AUD, well maybe. Point is that grain wouldn't pass FDA approval for human consumption. You can't just compare calories and do some algebra and say "Eating carnivores is 150 times more efficient than eating vegetables!" that is way to simplistic of an analysis.

Complain about the power plants, oil, gas, and petrol that fuel the transport vehicles that move the food all you want. Complain about the overprocessing all you want. Complain about the system all you want. But neither of these are inherent or exclusive to meat. I suppose it's too much to ask that you don't twist biologically irresponsible agriculture into an anti-meat platform to spew your rhetoric from?

Mmm kangaroo!
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Shivahn » Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:37 pm UTC

Nordic Einar wrote:Why do we apply human morality to animals who are incapable of understanding human morality? If Mr. Lion >:3 has no moral conundrum with eating me, why the fuck should I have one with devouring his delicious, adorable flesh? I'll never understand it.


This is a very, very dangerous stance unless you are also accepting of a lack of a moral conundrum when torturing and killing small children. I doubt they'd have a moral conundrum with torturing you if they thought it was funny, at least before a certain point.

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Bakemaster » Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:55 pm UTC

thc wrote:Why do you draw the line where you do. Why is tool usage or the ability to recognize self in mirrors important in any moral capacity? My belief is that it isn't: when dealing with matters of empathy, the capacity to feel physical pain and the capacity to feel emotional pain are the two relevant "intelligence" ingredients. And if you can recognize those two ingredients in other beings, I feel you have a moral obligation to treat those beings with respect and not eat them, unless you were starving or something.

If you agree with me this far, then we can debate whether or not lions, and generally, other animals, feel emotional pain and distress. Let's have at it.

I'll have a go at this. Why do I draw the line where I do? Because it works for me. I can't not eat, and I'm generally comfortable eating what I do. It's not at all necessary to inflict physical or emotional pain on any animal in order to eat, because I don't eat living animals; I eat dead ones. The only living things I eat are actually vegetables and microorganisms. And probably the occasional bug and spider.

I don't want the things I eat to suffer before I eat them. I work within my means to source my food ethically. But I have to weigh various priorities against each other, and so there are some sacrifices I won't make for this cause. I won't sacrifice my good health or future, or that of my wife. This doesn't make me unethical; I do follow an ethical code. It just happens to be more egocentric than your own (as applied to my diet, at least).
thc wrote:
H2SO4 wrote:That's not how it works. If someone asks for sources, you can't say "Look for them yourself!"
I certainly can if it's common knowledge. It's like asking for a citation on the fact that lion's are mammals: at some point, it isn't my problem. But whatever. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/inf ... ed.0040325

No, seriously. Cut that shit out. I've already addressed this exact study, and I think it's fair to say that you backed down from your position in response. Now you're bringing it back up? I'm guessing you didn't actually read the study; even the abstract would have identified it as the one I was criticizing for being not nearly comprehensive enough to support your assertions.

Why do you argue? The answer should be that you argue to convince your audience. This is not a formal debate; there is no moderator to weigh every thrust and parry and there are no judges to declare a winner. If your audience isn't going to be satisfied with "JFGI" then you need to provide more that that. If a fact that you consider to be common knowledge isn't commonly known by your audience, OR more importantly, if it's disputed by your audience, then the onus is on you to support your claim with solid evidence in order to establish credibility with your audience. You seem to have some idea that rhetoric is an objective practice which can be analyzed independent of the context of the audience; that's a big mistake. The evidence is all in this thread; you've trashed your credibility by allowing the subject of the argument to drift away from vegetarianism to the issue of whether you're arguing correctly; which is proof in itself that you're not arguing correctly. And no, that is not a tautology. Seriously, think about this; if you're arguing to convince, who are you convincing? And if not, why are you arguing?
Link wrote:Every time I someone say "you shouldn't eat x" without them being able to provide a damned good reason for it, I am extremely tempted to eat as much x as I can stomach, purely out of spite. So, I'll have four lion burgers with baby-blood ketchup, please. Call me petty, but anyone who puts so much zeal into something without providing adequate backup to their sentiments ticks me off to no end.

What's the point of this? Seriously, when the topic of vegetarianism comes up, there are those meat-eaters who will respond this same way, every time. "You don't like that I eat meat, so I'm going to go eat something totally unreasonable to eat, just to piss you off." If you're going to troll, this is probably one of the most feeble ways to troll ever.

OOPS: ALSO YOU GUYS: "I'm not comfortable eating x" is a perfectly valid reason for not eating x, and an okay reason for not being comfortable with other people eating x. It's even an okay reason to try to convince other people not to eat x. If you respond with anger to someone trying to convince you not to eat x, that's a personal reaction you're having to the implication that you might be doing something wrong. In which case, relax and/or get over yourself.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Malice » Sun Jun 27, 2010 7:31 pm UTC

Bakemaster wrote:OOPS: ALSO YOU GUYS: "I'm not comfortable eating x" is a perfectly valid reason for not eating x,


Yes.

and an okay reason for not being comfortable with other people eating x.


Yep.

It's even an okay reason to try to convince other people not to eat x.


No, it's not. Personal discomfort or distaste is never a good reason to try and bug other people to change their behavior. For example, "I'm not comfortable kissing another dude" is not an acceptable reason to try and convince gay people to be straight.

It is sometimes an okay reason to ask people politely if they won't do something that makes you uncomfortable right in front of you (although they are not necessarily obligated), but trying to convince random people that eating x is icky, that is not okay.

If you respond with anger to someone trying to convince you not to eat x, that's a personal reaction you're having to the implication that you might be doing something wrong. In which case, relax and/or get over yourself.


It might be. It also might be annoyance at being morally judged. Two scenarios: in both, I sit down to eat a hamburger at a restaurant.

1. I have made the conscious choice to eat this burger because "burgers are tasty!" outweighs the cost, which is thinking about "burgers are bad for me and probably the environment and certainly the cows!" But because I am practiced at eating burgers, I put that out of my mind quickly, thereby minimizing the cost. Somebody sits down next to me and says, "You know, burgers are bad for you, and the environment, and the cows." I am annoyed because you have raised the mental cost of this burger by making me re-confront a choice I already made--pointless, since I'm still going to make the same choice, if for no other reason than the sunk cost fallacy. To spite the bastard and make myself feel better, I order another burger.

2. I don't care at all about my health or the environment or the cows. Somebody sits down next to me and says, "You know, burgers are bad for you, and the environment, and the cows. Therefore it's wrong to eat them and you're a bad person for doing so." I am annoyed because this person has judged me according to a moral scale that I don't share, and told me I am wrong for doing something that I like and consider to be a good thing. To spite the bastard and prove that I don't share his opinion of myself, I order another burger, and then eat it from three inches in front of his face.
Image

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby thc » Sun Jun 27, 2010 7:43 pm UTC

TaintedDeity wrote:
You people are the one making the claim that "killing and eating lions is not immoral."

At that, thc, I'm out of here. Discussions are not 'us VS them' affairs. There are many different people involved and many different opinions.
At no point does "you people" apply to me.

I'm sorry if you feel "lumping" invalidates my query to you. FWIW, I do realize that you stated you haven't defined your moral position in this thread yet. I hope you'll reconsider.

bake wrote:I'll have a go at this. Why do I draw the line where I do? Because it works for me. I can't not eat, and I'm generally comfortable eating what I do. It's not at all necessary to inflict physical or emotional pain on any animal in order to eat, because I don't eat living animals; I eat dead ones. The only living things I eat are actually vegetables and microorganisms. And probably the occasional bug and spider.

I don't want the things I eat to suffer before I eat them. I work within my means to source my food ethically. But I have to weigh various priorities against each other, and so there are some sacrifices I won't make for this cause. I won't sacrifice my good health or future, or that of my wife. This doesn't make me unethical; I do follow an ethical code. It just happens to be more egocentric than your own (as applied to my diet, at least).

So what if I drew my line to include eating humans. Is that okay with you, morally, since "it works for me"?

Xenks
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:22 pm UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Xenks » Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:15 pm UTC

thc wrote: So what if I drew my line to include eating humans. Is that okay with you, morally, since "it works for me"?

That would be a choice. Wouldn't be a choice I approved of, but that's due to my cultural prejudices, as well as the laws in my vicinity. You seem to believe there would be something inherently wrong in eating human flesh, whereas I believe that letting perfectly good Calories go to waste because of squeamishness is a larger wrong. I don't approve of killing humans to obtain their flesh, but that's personal. Also, to head off your argument, in no way are any animals except humans subject to my moral belief that they should not be killed and eaten.

My moral belief is simple: I matter. Everyone else matters to a lesser degree. I think you'll find that everyone has a belief system close to that, once you get past self deceptions. Now, following this moral belief, if I enjoy eating lion meat, I should do so. After all, nobody matters more than me.

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Bakemaster » Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:28 pm UTC

thc wrote:So what if I drew my line to include eating humans. Is that okay with you, morally, since "it works for me"?

Depends how you went about eating humans. I don't think there's any inherent moral value to be identified in digestion.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby thc » Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:20 pm UTC

@Xenks: okay.

Bakemaster wrote:
thc wrote:So what if I drew my line to include eating humans. Is that okay with you, morally, since "it works for me"?

Depends how you went about eating humans. I don't think there's any inherent moral value to be identified in digestion.

For arguments sake, in the same manner that other meat is eaten. That is, raising them as cattle and/or hunting them for sport.

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:18 pm UTC

Notably, apart from the legal and cultural ramifications, the consumption of the flesh of one's own kind has significant risks above normal meat, in the forms of TSE's (Kuru is known to have been transmitted between members of the Korowai & Fore tribes of PNG by ritual canabalism causing an epidemic in the early to mid 20th century, and there's no reason that CJD (and variants) wouldn't react the same way), some types of metastatic cancers and bloodborne pathogens (AIDS, Hepetitis and others are all good examples of things which can't be detected by anything other than bloodwork).

There are examples of this same natural history of disease causing epizootics in animals that naturally practice canibalism too.

That's one very good reason that canabalism is not a good comparator with the eating of meat from domestcated stock or common game, where the risk of cross infection is lower and the procedures for proper ante-mortem inspection are well established.

That is of course apart from the ridiculous notion that animals are somehow equivalent to humans both in terms of inteligence and societial value; when clearly no other species assigns worth to another species in the same way; morover the evolution of the human being to be an innovative, highly adaptable and multi skilled mammal gives a clear natural reason for it;s current position as the ultimate apex predator.
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

Glmclain
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Glmclain » Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:28 am UTC

I don't like to prematurely pass judgement, but I think THC has lost this argument... 3 pages ago....

This is not how we participate in a N&A thread--no content, no purpose, no addition to the discussion. -Rin
You Samoans are all the same! You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture!

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Kyrn » Mon Jun 28, 2010 2:41 am UTC

thc wrote:Lions are highly intelligent beings that experience much of the same feelings, emotions, exhibit the same playfulness and social organization that humans do and should be protected.


1) Who are you to decide what counts as intelligent?
2) Who are you to decide at what arbitrary limit we decide as sufficient intelligence to consider saving?
3) Intelligence is nowhere near the sole measure why we don't eat humans regardless.

(EDIT: blargh, new monitors + unsuitable brightness = inability to notice there are more pages)
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby H2SO4 » Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:02 am UTC

Kyrn wrote:2) Who are you to decide at what arbitrary limit we decide as sufficient intelligence to consider saving?

Pretty much this. If we weren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Kyrn » Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:09 am UTC

H2SO4 wrote:
Kyrn wrote:2) Who are you to decide at what arbitrary limit we decide as sufficient intelligence to consider saving?

Pretty much this. If we weren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?


Just a note, this is pretty much a failed argument, considering that humans are also made of meat.

My opinion: despite what thc thinks, neither intelligence, nor morals, are the factor in which we decide whether to eat meat (or murder animals). It's all a cultural issues, along with the nagging fact that creatures eating similar meat is inherently harmful. Proof:

1) People who are sentenced to death (inherently: lost all moral rights to live), are not butchered into food. I'm speaking regarding those areas where the death penalty is acceptable.
2) People who are brain dead (inherently: not intelligent), are not butchered for food. Granted, converting them into organs for transplant purposes is probably a better use, but food is never near being an afterthought.
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

G.v.K
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby G.v.K » Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:09 am UTC

Xenks wrote:My moral belief is simple: I matter. Everyone else matters to a lesser degree. I think you'll find that everyone has a belief system close to that, once you get past self deceptions. Now, following this moral belief, if I enjoy eating lion meat, I should do so. After all, nobody matters more than me.


nice little bubble world you've created for yourself there. you matter, right? and anybody who tries to formulate a different morality is just deceiving themselves.

even then, how did you get from 'i matter' --> 'i can do what i like'?

and how did you figure out that you matter?

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby H2SO4 » Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:21 am UTC

Kyrn wrote:Just a note, this is pretty much a failed argument, considering that humans are also made of meat.

I know. It's not supposed to be taken seriously. Though you could go into "if we aren't supposed to eat meat, why do we have the ability to properly eat (incisors) and digest it?"

Though I will say that in times of survival and some guy just froze to death, I'm not opposed to eating him if it means I last longer so that I can potentially get rescued.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Bakemaster » Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:30 am UTC

thc wrote:
Mr. Bakerstein wrote:
thc wrote:So what if I drew my line to include eating humans. Is that okay with you, morally, since "it works for me"?

Depends how you went about eating humans. I don't think there's any inherent moral value to be identified in digestion.

For arguments sake, in the same manner that other meat is eaten. That is, raising them as cattle and/or hunting them for sport.

Hunting for sport is not the same thing as hunting for food. Nor is cattle (beef) the only source of meat. There are hundreds of different ways in which meat is procured.

And when we talk about the way in which the meat is procured, suddenly consumption isn't the only issue on the table.

So are we talking about the consumption of meat, or are we talking about the raising of livestock? Do you take issue with both of these things, or only the latter? Because up until this point, we've been talking specifically about the former, and there's a good reason for that (namely, that lions are not and never will be livestock).
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby H2SO4 » Mon Jun 28, 2010 4:41 am UTC

Bakemaster wrote:So are we talking about the consumption of meat, or are we talking about the raising of livestock? Do you take issue with both of these things, or only the latter? Because up until this point, we've been talking specifically about the former, and there's a good reason for that (namely, that lions are not and never will be livestock).

Eh... false.
Selogie said he bought the meat through a Phoenix distributor, Gourmet Imports-Wild Game -- a one-man operation owned by Rick Worrilow. Selogie says he did his research, and was told that the meat came from a free-range farm in Illinois that is regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture.

As long as what Selogie says is true, that is.

Hunting for sport is not the same thing as hunting for food.

This is very true. Hunting for sport is: *BAM!* "Got him! Sweet! Let's go home." Hunting for food is *BAM!* "Time to clean it, bring it home and cook the meat."
It's illegal to solely hunt for sport in the US. You can hunt for sport and get some food from it, but you have to get the food. You can't even sell what you shoot either, though I think that varies from state to state and how the animal got there. Animals that are farm-raised, for example, are okay to sell, whereas things in the wild that you shoot are illegal to sell. Again, speculation.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby stevey_frac » Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:17 am UTC

First of all let me just say: Lions are fucking awesome.

Second let me say: Do you think the lion would have any moral quandaries with eating THC? I'm thinking 'No'. Even though THC is allegedly sentient. How rude eh?

Third, I'd prefer people not eat lions, based purely on the fact that Lions are fucking awesome, however, if we can source Lions from a source other then hunting them in the wild, i'm ok with it. Not ecstatic. But ok.
__Kit wrote:
Also, who the fuck wants to be normal? You got one lifetime, why be like everyone else?

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby thc » Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:22 am UTC

Kyrn wrote:My opinion: despite what thc thinks, neither intelligence, nor morals, are the factor in which we decide whether to eat meat (or murder animals). It's all a cultural issues, along with the nagging fact that creatures eating similar meat is inherently harmful.

I realize that eating human meat is inherently harmful, but so is eating a ton of fast food. As others have stated, people have the right to eat as unhealthily asthey want. So I think this point is just an attempt to sidestep the issue. The moral issue is definitely there, because I think most people would be morally opposed to hunting humans/raising them as cattle and then eating them - or maybe not?

Bake wrote:So are we talking about the consumption of meat, or are we talking about the raising of livestock? Do you take issue with both of these things, or only the latter? Because up until this point, we've been talking specifically about the former, and there's a good reason for that (namely, that lions are not and never will be livestock).
I don't think that's a useful distinction. If you're talking about consumption of meat, that necessarily involves the killing of meat. Either hunting or farming will be involved for any economic operation.

But I do agree: if you ran over a lion... or human, there would be no moral issue about eating it.

H2SO4 wrote:
Kyrn wrote:2) Who are you to decide at what arbitrary limit we decide as sufficient intelligence to consider saving?

Pretty much this. If we weren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

I stated where I place my threshold earlier, but currently, I'm asking people to explain theirs. I'm honestly curious about people's reasoning.

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Kyrn » Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:31 am UTC

thc wrote:
Kyrn wrote:My opinion: despite what thc thinks, neither intelligence, nor morals, are the factor in which we decide whether to eat meat (or murder animals). It's all a cultural issues, along with the nagging fact that creatures eating similar meat is inherently harmful.

I realize that eating human meat is inherently harmful, but so is eating a ton of fast food. As others have stated, people have the right to eat as unhealthily asthey want. So I think this point is just an attempt to sidestep the issue. The moral issue is definitely there, because I think most people would be morally opposed to hunting humans/raising them as cattle and then eating them - or maybe not?

I figure that it is more of a cultural issue than a moral one. Then again, I'm one of those who does not oppose the death penalty.

thc wrote:
H2SO4 wrote:
Kyrn wrote:2) Who are you to decide at what arbitrary limit we decide as sufficient intelligence to consider saving?

Pretty much this. If we weren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

I stated where I place my threshold earlier, but currently, I'm asking people to explain theirs. I'm honestly curious about people's reasoning.


There is no threshold among others: whether something is eaten as of current is not because of intelligence. But regardless, I'm going to denounce every attempt anyone tries to place an arbitrary limit to intelligence, simply because any definition we offer would be inherently biased towards humans in some form or another.

THGTTG wrote:For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons.


EDIT: Rereading this several times, I think I know where thc is coming from. My own belief is a little complex, taking into consideration too many factors to post here, since it meshes with my entire life view.

The problem though is not with what I think is right, or what thc thinks is right. The problem is whether we can govern what everyone else thinks is right. It's not important what my reasoning is, or what thc's reasoning is. What is more important is whether we can impose our reasoning on others. I'll admit being biased, and set my standards on my imposing of my reasoning at when another intelligent sapient communicative communal foreign-entity-emphatic being (for sake of simplicity) is harmed without due cause.
Last edited by Kyrn on Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:18 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby BlackSails » Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:58 am UTC

Eating humans would not be unhealthy. Kuru for instance, is all but wiped out, and just like how we stop prion disease in cattle herds, we could stop it in human herds as well.


Even so, I bet most people would be opposed to eating other people.

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Kyrn » Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:34 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:Eating humans would not be unhealthy. Kuru for instance, is all but wiped out, and just like how we stop prion disease in cattle herds, we could stop it in human herds as well.


Even so, I bet most people would be opposed to eating other people.


I'd say that would be an irrational (in my opinion) cultural behavior then. Of cause, many people also believe in the sanctity of (human) life regardless of circumstance, which is partially related.
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:44 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:Eating humans would not be unhealthy. Kuru for instance, is all but wiped out, and just like how we stop prion disease in cattle herds, we could stop it in human herds as well.


Even so, I bet most people would be opposed to eating other people.


You say that, but kuru saw it's bigest upswing in 50 years in the late 1990's, because the incubation period is 30-50 years, and like most TSE's it's familially transmissable.
In terms of eradication I can't see the euthanisation and mass cremation of anyone testing positive for elevated levels of 14-3-3 protien in the cerebrospinal fluid, being all that popular or indeed legal.

Even ignoring TSE's (whcih are literally a 1 in a million risk), communicable diseases would pose a significant risk unless you're proposing a full post mortem workup on every human who dies, before them being dissected, butchered and eaten, which seems impractical (we just don't have very many pathologists).
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

Manial
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 11:52 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Manial » Mon Jun 28, 2010 2:39 pm UTC

TaintedDeity wrote:Lions are badass and eating a lion burger is badass.
Not really, no. If you wrestled and killed the lion with your bare hands, then perhaps. But ordering a burger off a menu... a cooked piece of a lion that someone shot from a mile away with a rifle... isn't badass in the slightest.

When you consider that Lion burgers becoming mainstream would massively increase poaching - it crosses the line into douchey.

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Bakemaster » Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:01 pm UTC

H2SO4 wrote:
Mr. Bakerstein wrote:So are we talking about the consumption of meat, or are we talking about the raising of livestock? Do you take issue with both of these things, or only the latter? Because up until this point, we've been talking specifically about the former, and there's a good reason for that (namely, that lions are not and never will be livestock).

Eh... false.

I think you need to read your article thoroughly and brush up on the definition of livestock. Not only was the lion, according to your article, procured as wild game, even had it been procured from a "free-range farming operation" (which, if you kept reading, you'd see is highly dubious) it would still be legally classified as captive game (or managed wildlife, or one of a number of similar terms) rather than livestock, as is the case with animals such as bison and deer.
H2SO4 wrote:It's illegal to solely hunt for sport in the US. You can hunt for sport and get some food from it, but you have to get the food. You can't even sell what you shoot either, though I think that varies from state to state and how the animal got there. Animals that are farm-raised, for example, are okay to sell, whereas things in the wild that you shoot are illegal to sell. Again, speculation.

Are you saying that this entire paragraph is speculation? Because that would explain why you're wrong... Hunting isn't federally regulated, and not only can I not find any state regulations specifying that hunting solely for sport is illegal, there are explicit regulations in several states (Georgia, for example) that basically say you can hunt however you want on your own property.
stevey_frac wrote:Do you think the lion would have any moral quandaries with eating THC? I'm thinking 'No'. Even though THC is allegedly sentient. How rude eh?

We don't expect lions to be moral, nor does moral behavior apply exclusively to interactions between moral parties. Two wrongs not making a right, and all that.
thc wrote:
Bake wrote:So are we talking about the consumption of meat, or are we talking about the raising of livestock? Do you take issue with both of these things, or only the latter? Because up until this point, we've been talking specifically about the former, and there's a good reason for that (namely, that lions are not and never will be livestock).
I don't think that's a useful distinction. If you're talking about consumption of meat, that necessarily involves the killing of meat. Either hunting or farming will be involved for any economic operation.

But I do agree: if you ran over a lion... or human, there would be no moral issue about eating it.

You clearly think it's a meaningful distinction, since your ethical assessment of the situation changes based on how the meat is procured ("if you ran over a lion..."). So why is it not a useful distinction? I can see that, practically speaking, consumption of meat usually involves one of: hunting, ranching, fishing. But not always. And if there are moral avenues to the consumption of meat, they should not be closed; don't throw the baby out with the bath-water. What should be addressed is the method by which the meat is procured, because that's where the injustice is. Ignoring that distinction confuses the issue and weakens your whole case, even if a large part of your argument is something that, taken alone, has enough merit to convince any reasonable person.

There's a cattle ranching operation in my county that operates its own slaughterhouse. I've taken a tour and met the employees. It's a very small operation with organic and humane slaughter certifications. I'm fully satisfied that the cattle on this ranch are not mistreated while alive, and slaughtered in the most respectful manner possible. I can understand that there are people for whom this is not enough; for whom any sort of killing crosses an ethical line. I'm not one of those people. Maybe in the future I'll be convinced otherwise; but also, maybe in the future I'll be a cyborg. I don't really know about the future.
Last edited by Bakemaster on Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:04 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

User avatar
TaintedDeity
Posts: 4003
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:22 pm UTC
Location: England;

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby TaintedDeity » Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:02 pm UTC

Manial wrote:
TaintedDeity wrote:Lions are badass and eating a lion burger is badass.
Not really, no. If you wrestled and killed the lion with your bare hands, then perhaps. But ordering a burger off a menu... a cooked piece of a lion that someone shot from a mile away with a rifle... isn't badass in the slightest.

When you consider that Lion burgers becoming mainstream would massively increase poaching - it crosses the line into douchey.
What is thought of as badass is subjective and I think enough people in this thread have expressed the same sentiment as I made for you to realise that you're wrong. Eating a lion burger is badass.
Also, like I previously said, I am quite confident lion meat will never be mainstream. It's expensive and impractical and there's probably other reasons that i can't be bothered to think of right now.

Seriously, people need to stop bringing up the point about lion meat becoming mainstream unless they're going to provide a possible scenario in which that could happen.
Ⓞⓞ◯

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Telchar » Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:20 pm UTC

You can definitely sell game meat. I just ate an elk burger from a shop in Gardiner, MT yesterday.

TheKrikkitWars wrote:You say that, but kuru saw it's bigest upswing in 50 years in the late 1990's, because the incubation period is 30-50 years, and like most TSE's it's familially transmissable.
In terms of eradication I can't see the euthanisation and mass cremation of anyone testing positive for elevated levels of 14-3-3 protien in the cerebrospinal fluid, being all that popular or indeed legal.

Even ignoring TSE's (whcih are literally a 1 in a million risk), communicable diseases would pose a significant risk unless you're proposing a full post mortem workup on every human who dies, before them being dissected, butchered and eaten, which seems impractical (we just don't have very many pathologists).


This. Jakob-Creutzfeldt/Kuru aren't your only problems. Any number of parasites, e.coli, encephalitis, and numerous toxins could be passed on after death.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby thc » Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:58 pm UTC

Bake wrote:You clearly think it's a meaningful distinction, since your ethical assessment of the situation changes based on how the meat is procured ("if you ran over a lion..."). So why is it not a useful distinction? I can see that, practically speaking, consumption of meat usually involves one of: hunting, ranching, fishing. But not always. And if there are moral avenues to the consumption of meat, they should not be closed; don't throw the baby out with the bath-water. What should be addressed is the method by which the meat is procured, because that's where the injustice is. Ignoring that distinction confuses the issue and weakens your whole case, even if a large part of your argument is something that, taken alone, has enough merit to convince any reasonable person.

Of course it is meaningful in general, I simply meant, in context, it isn't a very useful distinction because to obtain lion meat, you need to either hunt it or farm it. I take it as a given that, if there are moral ways to obtain meat (e.g., if it's already dead) there is no moral dilemma in consuming it.

So again, I pose the question to you: would you have moral issues with hunting/farming humans? Why or why not is there a threshold/limit/distinction between humans and lions? Is it just for practical reasons or because culture says it's taboo (but not REALLY inherently immoral)?

Kyrn wrote:
thc wrote:
Kyrn wrote:My opinion: despite what thc thinks, neither intelligence, nor morals, are the factor in which we decide whether to eat meat (or murder animals). It's all a cultural issues, along with the nagging fact that creatures eating similar meat is inherently harmful.

I realize that eating human meat is inherently harmful, but so is eating a ton of fast food. As others have stated, people have the right to eat as unhealthily asthey want. So I think this point is just an attempt to sidestep the issue. The moral issue is definitely there, because I think most people would be morally opposed to hunting humans/raising them as cattle and then eating them - or maybe not?

I figure that it is more of a cultural issue than a moral one. Then again, I'm one of those who does not oppose the death penalty.

There is no threshold among others: whether something is eaten as of current is not because of intelligence.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're arguing for moral/cultural relativism. You're saying that the decision to not hunt/farm humans is a "cultural issue rather than a moral one"?

THGTTG wrote:For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons.

That's a nice quote. Douglas Adams FTW!

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:24 pm UTC

thc, you realise that attempting to establish yourself as a moral demagogue whose sense of morality supercedes all others, is at best tedious and irittant; and at worst onerous and exceptionally rude.

You've abstracted the argument every whichways, but you're not willing to accept that people both hold, will continue to hold and are very much entitled to hold views which are contrary to your own; What is so offesnsive about establishing an amiable disagreement?
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby The Reaper » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:36 pm UTC

I'd eat people sometimes, if it were possible. I'd eat people more often than that, if my chances of getting bad proteins and then dying weren't cumulative/there.


User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby thc » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:45 pm UTC

TheKrikkitWars wrote:thc, you realise that attempting to establish yourself as a moral demagogue whose sense of morality supercedes all others, is at best tedious and irittant; and at worst onerous and exceptionally rude.

The question posed to Kyrn is an attempt to make sure I understand his argument properly (and if I'm understanding it correctly, I do believe it's a valid one). The question posed to Bake is the same question I posed 2 days and 1 page ago, which not only was I challenged to, but hasn't changed. So I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. In what way am I attempting to establish myself as a "moral demagogue"?

If you want to talk about irritating and rude, how about going off for paragraphs on a completely irrelevant tangent about TSEs. I mean, my avatar is a stick-ball molecule, clearly identifying me as a nerd. Do you honestly believe I don't know what kuru is?

You've abstracted the argument every whichways, but you're not willing to accept that people both hold, will continue to hold and are very much entitled to hold views which are contrary to your own; What is so offesnsive about establishing an amiable disagreement?

Please point out to me which parts of my post are not amiable. I am making a serious attempt to get less pissed off at the internet.

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Bakemaster » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:50 pm UTC

thc wrote:So again, I pose the question to you: would you have moral issues with hunting/farming humans? Why or why not is there a threshold/limit/distinction between humans and lions? Is it just for practical reasons or because culture says it's taboo (but not REALLY inherently immoral)?

I would have moral issues with hunting or farming humans, yes. The distinction between humans and other beings is that I consider humans to be my peers. I don't consider a cow to be a peer. I fully recognize that this distinction is in many ways arbitrary, but I don't recognize that there's a way to make any such distinction that is really less arbitrary. I don't have a detailed rubric for what I consider to be a peer and what I do not, mostly because I think it would represent a sort of hubris to think that I know objectively where the line should be drawn. I embrace the subjective nature of my decisions in this arena, even if it sometimes makes me uncomfortable to consider its subjectivity.

I consider some animals to be more my peers than others. I feel a connection with a cat or a dog that I don't feel with a fish. I have considered giving up pork products based on the intelligence of pigs, but to be perfectly honest, I don't think that I ever will give up pork until I develop a relationship with an individual pig. I've eaten pork products for so long that I have a relationship with pork products which is stronger than any relationship between me and live pigs. Maybe you think it's terrible that I can see that my actions may be immoral, but that I am not overly bothered about stopping them because I'm comfortable with them—I can certainly understand that position. But, I've come to believe that I have a certain amount of control over myself which is far from complete; and so I believe that in many situations it is best to accept certain things about myself which are true at present, while acknowledging that they may not always be true. I would describe it as not just being myself, but inhabiting myself... as disgustingly new-agey as that may sound.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

G.v.K
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby G.v.K » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:52 pm UTC

TaintedDeity wrote:
Manial wrote:
TaintedDeity wrote:Lions are badass and eating a lion burger is badass.
Not really, no. If you wrestled and killed the lion with your bare hands, then perhaps. But ordering a burger off a menu... a cooked piece of a lion that someone shot from a mile away with a rifle... isn't badass in the slightest.

When you consider that Lion burgers becoming mainstream would massively increase poaching - it crosses the line into douchey.
What is thought of as badass is subjective and I think enough people in this thread have expressed the same sentiment as I made for you to realise that you're wrong. Eating a lion burger is badass.


just out of curiosity, have you ever killed an animal? you know, by yourself.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby The Reaper » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:59 pm UTC

G.v.K wrote:
TaintedDeity wrote:
Manial wrote:
TaintedDeity wrote:Lions are badass and eating a lion burger is badass.
Not really, no. If you wrestled and killed the lion with your bare hands, then perhaps. But ordering a burger off a menu... a cooked piece of a lion that someone shot from a mile away with a rifle... isn't badass in the slightest.

When you consider that Lion burgers becoming mainstream would massively increase poaching - it crosses the line into douchey.
What is thought of as badass is subjective and I think enough people in this thread have expressed the same sentiment as I made for you to realise that you're wrong. Eating a lion burger is badass.


just out of curiosity, have you ever killed an animal? you know, by yourself.

Yes. Also gutted, cleaned, stared at the entrails and wondered if there was a way to eat them as well, tried thinking of useful things to do with it, and ended up feeding to the dog, whom I would also eat, if there was a reason to do so. But I guess you were asking them not me. Hmm.

But back to the subject, this isn't Indian magicland, you do not gain an animals powers by eating parts of it, so if lions are badass (which they aren't, IMHO, white tigers >lions) you do not become badass by eating them.

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:07 pm UTC

thc wrote:If you want to talk about irritating and rude, how about going off for paragraphs on a completely irrelevant tangent about TSEs. I mean, my avatar is a stick-ball molecule, clearly identifying me as a nerd. Do you honestly believe I don't know what kuru is?


I'm sorry I didn't recognise that your ball and stick model avatar proved more than your ability to google a chemical name, not to mention my ignorance that every member of the XKCD boards automatically knows everything you personally know.
I admit the information on TSE's and the natural history of disease in canablistic interactions of mammals (for it's bacterial and viral pathogens which would be the real major risk) is tangential to the consumption of lion, but quite relevant to the frankly absurd suggestion that the logical conclusion of eating meat is canabalism, I presented arguments such that it could clearly be established that this conclusion was not particularly logical, and henceforth not that relevant either.

As for moral demegoguery, you do, do you not believe that eating meat is wrong? and you are unwilling to accept the widely recognised point of view that meat is morally neutral, and can thus safely be left as a factor of personal choice. I therefore propose that you wish to Impose the wrongness of meat upon others and have no real justification beyond your own strong beliefs, but have taken the arguments from simple (and inconclusive) conceptual debate to inexplicably far fetched "examples" constructed to favour your point.

Do correct me If I'm wrong, because that's certainly how it appears from here.
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

User avatar
TaintedDeity
Posts: 4003
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:22 pm UTC
Location: England;

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby TaintedDeity » Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:09 pm UTC

G.v.K wrote:
TaintedDeity wrote:
Manial wrote:
TaintedDeity wrote:Lions are badass and eating a lion burger is badass.
Not really, no. If you wrestled and killed the lion with your bare hands, then perhaps. But ordering a burger off a menu... a cooked piece of a lion that someone shot from a mile away with a rifle... isn't badass in the slightest.

When you consider that Lion burgers becoming mainstream would massively increase poaching - it crosses the line into douchey.
What is thought of as badass is subjective and I think enough people in this thread have expressed the same sentiment as I made for you to realise that you're wrong. Eating a lion burger is badass.


just out of curiosity, have you ever killed an animal? you know, by yourself.
As irrelevant as it seems, no. Why?
Ⓞⓞ◯

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Oregonaut » Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:14 pm UTC

I see topics like this and all that comes to mind is the end of a Tool CD, with the sound of a shotgun accompanying "LIFE FEEDS ON LIFE FEEDS ON LIFE FEEDS ON LIFE FEEDS ON...This...is...necessary...This...is...necessary".

Seriously, it doesn't matter what you eat, unless you are munching on metal or plastic, it was alive at one point. The difference between eating meat and eating plant and eating carnivores and eating herbivores and eating omnivores is where you feel like drawing the line on acceptability.

I'd not eat a lion, because it would probably not taste much different to me than many other...unpleasant...things I ate during my time in the military. I've eaten emu, and ostrich, and both tasted fantastic. Tofu, when stir-fried in with teriyaki sauce, brown rice, carrot, egg, and peas is also tasty-kakes. You can get your eight essential vitamins and minerals (delicious) any number of ways, so I'd say pick your poison and go with it.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:25 pm UTC

Oregonaut wrote:I'd not eat a lion, because it would probably not taste much different to me than many other...unpleasant...things I ate during my time in the military.


That vaguely mirrors my thoughts, having spent several months eating the west african delicacy of "unspecified red meat" out of a mixture of politness to my hosts (who undoubtedly were pleased by the fact that the board I paid them allowed them the luxury of meat much more frequently) and a lack of anything else containing protein, I'm fairly sure that I've unknowingly eaten myself through a whole ecosystem of animals, with a diverse range of tastes and textures, and an accompanying range of stomach cramps and extraordinary bowel movements at times; I somehow feel that I can pass on the experience of lion burgers without missing out.
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 27 guests