rkundalini

Yeah, I think it was interesting to hear his experiences. It's not often you hear a man speaking so frankly. Don't really care if he is a celebrity, if that's what is necessary to sell the TV show, so be it, to me it was just interesting to get a window into someone else like that. & FWIW I think labelling traits such as "bipolar" as "disorders" or "conditions" vastly undervalues them, as others have also alluded to. A huge proportion of artistically or intellectually creative people suffer from such "disorders".

Hmm I'm coming back to this a bit late but better than never. On the "a healhy vego diet is possible but takes care" --- firstly do you really want to have to go through the spanish inquisition every day to make sure your food is up to scratch, and secondly do you really trust the assumption that current scientific opinion of what constitutes an adequate diet is correct and complete? On the mammals > fish > plants thing, isn't it obvious that this subjective ranking of "mental" or "emotional" capacity is actually just an expression of how similar these life forms are to ourselves? On "you have to draw the line somewhere", no, you don't. Doesn't the arbitrariness of the location of the line hint at the fact that there's something wrong with the idea that everything to one side of the line is perfectly OK to eat and that everything to the other side is forbidden? On the vego = enviro thing, as others have said, it is more to do with the methods than the product. For example, monoculturing of European grains is very damaging to the environment, being a major contributor to salinity, pesticide load etc. And in fact, being vego doesn't necessarily spare more animal lives. I read one assessment (I can dig up refs if needed) that stated that due to the need to exterminate mouse plagues in wheat growing areas, every kilogram of wheat protein results in ten times as many deaths as compared to beef protein. Even if you are a taxological supremecist, you must acknowledge that mice and cows are fairly similar as social placental mammals. Regardless of where you draw the line, everything you put into your mouth has come from the body of another living creature. Predation is nature's way. Trying to deny it is futile and when taken to its logical conclusion leads to complete irrationality. Check out this quote for an illustration of Animal Rights ideas taken to their "logical" conclusion: "I am not a morose person but I would rather not be here. I don't have any reverence for life, only for the entities themselves. I would rather see a blank space where I am. This will sound like fruitcake stuff again, but at least I wouldn't be harming anything." Ingrid Newkirk PETA

Sorry mate I have decided against it ... you are right, someone else will buy it & clog the atmosphere, but at least I won't feel guilty about it every time they do it, like I would if I was the one using it. OBTW don't take the "ethical vegetarian" stuff too seriously, I was only having a dig, I know no-one's perfect.

P.S. An ethical vegetarian who worked for burger king??? Or u weren't vego in those days?

Hmmm do I want to compromise on my environmental principles to save a couple hundred bucks? Hmmmm maybe. I'll run it by the boss & also try to find out how significant the difference in emissions is.

This hypothesis has been around for a while. I remember speaking to a vegan nutritionist who brought up her son vegan. He was incredibly gifted apparently so she didn't believe in the claim, or at least didn't believe it was very significant. MG are you serious that you eat KFC as your only breaking of ethical vegetarianism?? Personally I can't think of any animal subjected to more legally sanctioned cruelty than chickens. Perhaps experimental lab animals though I think they are on a par & the chicken industry is on a much larger scale. FWIW MG my wife & I made the same decision as you & yours. Well actually my wife made the decision and I just went along with it since I was unsure myself. But now having rejected my own original ethical grounds for becoming vegetarian, I'm glad I didn't try to enforce it upon my daughter. quote: We will at some stage show her/him, gently as possible, what goes on in a slaughterhouse. As someone once said, if slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian. I used to believe this statement and the implication that this supported vegetarianism. Now I think it is the perfect illustration of how disconnected most western city dwellers are from the realities of the ways of nature. Coming to realise what it means to eat meat is why I reacted by becoming vegetarian, just like the quote suggests. However if I had not grown up alienated from nature I doubt there would ever have been any revelation, I would have always been aware of where meat comes from, and been comfortable with the consequences of my actions as an animal, which by its very nature must derive sustenance from the body parts of other life forms. IMO it is being aware & grateful for what you're given is the main thing, not living in denial and trying to run away from the more obviously confronting aspects of it (the ole it's not ok to kill an animal but it is ok to kill a plant, and I'll just turn a blind eye too to the thousands of animals killed in the process of growing commercial plant crops while I'm at it, argument) So, I encourage you to show him/her what goes on in a slaughterhouse, but I don't necessarily agree that this should be done with an undertone of "therefore eating meat is evil". Personally I'm hoping that introducing fishing & hunting to my kids from an early age and talking to them about where their food comes from and how the food chain works in general, I can give them the background to make their own decisions without starting behind the 8-ball of denial like I and most city dwellers have had to.

Right but now much angle is too much? I mean as I said before, cars don't have this problem.

Never had a problem with dog poo cos I don't have a dog. However I am picturing a solution to the repeated raids upon my vegie garden, executed by the neighbours' rabbits... btw Darcy you're right of course & I misread MG's post. I thought he meant that unlike the 2002 model Victor Vantage 2-stroke (hardly ever used.... must have used to 10 times in total? Stored with no fuel in tank, great condition, looks brand new), a 4-stroke engine will have a separate oil circulation system & sump and that this may get into problems if put on an angle (nothing to do with the mix since as you said oil is never mixed in, unlike in the 2002 model Victor Vantage 2-stroke (hardly ever used.... must have used to 10 times in total? Stored with no fuel in tank, great condition, looks brand new)). I read somewhere that if you want to tip up a 4-stroke to check the underside (trim your nails, etc) you should tip it a particular way cos the other way can cause problems. ... but then again you'd likely be tipping it to a much steeper angle than the ground itself is .. so .. shrug .. probably will give the 2002 model Victor Vantage 2-stroke dog turd atomizer (hardly ever used.... must have used to atomize 10 turds in total? Stored with no fuel in tank, great condition, looks brand new) a miss

hmm interesting point MG about the oil. Our block is pretty steep too. I want a 4 stroke since it's quieter and less polluting but maybe you're right about the slope problem. Then again, cars are 4 stroke and drive just fine on a slope... I did actually buy a push mower but after trying several times for an hour or so at a time, I estimate that it would take about 8 hours to mow our block with that bloody thing. For the same reason I expect an electric mower would be a hopeless proposition. Personally I hate "lawn" (grass/weeds) but this is a rental property, I can only put in so many garden beds without the landlord complaining I suspect. Hmmm I wonder how a goat or 2 would go down though....

I've been looking for a used lawnmower but I'd need you to throw in a couple more strokes .

P.S. Flip, has there ever really been a "right to offend" in the US? In Australia there have always been various laws against "lewd" or "offensive" behaviour. (And, censorship of films and publications judged likely to "offend a reasonable adult".)

My point of relativism still seems to have been missed except perhaps by Flip. A person that smells of hair oil, armpits, etc is in mainstream elements of our society considered to "stink" or have "poor personal hygiene". In many (IMO, saner) cultures this natural human aroma is considered natural, and typical westerners would be considered to "stink" of various synthetic "personal hygiene" products -- shampoo, soap, deodorant, etc. I know which smell I prefer! Likewise, we are talking about the smell of smoke on the clothing. This is not "second-hand smoke": I highly doubt any negative health impact of the mere smell of smoky clothing could be proven. So you are indeed talking about aestetics, which is a highly personal, subjective and relative matter. Now, Torsten you stated that you refuse to enter into employment because you refuse to conform. So obviously you recognize that most workplaces are conservative places where people who do not share the dominant preferences for behaviour, appearance, etc are discriminated against. Your attitude seems to be "fine, I'll just stay away". While this is okay for you, do you really think it is fair for every person in society to be forced to choose between (1) conform (2) become an entrepreneur (3) starve ? People have a right to work that should not be contingent on conforming. (Although I'd rather see a society that wasn't so heavily structured around "work", this is another matter...)

quote: Originally posted by Torsten: [QB] rk - the arbiters of what is 'offensive' are the coworkers. It doesn't matter if this means cheap perfumes, sweat soaked shirts, or stale smoke. Geez, how about long hair? Short hair? Certain shades of lipstick? Halitosis? Overly long nose hair? Bumper stickers that say "my other car is a broom"? Dirt under the fingernails! Deodorant-soaked shirts? Slurping your soup at the lunch table? Skin colour? Coworkers should feel free to be offended by something (I myself find 99% of perfume far more irritating than thick cigarette smoke), and say something to the offender if they wish. But when you start saying this is grounds for sacking someone you're descending into a conservative social engineering nightmare. Soon enough anyone who is not a fat balding 50-something with a Johnny Farnham CD in one hand and an Aussie flag in the other will be out of a job.

I posted these pics over at a hunting forum & someone recognized the big thing at the back. It's a Redeye surface to air missile launcher! Pretty old though, they came out in the 60s, began phasing them out in 82, last one dismantled in 95. Perhaps both in terms of substances and firearms this person was more of a connoseur than a serious production operation.

As soon as you used the word "offensive" Torsten the flaw in your argument was made apparent IMO. Who is the arbiter of "offensive"? If they're anything like the staff at the OFLC, God help us!! The financial/insurance issue I acknowledge is much more slippery.