Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
becausethe runny yoke reminds them of the dead chick.
Let them know that a fetal yolk sac is one of the earliest definable structures in mammalian gestation
the egg is a period, the embryo is a live (albeit not conscious)
But, you know, chickens are more important than humans.
You're cracking up theogb
HE ARE THE, HE ARE THE, HE ARE THE MOD.
Omletting countzero know about something vaguely related as an addendum to my original response.
Oh well. I'm hungover. Sorry.
People who watch Big Brother are a waste of skin and should be ground down to make Soylent Green.
Even massive drooling stoners are a rung above people who like Big Brother.
it's mostly stupid people who are vehemently anti big brother. They think it's something that they shouldn't like, and that doing so makes them seem clever.
I've seen lots of bits of the early three or four series. So I know it's shit.
It's not remotely socially interesting because it's not an example of society that represents anything 'normal': the people are picked specifically for reasons of providing 'good telly' and to raise specific emotions in the viewers and they're put into situations that aren't remotely analogous to normal society.
On top of this the media play up to stereotypes of 'working class = good, intelligence = middle class = bad', aided and abetted by editing from the programme makers so as to try to manipulate the views of the public watching it.
The use of E4/More4/the internet to allow almost constant viewing of people SLEEPING or just sitting around doing NOTHING and calling it television worth watching is a masterstroke in itself of rainmaking for TV.
The upshot is that it tells you as much about people and social interaction as CSI tells you about the real workings of that institution.
that Big Brother is a representative snapshot of the relationships and interaction observable in average, everyday life. But that doesn't make it any less interesting, IMO.
I don't see it as a particularly intellectually stimulating scientific social experiment, but equally I don't see why its viewers are so repeatedly lampooned as being 'a waste of skin', when it's seen as acceptable to watch Doctor Who or some shit. Almost all TV is dumb.
To address your other points, I don't watch live streaming or read broadsheets.
turns out I am stupid.
Someone posted something stupid said on Big Brother and I responded by saying that's why I didn't watch it.
I was then jokingly accused of not being a person at all because I didn't watch it so I responded in kind with my reference to being a 'waste of skin'.
I was simply responding to being 'lampooned' by the Big Brother watchers. I can't be held responsible for any other comments you may or may not have got from others so you can stow that. My points were clearly not any kind of personal assault on you either so you had no need to point out you don't watch the live streaming, etc. I was just saying that it's amazing they can call that television.
And I'd like to point out that Doctor Who isn't seen as any more 'acceptable'. You get plenty of pejorative comments about watching that as you do, in fact, about watching anything but the best TV, so get some sauce to go with that chip and settle down.
I wasn't trying to imply that you were personally attacking me. I didn't read the above exchange at all, I was simply looking for an example of somebody criticising Big Brother viewers, and I thought that would be a pretty relevant example, seeing as you had just said it. If you hadn't meant it in that way then I apologise. My point still stands though.
As for having a chip on my shoulder, there are plenty of people that will happily sit down to watch an episode of Dr. Who but will look down on those who watch Big Brother. Again, my point was a general one, rather than personal.
There are just as many people who'll happily gorge themselves on Big Brother and Corrie and think anyone over the age of 7 watching Doctor Who is some sort of weirdo.
In fact the Sci-Fi/Soap split always used to be pretty strong back when I was at Uni. I have no idea if it still is.
they're supporting rights. The right for a woman to take control over her own body and thus abort a foetus she doesn't want to carry, and the right for a chicken to live a normal life without being kept in god awful conditions and have its eggs taken away and eaten by humans.
It's still an animal product, and they wouldn't eat it, but that's kinda the point of veganism. I'm kind of in between myself, I'd probably eat eggs if I kept the chickens my self and knew they were well looked after and there eggs were unfertilised.
I mean, if you let chickens roam around wild they would get eaten by foxes and maybe cats and dogs. So they need to be protected. They're not really a 'wild' bird in any true sense.
Moreover even if you gave them 20 protected acres to go about their business they'd probably still just hang about in the one nesting corner.
As to the eggs, I am on shaky ground here but I'd guess they'll just go around laying eggs all over the place regardless of human interraction? Or do we feed them hormones? If the latter then that's good enough for me as a reason not to eat them as a vegan but I don't think that's what happens. It seems to me that if we're talking free-range eggs you're about as close as you can get to humans simply using something that wouldn't be used otherwise, like taking horse shit and using it to fertilise their gardens.
well yeah, that's my point. If they're free range and I know hoe the chickens have been kept then morally I don't have a problem with it.
My boyfriend's parents keep quite a lot of chickens and they use the whole garden. They do tend to nest in the same place most nights, but there's a difference between them nesting out of habit and being confined to a cage barely big enough to hold them.
In egg-producing farms, birds are typically housed in rows of battery cages. Environmental conditions are automatically controlled, including light duration, which mimics summer daylength. This stimulates the birds to continue to lay eggs all year round. Normally, significant egg production only occurs in the warmer months. Critics argue that year-round egg production stresses the birds more than normal seasonal production.
Also the industry kinda makes me sick as they have to kill all the male birds at birth because they don't produce eggs. (They also do this with male calves and goats because they don't produce milk)
yeah, they totally are, I was just answering Theo.
I'm not even trying to relate it to abortion...
I agree that they're completely separate issues, and therefore, logically, one can hold both opinions.
it's really epic and rather dull quibbling to pull someone up on the fact that they very vaguely connect the two things as being about fundamental rights. the real issue is that the original post is fucking stupid because they have nothing to do with each other. not about trying to reconcile pro-choice and vegan positions. which I think you can to some extent if you're a social liberal.
yeah I agree. This thread is kinda full of the reasons I left DiS in the first place
I'm a vegetarian and have never bought anything but free-range eggs. My uncle used to keep some on his lands for his own egg consumption but I think it was too hard to give them space and safety from the marauding foxes.
texture like summer
have anything to do with abortions? they are in no way connected. whatsoever. there is no hypocrisy.
the reason most vegans choose not to eat eggs is because of issues with the way hens are farmed, even in "ethical" farming. eggs that we eat are not living, they are not life, because they are unfertilised, they can never develop into a chicken.
also, eggs aren't "chicken periods" and only have a very very vague connection with periods biologically. animals don't really have periods. and birds definitely don't.
I'd like to go into a long dissection of your response and why you're deliberately missing the points being made (implicitly and explicitly) but I don't have time. Someone else can do it.
the rationale for most veganism [massive generalisation] is to do with perceived exploitation. that the animal has no choice in the matter. this is much more subtle than ALL ANIMALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.
the rationale for being pro-choice is that women have the right to do what they want with their own bodies and that if they don't feel able to bring up a child or have physical or mental health issues that make them reluctant to have a child (or for whatever other reason, the point is that people have autonomy over their own bodies) they are able to make the choice to have an abortion.
The reason that the two things have very little connection from an ethical standpoint is that making your own choices over your own body has nothing to do with exploiting animals. i really can't see how they are connected, other than to say: i have rights over my own body, animals have rights over their own body.
I'm not missing the points being made. I think you don't really understand why people are vegan. It's quite a bit more than just not eating animal products. I also don't think you fully understand the rationale for being pro-choice. In this debate it's really nowhere near as crass as saying something like "chickens are more important than humans". meh.
how the fuck would you know what an abortion looks like? That's a stupid thing to say.
but it is considerably more than that. Even at ten weeks gestation, the foetus is recognisable as such.
Anyway, this is horrible.
I'm going to have runny eggs florentine for lunch *waits for theo to pile on with "I hate to break it to you, but THAT'S not lunch"* ;D
You know full well my response about chickens was a joke and not a serious attempt at debate. You've met countzero too, haven't you? Maybe not.
You're missing the point that maybe he considers abortion to be akin to murder? And your 'massive generalisation' is exactly why I don't think your post was the correct response, since it used those to finish by suggesting the thread was stupid.
If said vegan actually was in the 'all animals have a right to live' (and you know vegetarians can be so because fundamentally they don't like the idea of animals being killed, regardless of condiitons) then you have an interesting view cross there of someone who might think abortions are akin to murder but animals don't deserve the same considerations as humans, vs. someone who doesn't think that and feels animals need to be protected.
Essentially I am running with a completely different, yet valid interpretation of the original post.
The problem is that we're both into such a wild speculation that it wasn't worth it, hence why my reply was simply a stupid joke comment and not the patronising bullshit that you came out with.
Speculation aside, it's clear that this vegan has an issue with the idea of an egg being a chick that's been killed, so it's not about the rearing of a chicken and yeah, there IS a parallel regardless you can draw between being cool with abortion but seeing a dead chick in an egg that we know could never ever have been fertilised and thus would never be a chick.
I might start doing this
no it wasn't. I'm not saying I agree with either stance, I'm just saying I understand the mentality. It's not hypocritical to regard a woman's right to choose as important, and yet to want to abstain from eating animal products.
"knock most people out"
So i am going with yes, yes it would hurt.
Of course, would i punch someone for eating an egg?
No, because that's a bloody stupid thing to do.
I might punch another vegan trying to punch someone for eating an egg though.
People are generally rubbish so why not.
You're allowed to dismiss someone else's viewpoint but we have to somehow 'prove' your thoughts on how someone else must feel is bollocks rather than just dismiss them as the ramblings of an idiot?
is right twice a day.
Do they actually exist? or are they just fantasy lefty hate figures like all these sanctimonious vegetarians I've never met.
I almost found myself agreeing with you upthread, now you're back to being a weapons-grade retard. Carry on.
Approaches me, whips their cock out , and starts pissing on to my shoes, I will be all like "hey man, for why are you pissing on my shoes, this seems uncool, what is up with that."
If a crazy tramp who is covered in his own excrement approaches me and does the same, I will not attempt to reason with him, but just be all "argh you crazy tramp stop pissing on my shoes and go away now".
Thus it is with this discussion.
Also I've just remembered who you are, and you fall squarely into the crazy tramp category. I have wasted my time. Quit pissing on my shoes.
But doesn't this apply to a hude amount of things in life, if not all. For example, raising children. A parent raises their child in a particular way for various reasons including moral ones and hence by implication deems all other approaches immoral. ALL OF THE OTHER CHILDRENS PARENTS ARE EVIL.
Why am I doing this and picking raising children when I'm not a parent myself?
is there any chance you can get on some sort of philosophy course, specifically meta-ethics? Because that's essentially what you're talking about now; I think you'd find it really interesting.
you'd probably find people more willing to chew things over with you.
What philosophy course did you do, btw? I'm deadly serious about the meta-ethics thing, take it, it's fantastic, you'll really enjoy it.
"Prove that green!" and then laughing at him because he's 'too stupid' to be able to do it.
Similarly you seem to feel that your view of vegetarianism can only be dismissed by us if we can somehow 'prove it wrong', and that's your mistake.
Maybe I'm just thick. I don't know philosophy so maybe that's it, or maybe you're just terrible at making your points in text.
The whole point of good philosophy is to unpick complex or counterintuitive stuff like this, and argue about it in a clear manner that anyone can understand.
You can't understand Bammers because he has the most rambling, incomprehensible style of argument / writing / thought I've ever seen. If he did take philosophy, I'd wager that he was not very good at it, because - not for the sake of offence, but because it's God's honest truth - he can't lay out an argument for shit.
so I didn't know if that's why I didn't know...er, does that make sense?
You *did* initially say that "these people were horrid for being judgemental" - that's what "sanctimonious" means.
When you were called out on it, you retreated in a meandering, Grandpa Simpson kind fashion to some vague, uninteresting twaddle about how making moral decisions means you implicitly judge people who make different decisions to you. That's a much weaker claim, it's uninteresting, and it's probably not even true.
stupid veggies and their stupid private thoughts.
I will hate myself for the time I lost reading that.
for reasons of morality.
Mind your own business unless someone is ramming their views down your throat, which people hardly ever do.
IT'S FRIDAY AND IT'S REALLY SUNNY OUTSIDE
Get crazy in a shack in the woods.
stop wasting the internet.
I'm in work.
you fucking hypocrite
and start some good threads?
"prodding the mong" is Theo's favourite euphemism for wanking.
rather than posting in this thread
Only Americans and dentists are allowed to call me Lewis
as the French say
you could end up married to your own half-chicken, half-human child. BE WARNED.
i don't give a fuck about the myriad of illogical decisions that lead up to veganism.
just what i said in the original post
was your attempt to spell 'yolk'
but the crudescent moral relativism wasn't far behind
but yoke in the other sense works.
but it was about that particular statement..not veganism innit
the sterile if nutritious core of the egg is a burden all vegans choose to bear
yours is the soul of a poet and the heart of a statesman
in that I am dimly thinking about what I've typed before hitting 'Post reply'