Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Apr 10 01:33:38 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / an alliance once existed between men and
The Children
Member
Fri Mar 13 17:36:47
elves.

today, we have come 2 honor that alliance...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAIVNRh_9qc

Habebe
Member
Fri Mar 13 17:38:40
Clever, Infect the world and try to play it off as the saviour by delivering paper masks.
The Children
Member
Fri Mar 13 17:39:15
we are saviors, kid.

ur warmongerers.

our business is business and savin the world.

ur business is war and world domination.
Habebe
Member
Fri Mar 13 17:40:43
http://www...XoECAoQAQ#imgrc=CfA3fXwZpJLnBM

Stock photo of TC
The Children
Member
Fri Mar 13 17:42:59
also more and more proof now that the virus came from ur country.

The Children
Member
Sat Mar 14 17:26:58
ttt
sam adams
Member
Sat Mar 14 20:23:46
Thanks for the masks.

Least you could after starting this shit.
The Children
Member
Mon Mar 16 01:33:33
u caused the financial crisis and the swine flu.
Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ
Mon Mar 16 01:59:15
TC just cause your a cocksucker with a micropenis doesn't mean you represent China.
Cherub Cow
Member
Mon Mar 16 06:06:54
[Habebe]: "Clever, Infect the world and try to play it off as the saviour by delivering paper masks."

Maybe they just felt bad about ruining the planet for 3+ months?
The Children
Member
Mon Mar 16 06:13:49
america ruins the planet every year...

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 16 06:21:22
Filthy and uncivilized people who eat rats, bats, cats, dogs and everything else that they can catch. They even eat each others pets!

Listen you morons, just because something can be done, doesn't make it a good idea.
The Children
Member
Mon Mar 16 06:57:34
u mean half the world?

filthy raghead, half the world eats wild animals.

u eat frikkin sheepballs and raccoons. pinky fuckin slime, u ugly moronic ape.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 16 08:12:58
If turds were a wild animal, TC would eat them. Not every wild animal is suppose to be eaten you stupid fuck. And pet cats and dogs are not wild. Not a single thing right you squinty eyed fuck.
Nekran
Member
Mon Mar 16 08:16:45
Can you make an objective case for why one should eat a pig, but not a dog?
The Children
Member
Mon Mar 16 09:41:00
every wild animal is supposed 2 be eaten.

if nimatzo wasnt a turd, he wuld have 2 fear being darwins law!

The Children
Member
Mon Mar 16 09:43:26
humankind is supposed 2 reign over all other animals. we didnt come here coz we ate treeleaves!!

treehuggers always want more lions and tigers coz its so sad 2 them in small numbers.

except they forgot that we would be tiger food if theres more of them around!!

its eat or be eaten, u dumb bitch.
the fact we allow them in small numbers is becoz we find them magnificant animals and dont want them to be extinct!

if theres millions of them around, not a single donut eatin fat cop will be able 2 save ur worthless ass from being a tigers food on monday, u stupid idiot.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 16 10:10:12
Nekran
Bot the salient point or a point I am making. There are many good reasons to not eat dogs,. I have no idea what ”objective” means when people say it like that. Usually it is a state of a position that can not be had without ceasing to be a subject.
Nekran
Member
Mon Mar 16 10:14:10
"There are many good reasons to not eat dogs"

Seperate from TC's retardation, I'd be interested to hear them.

I feel a lot of this stuff is purely cultural. In the UK they think it's disgusting we eat horse here. Eating pig is considered wrong in plenty of cultures as well.

I know of no good reasons not to eat dog or cat.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 11:27:47
Dog is relatively lean meat, so is probably more healthy. I have only tried it once. A 7 week old puppy. How the owners doted on it and fed it rice steamed in milk exclusively. Until they had doted on it for 3 weeks. Then they slaughtered and simmered it in the daintiest of piece. Served in a sweet-sour sauce, the meat was so tender it disolved in my mouth.

I barely felt like throwing up.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 11:32:16
I am supporting Nekran in other words. I knew the puppy had a very nice life until the end. It was killed and slaughtered nicely (they actually gassed it in its sleep after habituating it to sleep in its small basket inside a stove - city people, what can I say?). It tasted great

And I felt sick.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 11:36:01
Good reasons against: Dogs are pack animals, but not herd animals. The industry is unlikely to scale well to meet high volume demand.

Co-evolution is another downside. Dogs have certain advanced social needs that also cannot be met by the agroindustrial complex.

We also read dogs really well, so have a greater capacity for empathy with the animal as opposed to say pigs or fish. This is not a cultural factor, but a function of co-evolution, so is a bit hardwired.
sam adams
Member
Mon Mar 16 11:44:00
"I know of no good reasons not to eat dog or cat."

Dogs and cats are cute and playful you fucking savages!
sam adams
Member
Mon Mar 16 11:44:52
Bats on the other hand... why not eat bats?

Looks at china
Rugian
Member
Mon Mar 16 11:49:31
Hold up. Jergul ate a fucking puppy?
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 11:51:54
Ruggy
Small bits of a puppy. Your point?
Rugian
Member
Mon Mar 16 11:54:18
You piece of shit.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 12:18:31
That seems to always be your point. Sorry I asked.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 12:18:52
Also, whale.
Rugian
Member
Mon Mar 16 13:13:24
You ate a puppy dude. You're lucky that social media doesn't know about this, because they'd be torching your ass.
Habebe
Member
Mon Mar 16 13:20:28
"I know of no good reasons not to eat dog or cat."

Dogs and cats are cute and playful you fucking savages!"

Agreed.

Some things are just civilized. You don't eat cats and dogs. You , rats, bats etc. Bury or burn your dead. Do not have sex with animals. Manage your hair.

Horses, meh not my cup of tea but its also not as bad as eating puppies and kittens. Extreme situations are exempted.
Habebe
Member
Mon Mar 16 13:21:17
Durian, Have you heard of " Don't fuck with cats"?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 16 13:44:57
Nekran
The first and foremost reason is that when taken as a whole, all the species that in their modern form are the product of humans, like the cow, sheeo and the dog, we didn’t breed dogs go eat them, generally. It is not their purpose in as far as we ”created” these animals to serve our purpose. Like Jergul mentioned there is co-evolution between our species, we feel dogs, dogs feel us. You may as well ask for objective reasons why it is wrong for a lion to kill you. It isn’t.ä

I have no idea the significance of your asserting it is cultural. The source of out admiration for dogs has some correlation with culture. So is being pro-life, liberal and feminist. In sunmary, some cultures are better than others.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 16 13:59:39
And I mean I can only imagine that from a CO2 and protein in protein out perspective, dogs must be a terrible source of calories, given the high meat consumption. Dogs are orders of magnitude more active than bovine and consume more food. It is highly inefficient compared to a species breed fot meat.

These dog and bat eatets in China, they are people who never became agricultural, this is also ”cultural” if you like. Yet, subjectively I believe the nomadic/hunter gatherer/forragers societies are ”inferior” to my agricultural one.

The Children
Member
Mon Mar 16 14:34:53
a cow needs infinite more resources to farm than a dog, u delusional batshit crazy idiot.

and u cant grow cows in deserts and oceans either so how is half the world gonna raise a cattle industry.

mother nature clearly forbids it.
bats on the other hand, whats wrong with batsoup. does bats frighten u, kid.

i hear they taste crunchy. eat up bitch.
The Children
Member
Mon Mar 16 14:36:50
wazzup bitch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9UjEUOeP2w

jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 15:38:07
Scary that most of the practical examples against dog are also against pigs.

Pigs have likely been domesticated about as long as cats and dogs. There is co-evolution at work there too. Very few warthogs can be found at petting zoos.
Nekran
Member
Mon Mar 16 15:39:18
I wasn't talking about what's better to breed on a massive scale or anything.

I just mean there's nothing inherently barbaric about eating a dog or a cat. As much as I love my cat, I wouldn't look down on people that eat cat.

Also cows are pretty cool animals. And they can be quite cute and playful. Also you can empathize with them perfectly. As we can with most mammals.

When it comes to bats I know they carry around a shit ton of disease... so at the very least great care should be taken in preparation I suppose.

People just like judging too much, if you ask me.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 15:40:18
I guess dogmeat just lacks a french word to cover its culinary use.

Chiot?

Yah. Hand over som chiot, bitches!

That works for would be chinese at least.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 15:42:28
Your cat would certainly eat you. It seems only fair.

It might do it outside of dire circumstance if not for the size differential.

But a dog? I rather suspect many would starve to death before eating human. Co-evolution. Very impractical.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 15:44:52
We should probably discuss eating elf as opposed to ork to bring the thread back on topic.
Nekran
Member
Mon Mar 16 15:45:56
"But a dog? I rather suspect many would starve to death before eating human."

You'd be very wrong. People often get their soft bits eaten by their dog when they die at home alone.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 15:47:51
I know some do. Just as some people resort to cannibalism to survive.

But is it the rule?

Hence the qualifier, *many*.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 15:49:04
They are not like cats. Who are just waiting for an excuse in my opinion.

And I have kittens!
Nekran
Member
Mon Mar 16 15:49:18
It is indeed the rule.

The thing is dogs live by smell way more than by sight. When you die, you are a completely different thing to them. Namely, food.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 15:56:15
Cool theory. Could be true even. It does not go against the coevolution thing either. Dogs will eat us only if they cease to recognize us as human.

I do not feel up to getting into a pissing contest trying to figure out under what circumstances if any it becomes commonplace for dog to eat human.

A lot more documented cases of pigs eating human for flavour variation anyway :).
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 16 16:43:07
Nekran
Yes, there is something barbaric about eating the species we befriended and elevated among others. It is sort of like, does it make me a retard if I take a dump in the bath tub? You can do it if you wanted to, there is nothing ”objectively” wrong with it :)

Well, I said there are many good reasons to not eat dogs. When there are enough good reasons to not do something and people still do it and it involves murdering puppies, barbaric is a good word.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 18:02:58
Ultimately, it depends on who you are.

Some cultures do think eating dog is fine, or practical (the Inuit would traditionally eat dog if circumstances demanded, and would certainly use it as meat of the paw to feed other dogs on longer treks).

Barbaric is a word. Murdering is also a word. I am not sure that either applies to chiot consumption.
sam adams
Member
Mon Mar 16 18:40:10
Humans do not eat dogs.

Period.
Rugian
Member
Mon Mar 16 18:47:40
Unless you're jergul, in which case you eat seven week old puppies.

For fucks sake. It couldnt at least be an adult dog?

jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 19:05:41
Ruggy
Protein is protein. I had to travel in to Moscow to find a hard currency store. I was otherwise limited to what you could find in a provincial town.

Which was not much. Particularly before I had a network that helped buy stuff.

My fault entirely. I did not have to be there.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 19:09:17
I have a few black and white photos of me taken professionally by a really drunk photographer using an archaic camera. Exposure time was done by him removing the cap from the lens, waving it hypnotically, then putting it back on.

I looked like a 1930s Kosomoletsj. The things we do (though it worked out well later when I was working with Russian crews on fishing boats).
Habebe
Member
Mon Mar 16 20:20:36
Jergul, Many cultures permit many things.The Mayan were cool with ritual killing of humans. Some cultures eat the heart of humans they have conquered in war.

Just because a particular culture says an act is ok doesn't mean that it is.

Taboo isn't always morally wrong. But as Nimatzo has poonted out there is something. "Off" with eating an animal we evolved with.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 20:54:06
Habebe
Dogs were reserve food sources until the neolithic. Most of the co-evolutionary timeframe would have seen us eating them as required.

Cats might possibly claim exception. There coevolution is patchy at best, but their contract with us is different. We will help you keep your grainstocks intact. Eat that instead of us. A post agricultural revolution thing.

Not accessing protein systematically is a function of energy being available from other sources and not some underlying co-evolutionary bond.

Attaching moralism is simply selective veganism.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 16 20:54:43
I meant the same argument vegans use* Yawn.
Habebe
Member
Mon Mar 16 23:02:37
What about Human? Aside from the higher possibility of disease would that be any more acceptable?
Habebe
Member
Tue Mar 17 00:02:07
I think the overlying theme is empathy. If you have empathy towards an animal you won't lilley eat it.

Even Jergul, the puppy eater wouldn't eat his kittens. He may eat a kitten but I doubt He would eat his pets.

I suppose that isn't an uncommon phenomena. Many kids who grew up on a farm probably had some barnyard pseudo pet of a species they regularly ate.It is still disturbing though.
The Children
Member
Tue Mar 17 01:13:39
human meat is unfit for consumption, u uglie biatch becoz of disease and shit.

but other than that, it an animal doesnt have disease, it is practically good protein. period.

why does ur pathetic country eat pinky slime made out of crap meat and filled with all kinds of preservations and sauces to make it smell nice and good tasty when in fact that stuff will give u cancer.

but somehow dogmeat or tiger meat is off the menu.

did u know that from all animals, genewise da pig is the closest to a human. not a monkey, not a chimp, but a pig.

its like 98% identical to human dna or something...

and yet u consume it with no questions asked.


Cherub Cow
Member
Tue Mar 17 01:57:48
[TC]: "america ruins the planet every year..."

Careful with the classical Whataboutisms ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
"It is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world ... it is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, "massacres, gulags, and forced deportations" by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc."

..
[Nimatzo]: "So is being pro-life, liberal and feminist. In sunmary, some cultures are better than others."

True, pro-lifers represent an inferior culture, for sure; it's a culture that has abandoned or distorted scientific reasoning for the weaknesses of heuristic pathos arguments.

..
[TC]: "bats on the other hand, whats wrong with batsoup. does bats frighten u, kid."
[Nimatzo]: "When it comes to bats I know they carry around a shit ton of disease... so at the very least great care should be taken in preparation I suppose."

Exactly, Nim. Bats tend to be riddled with parasites, bacteria, and viruses. They have been ranked the #1 zoonotic disease carrier — the greatest virus-carrying threat to humans (Nature, 2017, http://www.nature.com/articles/nature22975 ). 2nd place goes to non-human primates, and third to rodents. Pigs also rank high because they tend to live in filth and represent part of a livestock route of infection. It's no coincidence that well-researched plague movies (1995's "Outbreak" and 2011's "Contagion") showed just that: bats, non-human primates, and pigs being ground zero for novel viruses. These animals have filthy habits and have a lot of interaction with urban centers, so they can be a big threat when introduced to the eating habits of humans who do not properly prepare or sanitize their food.

John Oliver's March 1st Coronavirus coverage partially hit this when they tried to call Don Luskin a racist ( http://youtu.be/c09m5f7Gnic?t=963 ). Unfortunately for Oliver's commentary, Luskin was correct. China, India, Central Africa, and tropical South America were declared regional zoonotic threats because these locations do not have sanitary livestock-raising conditions, have been rapidly deforested for industry (causing zoonotic threat animals to relocate), and have many of the top disease-carrying animals near urban centers. China has been on the radar as a potential source of viruses for a while because of this: they have access to large metropolitan areas and international travel, but they have 3rd world sanitation and food preparation practices at the edge of spillover animal habitats. This exact scenario was predicted *decades* ago and rehashed again and again. So yeah, don't eat bat soup in China.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 17 02:02:37
It is cultural for sure, but again the fact that something is cultural, like female genital mutilation, eating cats and dogs and human sacrifice does not mean they are not barbaric and evil. We are mixing origins with moral with universality. It may not be universally true that eating dogs is bad. On this planet it is an emergent truth that dog eating cultures are generally inferior (in many ways) to those that treat dogs and cats almost like humans. It is a recognition of tens of thousands years long relationship.

If you breed a species to be like dogs, i.e the qualities puppies have, cute and atuned to your voice and emotions, playful, couragous and protective. You breed these qualities and you let the dogs protect your home, your sheep and children, sleep in your bed and lick your face. And then, and then you slaughter and eat these creatures, Im sorry your cultural practices are inferior.

Not talking about desperate times when you have to kill your pet, but as a general part of the food culture.

Selective veganaism is called being an omnivore btw. Expecting that we have the exact same relationship with all species, is a strange position to hold. Some animals are a threat to my life, others are pests, some of them are friends, others are food.
The Children
Member
Tue Mar 17 02:11:47
spanish flu didnt come from bats.

and the 1 virus everyone is scared of...doesnt come from bats either.

it comes from chickens.
when that thing hits, u aint talkin about a mild cold and 2% death rate for old people.

ur talkin 50-60% death rate across all ages. it doesnt come from bats.

bats dont get eaten in china btw. only a select group sees it as a delicacy. bats get eaten however by 20% of the world population, mostly south east asians and pacific islanders.

so nice try, trying to educate china, when noone even eats bats in china.

and corona doesnt come from bats.

america is the world ruiner.
The Children
Member
Tue Mar 17 02:22:04
bats known to carry virusses? just how fuckin stupid are u, cuckhatzo?

NAME ONE ANIMAL THAT DOESNT HAVE A VIRUS.

NAME ONE ANIMAL THAT CANT GET SICK.

EVERY LIVING BEING GETS SICK. thats the purpose of virusses and bacteria, u delusional idiot.

u probably think cats and dogs dunt need 2 piss and poop either! just a cute little thingie that u can hold and cuddle all day long without it havin parasites and bacteria.

people die becoz there dogs happened to lick them in the face.

people die becoz a dog or a cat accidentally bit or scratches them.

idiot. there is not a single thing on the planet that doesnt contain any virusses or bacteria.

just 1 drop of seawater alone contains HUNDRED MILLION virusses.

idiot.
The Children
Member
Tue Mar 17 03:36:18
god damn cuck, u just got rekted by TC.

i ended ur whole career.

Nekran
Member
Tue Mar 17 03:41:22
" It is sort of like, does it make me a retard if I take a dump in the bath tub? You can do it if you wanted to, there is nothing ”objectively” wrong with it"

There really is... the turd has nowhere to go. It will keep floating in the tub until you manually remove it. Objectively inferior method.

"It is cultural for sure, but again the fact that something is cultural, like female genital mutilation, eating cats and dogs and human sacrifice does not mean they are not barbaric and evil."

I can't imagine you actually putting these things on the same level? 2 of these objectively harm people, the other is people eating animals you're not used to seeing be eaten.

"EVERY LIVING BEING GETS SICK. thats the purpose of virusses and bacteria, u delusional idiot."

The thing with bats is though that they have a fantastic immune system and carry around an insane amount of disease without experiencing any issues themselves.

The Children
Member
Tue Mar 17 03:46:50
they are immune to them becoz they got infected by these virusses untill they turned immune to them.

its basically darwins law at its finest.

that actually means eatin bats is healthier than reported.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 17 04:39:27
>>There really is... the turd has nowhere to go. It will keep floating in the tub until you manually remove it. Objectively inferior method.<<

Not true, if you wash it with lots of hot water it will eventually disintegrate and go down the drain. It is just very inefficient, consume lots of hot water and timetime. Also horrible smell in the bathroom.

>>I can't imagine you actually putting these things on the same level?<<

Because your cultural sensibilities triggers you on one, but not the other where you think you are super rational? Do you think you valuing bodily integrity over female chastity is objectively true?

But again you miss the point, cultural or natural has no effect on the needle of my moral compass. You are doing som cultural derivative of the nature fallacy. That if there exists some cultural variation in some practice, oh well then we can't really judge can we? YES WE CAN.

>>the other is people eating animals you're not used to seeing be eaten.<<

This is simply disregarding and not adressing all the arguments already posted.

Summary:
I said there were good reasons and you said you could not imagine any. I explained and then you said on well those reasons do not count. I will leave you to your religious conviction on dog eating.
Nekran
Member
Tue Mar 17 04:48:27
Lol @ religious conviction.

Your arguments hold for plenty of animals you are comfortable with being eaten. We co-evolved with pigs, cows and horses. The horse has also not been bred to be eaten and plenty of people have a very close bond with their horse. Yet, I can buy horse here in the butchershop, no problem.

Also I never said we can't judge. Obviously we can judge. But there's a difference between judging somethign emotionally and judging something on an objective basis.

I wouldn't eat cats and dogs myself either, because I do share this cultural value. I just don't think there's anything inherently wrong with doing so. And I don't look down on people who do.

I think the religious conviction is far more yours than mine.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 17 05:06:33
>>Your arguments hold for plenty of animals you are comfortable with being eaten. We co-evolved with pigs, cows and horses.<<

Are you willfully misunderstanding the relevance of co-evolving with dogs? Yes we have evolved with many species, to each their purpose.

>>But there's a difference between judging somethign emotionally and judging something on an objective basis.<<

I fundamentally disagree that judgments should not take into account emotions. I do not want autistic robots to judge me, without compassion and mercy for instance. Likewise I want judgment to take into account my emotions, suffering and pain when judging my assailant.

Is it objectively wrong if a lion eats you? No it isn't, but it does not make your loved ones emotion less real, impactful or important when other people deal with lions in the future. Hey lions can kill your loved ones, which while objectively neutral, is a subjective disaster! The rest of us can witness your untimely demise and learn stuff.

>>I think the religious conviction is far more yours than mine.<<

Not really no. I presented arguments, climate related, emotional, evolutionary, purpose driven arguments. You simply decided to not deal with any of it.

Again, if there are many good reasons to not do something and it involves killing puppies = barbaric. My position is the product of good reasons + emotions.
Nekran
Member
Tue Mar 17 05:09:27
"Yes we have evolved with many species, to each their purpose."

Nicely ignored the horse there.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 17 05:17:37
It is an interesting way of conducting a conversation, just get hung up on something and disregard Everything else.

I have empathy of the Brits who think you are Barbaric for eating horses. Judging by how you Belgians ran your colonies compared to the Brits, you guys were total savages!
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 17 05:25:31
This isn't that difficult from an industrial stand point, which is the biggest "objective" reason to not engage in this behavior. We have formed cows, especially in the last 100 years to consume less food and produce more meat. I can imagine you being the type of person who think it is a moral good or even an obligation to reduce CO2 footprint and harm on nature. Not horses, not cats or dogs, animals that have been breed for totally different purpose.

It just isn't as savage and barbaric to eat horses as it is to eat cats and dogs, we do have a lot of it historically with wild horses. There are gradients to savagery obviously!
The Children
Member
Tue Mar 17 05:27:23
says u.

but u already got REKTED.

We eat anything we want. fuck u and ur delusional double standards.

jergul
large member
Tue Mar 17 05:29:55
Nimi
Dogs were reserve food for most of co-evolution.

The historical argument for not eating some animals was sometimes religious (they are incarnates of some diety or another), but mostly hygienic - unclean.

Dog's always had a different primary purpose than meat on the paw, but that does not distract from their secondary purpose.

Its more an agricultural thing. A well trained dog is worth more than a village of peasants. That morality has sort of spilled over to modern times.

Its the same argument for horses really. The words we use to describe horses ready for the slaughterhouse overlap what peasant owned horses were called.

One of the advantages a knight on horsebackf had was peasant unwillingness to kill the steed. Not for moral reasons - The beast was a walking fortune that would change the lives of anyone able to unseat the knight and take the horse.
Cherub Cow
Member
Tue Mar 17 06:11:32
[The Children]: "spanish flu didnt come from bats."

Again, bats make up the #1 spot for infection, then non-human primates, then rodents, then livestock such as pigs. Spanish flu is believed to have originated from viral mutations among pigs and birds.

..
[The Children]: "and the 1 virus everyone is scared of...doesnt come from bats either."

I hope you don't mean ebola, because that is believed to come from bats.

..
[The Children]: "bats dont get eaten in china btw"

I wouldn't even necessarily blame direct eating of bats, just the poor handling of bats. If a cook or shop-owner puts a bat in a fridge or on display in a market and then handles other goods, no customer needs to have eaten a bat to get sick — they pick it up through unsanitary cross-contact. All it takes is some dirty bat-seller to set up shop with no thought of cleanliness, then the world just waits for patient zero.

..
[The Children]: "and corona doesnt come from bats."

What's your source? Here's this one:
"Discovery of a novel coronavirus associated with the recent pneumonia outbreak in humans and its potential bat origin"
http://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.22.914952v2
"it was found that nCoV-2019 is 96% identical at the whole genome level to a bat coronavirus."

..
[The Children]: "there is not a single thing on the planet that doesnt contain any virusses or bacteria."

It's a question of zoonotic disease — that is, which animals have a greater tendency to be able to spread disease to other animals. Bats have the greatest chance of spreading disease to humans — particularly novel diseases. Cats and dogs, on the other hand, may spread some diseases to humans, but they tend to be well-charted diseases with good prognosis. Rabies, for instance, can be awful if untreated, but if someone gets a booster after being bitten by a wild dog, there's a near-certainty that that person will fight rabies for something like 10 years. But a novel virus from bat contamination? Lots of uncertainty in treatment.

..
[The Children]: "they are immune to them becoz they got infected by these virusses untill they turned immune to them. [/] its basically darwins law at its finest. [/] that actually means eatin bats is healthier than reported."

Yeah, no. The bat's immune system isn't somehow transferred over to the person who eats it. If any of the viruses that the bat was carrying have not been cooked out and killed, the human — who cannot fight all of those diseases — may become a carrier and will have symptoms that the bat never experienced.
The Children
Member
Tue Mar 17 06:40:26
"I hope you don't mean ebola, because that is believed to come from bats. "

>> no, i was talkin about bird flu. they dunt cull entire chicken and duck farms (100k chickens) if they find 1 bird flu for nottin.

its called genocide.

they do it coz bird flu is the one they are all scared about.

and ebola isnt a virus.

"What's your source? Here's this one:
"Discovery of a novel coronavirus associated with the recent pneumonia outbreak in humans and its potential bat origin" "

>> they found it and it from pangolins. maybe millions of years ago, it might have come from bats. some bats mightve bitten or shat in some water and some pangolin then drank it.

but it lived with pangolins since then. its basically a simple cold virus for pangolins.

"It's a question of zoonotic disease — that is, which animals have a greater tendency to be able to spread disease to other animals. Bats have the greatest chance of spreading disease to humans — particularly novel diseases."

>> nope, bird flu is. they find 1 bird flu in 1 chicken, they will genocide the entire herd of 100k/ 200k.

thats how scary it is.
they cant stop it either coz it comes from flying birds who fly from 1 country to another.

"Yeah, no. The bat's immune system isn't somehow transferred over to the person who eats it."

>> proof?

so yes, bat is healthy.
The Children
Member
Tue Mar 17 06:42:15
think about it. if one chickens gets the cold (how many humans gets a cold every year), they slaughter the entire farm no questions asked.

its genocide and ur talkin about bats.

lmao
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 17 06:51:36
Jergul
>>Dogs were reserve food for most of co-evolution.<<

Co-evolution is only an explanation for why I/we have greater empathy towards dogs. We did plenty of savage things in the past, things that even made sense that we no longer need to engage in. Which brings us to the cat/dog/bushmeat eating people that for various reasons did not give up their past habits and become agrarian.


>>Its more an agricultural thing.<<

I said as much, that I believe agriculture is superior to nomadic or hunter gatherer bushmeat eating cultures. Dogs and cats aside, hundreds of animal species are on the verge of extinction because we are hunting and eating them.

>>That morality has sort of spilled over to modern times.<<

Perhaps, but dogs also increasingly became pets/friends, police and rescue dogs, instead of another animal with specific utility on the farm.

Also! Our general care for animal wellbeing increased across the board as well.

I honestly don't really think this spill over is relevant, because the dog reaffirms this moral position everytime I see and interact with one. Simply put, dogs are good people.
jergul
large member
Tue Mar 17 07:05:48
Nimi
You should be shaking your fist at agriculture if mass extinction events is your worry.

Are you sure our general care for animal well-being has improved? Agro-industrial practices are horrendous.

Antropomorphism is a powerful drive and forms the basis of our capacity to experience religion.
Nekran
Member
Tue Mar 17 08:08:54
"Judging by how you Belgians ran your colonies compared to the Brits, you guys were total savages!"

Only one colony, but yes... we were extremely savage. Leopold II is one of the great villains of history.

"You should be shaking your fist at agriculture if mass extinction events is your worry."

Most definitely. There is a lot of good arguments to be made for the old hunter gatherer culture. Question of superiority aside, we're definitely not going back to that anyways, so it's pretty pointless.

"I can imagine you being the type of person who think it is a moral good or even an obligation to reduce CO2 footprint and harm on nature. Not horses, not cats or dogs, animals that have been breed for totally different purpose."

I don't understand the relation between those 2 sentences?

"It just isn't as savage and barbaric to eat horses as it is to eat cats and dogs, we do have a lot of it historically with wild horses. There are gradients to savagery obviously!"

So do you consider yourself more of a savage barbarian than a vegetarian then?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 17 08:12:45
Yes, it is true that agriculture can have negative consequences for the ecosystem, but it is a systematic approach to food. It provides a steady and robust supply of food on as small a footprint as possible. Efficiency is one of the main goals of any industry and agriculture is no different.

Like any system it can function poorly and act as a detriment to the environment. This isn't inherent to the activity though and can be improved, in fact if you look at numbers it has significantly improved and thanks to GMO will further improve.

Meanwhile hundreds of millions of people hunting bushmeat on their own accord. There is no approach to this that makes regulation and surveillance remotely feasible or doable.

>>Are you sure our general care for animal well-being has improved?<<

If you look at the legal framework, yes.

>>Antropomorphism is a powerful drive and forms the basis of our capacity to experience religion.<<

And comedy. Dogs being good people is part of a George Carlin bit.

This derogatory usage (not taken personally) of "anthropomorphism" is like Nekrans usage of "objective", it has nowhere near the significance that the people who use it seem to think.

Virtually everything that is important or of value to me and to our society is morphed through human eyes and massaged by human values. I am not only OK with that, but greatly suspicious of anyone who claims they are operating on some other kind of moral software. And this isn’t on the same level as when scientists say “space time is doomed” or that our understanding of the world is an approximation of reality and not reality, no this is our understanding of understanding. There is no escaping your humanity!
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 17 08:21:11
>>So do you consider yourself more of a savage barbarian than a vegetarian then?<<

It would makes sense if I was living in a scale where killing things was the sole gauge for savagery. I don't believe in this. I do believe it became savage to eat dogs, unless you were starving far earlier than with horses. in 2020 it is definitly savage to kill and eat horses. It is like meeting a homophobe in 2020, it is savage, but you will forgive people because it was not THAT long ago gay marriage became legal in your country/state.

I forgive your savage horse eating, but dogs and cats are beyond the pale.
jergul
large member
Tue Mar 17 08:34:38
That is one of the problems with anthropomophism. It is not really so much assigning things human attributes as it is a call for homogenity.

After all, if a dog can be like you, then only the most pigheaded of humans will refuse to see your reason.

Everything must be like me, or be beyond the pale.

Cherub Cow
Member
Tue Mar 17 08:47:11
[The Children]: "they do it coz bird flu is the one they are all scared about ... nope, bird flu is. they find 1 bird flu in 1 chicken, they will genocide the entire herd of 100k/ 200k ... think about it. if one chickens gets the cold (how many humans gets a cold every year), they slaughter the entire farm no questions asked. "

Your basis for the biggest zoonotic offender appears to be hype or how farmers behave to protect their sales (killing so many birds because simple replacement can be cheaper than the expense of inoculation or lost sales from food law violations), whereas in the biological sciences, the biggest problem-animals for viral diversity get defined based on how likely humans will experience a cross-species transmission of disease, or "the proportion of zoonotic viruses per species is predicted by phylogenetic relatedness to humans, host taxonomy and human population within a species range—which may reflect human–wildlife contact," and , "Bats harbour a significantly higher proportion of zoonotic viruses than all other mammalian orders" (Nature, 2017, above). That doesn't mean that bird flu can't be bad, it just means that birds do not rank above bats when it comes to spreading novel viruses to humans.

..
[The Children]: "and ebola isnt a virus."

Probably good to Google before stating things like that. Like, here, right from the lead line of Wiki:
"Ebola virus disease (EVD), also known as Ebola haemorrhagic fever (EHF) or simply Ebola, is a viral haemorrhagic fever of humans and other primates caused by ebolaviruses. Signs and symptoms typically start between two days and three weeks after contracting the virus."

..
[The Children]: "they found it and it from pangolins. maybe millions of years ago, it might have come from bats. some bats mightve bitten or shat in some water and some pangolin then drank it."

Again, check your facts. This comes from the World Health Organization (WHO) evaluation:
"Increasing evidences demonstrate the link between the 2019-nCoV and other similar known coronaviruses (CoV) circulating in bats, and more specifically those of the Rhinolophus bat sub-species ... However, the route of transmission to humans at the start of this event remains unclear. Bats are rare in markets in China but hunted and sold directly to restaurants for food. The current most likely hypothesis is that an intermediary host animal has played a role in the transmission" ( http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/330991 ).

Info clarifying the link to pangolins:
"The intermediate animal that facilitated the hybrid of the two viruses, Xiang says, is "most probably the pangolin," but emphasized that, at this stage, this link was speculative and would need to be confirmed by further studies" ( http://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-from-bats-to-pangolins-how-do-viruses-reach-us/a-52291570 ).

Also, same source (dw.com):
"Researchers from the South China Agricultural University have found that a genetic sequence of the virus from pangolins is 99% identical to the coronavirus currently infecting some 31,000 people. That means, before reaching humans, the virus was likely passed from bats to the pangolin, the most illegally traded animal in the world."

Now, be careful here. You may think that "99% identical" means that it's 99% pangolin. That would be an error. The key phrase was, "a genetic sequence" *of* the virus, whereas, "it was found that nCoV-2019 is 96% identical at the WHOLE GENOME LEVEL [emphasis] to a bat coronavirus." That is — combing the two sources — the virus has 96% similarity to the bat coronavirus genome (the *entire* genetic structure of the virus), whereas the portion labeled pangolin virus makes up a short sliver of a pangolin coronavirus genome (a sequence). Right now, given known pangolin coronavirus genomes, that sequence similarity has been considered less than the threshold that would prove pangolins to be the intermediate animal.

So the coronavirus' main structure comes from the bat, but the small sequence that interacted with the pangolin (potentially) virus caused a crossover event that allowed the bat coronavirus to cross to humans. And this did *not* need to have happened millions of years ago. More likely it happened something like a few months ago. Viral crossovers can take place in a matter of hours, so the WHO's market expectation holds: an infected bat was handled, then a pangolin, and there you have a new virus for humans.

..
[The Children]: "its basically a simple cold virus for pangolins."

We do not know that. So far there have only been a few known cases of pangolins with coronaviruses similar to SARS-CoV-2/2019-nCoV (not confirmed to be the same virus) ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31652964 ). Those pangolins suffered severe respiratory tract infections via paramyxoviridae, but again, that wasn't with the novel virus, so that should not be taken to be how 2019-nCoV would affect pangolins.

..
[CC]:"Yeah, no. The bat's immune system isn't somehow transferred over to the person who eats it."
[The Children]: "proof?"

Okay, when humans eat food, that food gets broken down and enzymatically changed. Most living cells get annihilated by the human digestive process. The DNA of the things we eat gets broken apart into functional human-use substrates — simple chemical compounds including sugars and amino acids. These substrates can then be used by the body, but the DNA of whatever we ate has been destroyed or otherwise passes through. So in the case of eating bats, no immune system has been left over after digestion has taken place. At most there may be some undigested substrates, like hormones, that the body will use, but no bat immune system (no incorporated white blood cells, for instance).

Exceptions to total digestion exist via some bacteria and viruses (e.g., bacteria that can thrive without human side effects in the human gastrointestinal metagenome) or fibrous materials (e.g., corn). But topically, COVID-19 does not sit well in the gut metagenome and it's not a retrovirus, so it's not incorporating its DNA into human DNA — it plays havok and may mutate *itself* based on the host, but it doesn't functionally incorporate into human cells — the body rejects and fights it. If ingested and not simply annihilated or passed, it forces vomiting and diarrhea — the body maybe can't break it all down, but it rejects it.

So, yeah, we do not simply inherit whole DNA from the things we eat like sacred Native Americans ingesting the bravery of a defeated foe by eating the heart. :/
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 17 10:06:06
Jergul

"Everything must be like me, or be beyond the pale."

It is a strange way of having a conversation, where someone points to something specific and the other person goes "oh so you are saying everything".

"So you are saying all muslims rape all the time?"
-seb

I don't think everything that isn't like me is beyond the pale. I think eating cats and dogs is beyond the pale. I thought this was clear when I told Nekran I could forgive his horse eating, despite its' savage nature. I showed a degree of forgivness and understanding for his savage ways, BUT I said, cats and dogs is bridge too far! I clearly set out a limit for when he is within the pale and when he is beyond it.

I am so glad to be able to clear up the misunderstanding :)
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 17 10:24:01
>>It is not really so much assigning things human attributes as it is a call for homogenity.<<

This does not make sense to me. Yes, I/we need a degree of homogeneity to be able to coexist side by side. The viral component of Chinese wet markets aside, in cultures and countries where cats and dogs are family members, I have a hard time imagining a lot of viewpoint diversity on the matter. As in actually existing side by side.
I have thrown my lot with the cat and dog lovers on this one, I believe the way we treat cats and dogs is a good approximation for the kind of society I want to live it.

>>After all, if a dog can be like you, then only the most pigheaded of humans will refuse to see your reason.<<

You misunderstand my anthropomorphic position. I am not saying everyone need to think or be like me, I say I am very suspicious towards that pretend (!) to have a moral software that transcends their humanity. At best they have conned themselves, at worse they are conmen.

It is a ridiculous proposition to have a human brain, live a human life, read some Greek philosophy or what have you and then become objective and free from their human POV. That is just brilliant, the most brilliant mindfuck ever.


**Please delete previous post, the layout got fucked.**
jergul
large member
Tue Mar 17 11:31:28
I was merely making an observation on reliogousity, antropomorphism and homogenity.

We no longer force conversions to the faith, but the pattern remains intact.

You are right in the sense that it is very human. Assigning stuff agency and humanity is a hardwired part of our pattern recognition skillset. As old as our ability to recognize ourselves in a reflection off a pool of water.

But sometimes we need to rise above what our minds tell us intuitively.

It is not wrong or evil to be different, even if that difference is expressed in eating chiot as a delicacy on occassion.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 17 12:56:46
Let me clear up another misunderstanding, I am not ascribing bad intentions or evil. I mean I do not even do that for Jihadi head choppers or pedophiles. Certainly not to people who are ”just” eating dogs and cats. It is just a barbaric and savage practice, best left to be documented by the history books.

Assigning agency is hardwired, maybe, but more importantly given our common ancestry, a reasonable assumption is that agency and the cognitive functions we have can be found in other species to varying degrees of complexity. i.e if it is hardwired those wires exists elsewhere.

I believe it is a mistake to try to avoid it and whatever else takes it’s place is artificial and real. To where above humanity are we rising? I have never heard an answer that isn’t a very human state ;-)
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Tue Mar 17 13:05:55
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/ES9KlE2WsAUDBYp.jpg
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Tue Mar 17 13:08:02
http://twitter.com/CarlZha/status/1238269771113611264
jergul
large member
Tue Mar 17 13:14:24
Nimi
We assign agency and humanity to rocks. Any commonality is purely coincidental.

Words means stuff. "But sometimes we need to rise above what our minds tell us intuitively."

I am fine with barbaric and savage. It seems better than religious and anthropomorphic.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 17 13:24:02
Jergul
Fair enough. Then I believe I already covered that. The fact that it is intuitive is coincidental, it is an assumption of evolutionary theory. Does not include rocks, despite our intuition to assign them agency.
jergul
large member
Tue Mar 17 13:28:28
Nimi
Its a hardwired part of our pattern recognition scheme. Old enough to be partially shared by most mammals (cats are felinomorphic to some extent).
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 17 13:37:18
Well, atleast we agree on that :)
Habebe
Member
Tue Mar 17 14:35:10
"So you are saying all muslims rape all the time?"
-seb

Of course not all of the time. Its sort of split between raping, committing acts of terrorism, and trying to illegally cross the US border and vote for Democrats to give them free welfare.
jergul
large member
Tue Mar 17 15:09:56
It might be really, really old.

Birds pretend stuff is something it is not. And they decend from dinosaurs. Or common ancestor is what? 350 million years ago?

It seems such a random thing to have evolved seperately.
The Children
Member
Tue Mar 17 15:34:56
yall wrong, im right. as usual.

bats are perfectly fine protein and if peoples wanna eat it, all the more power to them.

fuck these fake cheese eaters. yall eat cheese from a can, drink artificial water with flavorin, eat pinky slimes filled with anti biotics and chemicals and think it is normal.

like how the fuck is that even normal.

animals are simply protein and man stand on top of the foodchain. a bear eats anything that gets in its path. a crocodile does not distinguish between human meat and duck meat.

food is food.

and it cant get any better than NATURAL food as mother nature intended it to be.

cheese from a can is not natural food.
The Children
Member
Tue Mar 17 15:38:34
yall gotta think. the bat is no more virus prone than any other animal.

a rodent that is farmed is clean.

simply put, a bat that is farmed is naturally also clean.

and again, it proves that protein is protein.
butbutbut bats carry more disease = disproved.

if bats carry soo many virusses how come almost all the bad virus outbreaks dont come from bats but from cattle industries and animal farms.

mad cow disease, foot and mouth disease, swineflu, bird flu etc etc.

yall got owned again.

kargen
Member
Tue Mar 17 18:43:05

"yall gotta think. the bat is no more virus prone than any other animal."

Bats are known to have an extremely active immune response to viruses. A normal virus doesn't stand a chance against a bat. A virus must mutate much faster than normal to combat the bats immune system. The bat can handle the virus easily but other animals that have a slower immune response are overwhelmed by how fast the virus spreads and mutates. A virus that originated in a bat has a quicker mutation cycle and higher fatality rates.

A virus that originates from bats most of the time goes through another host animal before then going to humans.
obaminated
Member
Wed Mar 18 03:49:48
^ this was the plot of contagion.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Mar 18 09:15:38
You are living the plot of Contagion.
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share