So here is a question.
I am currently eating a steak. It came from a dead animal - one who most likely didn't have the greatest life, one could say suffered - One could go so far as to say the animal I am eating used to live a life of torture.
I am perfectly well aware of the arguments for not eating meat. The arguments against animal abuse. I have watched the videos of animals being slaughtered because I wanted information to make an informed opinion.
It wouldn't be a lie for me to admit that I agree with all the arguments from the non meat eater/vegetarian crowd. I agree with them almost completely. That the animals do in fact suffer more than they should.
But honestly - eating this steak makes me feel good. I enjoy chewing it, tasting it - the red and bloody steak it becomes with butter and pepper. It's delicious to me.
I guess it's more that I just don't care about the suffering the animals enough for me to give up my delicious steak. Or veal chop. Or rack of lamb.
What say you, rational minds? Am I a 'bad person' for admitting that the arguments make sense and yet I choose to simply ignore them for my own one could say - selfish and short-term desires?
Yes, we are omnivores. Happy now that we have all our dictionary definitions in a row? ;)
"Scientific fact" is a bit of a misnomer, though, don't you think? It is a scientific fact that modern non-Inuit humans can do just fine on all-meat diets, in that it has been tested and established. No scurvy, no problems. We can also do just fine on all plant diets, if carefully selected and eaten in the correct quantity from plants that were native to different parts of the globe.
The rest is a matter of theory and evidence. The current prevailing theory is as I have described.
I'm glad you've admitted that you were dead wrong in calling us carnivores.
It wasn't the dictionary that made you wrong, though - it was your misunderstanding of reality. Now if we could just get you to update your understanding of the lack of evidence for your invisible man in the sky.
'Eskimos' is a pejorative used by the Dogrib and Slave Lake First Nations to refer to the Inuit. It's not politically correct.
I think that's mostly a Canadianism, Heather. Outside of Canada it depends on who is using the word. Visit the Inuit Circumpolar Counsel website and do a search on the word Eskimo. They refer to themselves as Eskimos in a number of documents.
As an unrelated side-note: I am a descendant of Canadian Mikmaq Indians through my maternal grandmother. Other Canadians sometimes referred to her more ethnic-looking family members Eskimos, which wasn't considered insulting to the recipient so much as revealing the user to be something of a nitwit.
Having lived several years in Dog Rib territory and met several Inuit, I assure you that it is a pejorative. In Dog Rib it means 'Meat Eater' and it's used in quite a demeaning way. The Inuit are forced to use the moniker when dealing with many outsiders because it has become the international word to refer to them. Regardless, they still don't like it.
As far as it being a 'Canadianism', well I guess you would have to go live in northern Canada, as in north of 60, to get the full gist of what I'm saying.
The Inuit are forced to use the moniker when dealing with many outsiders because it has become the international word to refer to them. Regardless, they still don't like it.
I understand Heather: where you come from the word is not taken kindly. I don't dispute that. I was pointing out that the people referred to as Eskimos are not exclusively the Inuit and some of the Inuit themselves don't consider it to be a pejorative. The former is based on my personal family history.
But thanks for the reminder. I hadn't considered there are still people around who take offense to the word. It's best that I avoid using it even if I do have a few specks of blood in my veins with diplomatic immunity.
lol. this is worse than the 'i've got a black friend' defense...the 'i've got a first nations ancestor' defense. don't be the white guy who references his non-white ancestry in defense of his racism.
Gallup: I understand Heather: where you come from the word is not taken kindly. I don't dispute that. I was pointing out that the people referred to as Eskimos are not exclusively the Inuit and some of the Inuit themselves don't consider it to be a pejorative. The former is based on my personal family history. But thanks for the reminder. I hadn't considered there are still people around who take offense to the word. It's best that I avoid using it even if I do have a few specks of blood in my veins with diplomatic immunity.
Kairan: lol. this is worse than the 'i've got a black friend' defense...the 'i've got a first nations ancestor' defense. don't be the white guy who references his non-white ancestry in defense of his racism.
You're calling me a racist? Really? I'm afraid you'll have to walk me through this, Kairan.
As I said above: the word 'Eskimo' is well-travelled, not universally considered to be a pejorative and not fully interchangeable with Inuit. That's based on the origin, history and use of the word (see below).
My mother's side of the family is descended from Micmacs who understood 'Eskimo' (and at times were called Eskimos) without a negative connotation. This is how I first encountered the word growing up and throughout most of my life: as the name of a people (including some of my ancestors) not as a racial slur.
It was here in this thread where I had my first encounter with a Canadian (Heather) who explained privately how offensive the word can be in some circles. She convinced me that (in an international public forum) it's best to avoid using the word.
Explain to me which part of that is false. Demonstrate the racism in what I've said. You can't because it simply isn't true. You're throwing the word 'racism' at me (and by proxy, my family) because you don't know what you're talking about.
"Eskimo has come to be considered offensive, especially in Canada. However, it remains an acceptable term for northern peoples in Alaska—including the Inuit Inupiat and the non-Inuit Yupik—and the only encompassing term for all of these Arctic peoples. It is also used worldwide by historians and archaeologists. First attested 1584; obsolete Esquimawe, from French (plural) Esquimaux, from Spanish esquimao, esquimal (used by Basque fishermen in Labrador), from Old Montagnais ayaškimew, literally, 'snowshoe-netter' (cf. Montagnais assime·w 'she laces a snowshoe', Ojibwe aškime· 'to net snowshoes'). The name was originally applied by the Innu people to the Mi'kmaq and later transferred to the Labrador Inuit; see usage notes. It was also once thought to mean 'eaters of raw meat', but most authorities now dismiss this." (Wiktionary)
"Eskimo has come under strong attack in recent years for its supposed offensiveness, and many Americans today either avoid this term or feel uneasy using it. It is widely known that Inuit, a term of ethnic pride, offers an acceptable alternative, but it is less well understood that Inuit cannot substitute for Eskimo in all cases, being restricted in usage to the Inuit-speaking peoples of Arctic Canada and parts of Greenland. In Alaska and Arctic Siberia, where Inuit is not spoken, the comparable terms are Inupiaq and Yupik, neither of which has gained as wide a currency in English as Inuit. While use of these terms is often preferable when speaking of the appropriate linguistic group, none of them can be used of the Eskimoan peoples as a whole; the only inclusive term remains Eskimo. · The claim that Eskimo is offensive is based primarily on a popular but disputed etymology tracing its origin to an Abenaki word meaning "eaters of raw meat." Though modern linguists speculate that the term actually derives from a Montagnais word referring to the manner of lacing a snowshoe, the matter remains undecided, and meanwhile many English speakers have learned to perceive Eskimo as a derogatory term invented by unfriendly outsiders in scornful reference to their neighbors' unsophisticated eating habits."
Humans are omnivores not carnivores. BTW, scary teeth? Have you ever seen the teeth of a Mandrill or bear? Both are omnivores whose diets are primarily vegetable matter. In the case of the Mandrill, the long canines are probably there for a combination of self-defense, mating battles, and attracting females. In the case of the bear, while an amazing proportion of its diet is berries and grass and roots, seasonally, fish becomes part of the diet as well. Occasionally, bears catch and eat other mammals ranging from small rodents to deer and elk, but certainly not on a daily basis.
Doesn't matter. It's the sort of post a vegan would put up. Simulation of a vegan.
Are those that don't eat meat and are aware of the arguments against vegetarianism assholes?
Let this fad die out. Letting animals die without eating them is the true definition of unnecessary suffering. The fuck's a cow gonna do if not get eaten? Write a book? Discover planets?
Heather said it, they're just brainwashed self-righteous theists really.