Slavvy posted:

"Edwadian"?

Slavvy posted:

Yeah that's Edwardian. What's Edwadian?

Wheeee posted:

Yea but proselytizing for your dumb cult/eating disorder works better when you lean on manipulating people's emotions and their general ignorance of food production.

Wolfsbane posted:

A pyramid.

Wolfsbane posted:

A pyramid.

Wolfsbane posted:

A pyramid.

Slavvy posted:

Meat is murder!*

*: only adorable animals matter



They should genetically engineer cattle/pigs with an extremely repulsive appearance for every stage of their life cycle so people shut up.

quote:

[Ford] sat down.

The waiter approached.

"Would you like to see the menu?" he said, "or would you like meet the Dish of the Day?"

"Huh?" said Ford.

"Huh?" said Arthur.

"Huh?" said Trillian.

"That's cool," said Zaphod, "we'll meet the meat."

...

A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox's table, a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips.

"Good evening," it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, "I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in the parts of my body?"

It harrumphed and gurgled a bit, wriggled its hind quarters in to a more comfortable position and gazed peacefully at them.

Its gaze was met by looks of startled bewilderment from Arthur and Trillian, a resigned shrug from Ford Prefect and naked hunger from Zaphod Beeblebrox.

"Something off the shoulder perhaps?" suggested the animal, "braised in a white wine sauce?"

"Er, your shoulder?" said Arthur in a horrified whisper.

"But naturally my shoulder, sir," mooed the animal contentedly, "nobody else's is mine to offer."

Zaphod leapt to his feet and started prodding and feeling the animal's shoulder appreciatively.

"Or the rump is very good," murmured the animal. "I've been exercising it and eating plenty of grain, so there's a lot of good meat there."

It gave a mellow grunt, gurgled again and started to chew the cud. It swallowed the cud again.

"Or a casserole of me perhaps?" it added.

"You mean this animal actually wants us to eat it?" whispered Trillian to Ford.

"Me?" said Ford, with a glazed look in his eyes, "I don't mean anything."

"That's absolutely horrible," exclaimed Arthur, "the most revolting thing I've ever heard."

"What's the problem Earthman?" said Zaphod, now transferring his attention to the animal's enormous rump.

"I just don't want to eat an animal that's standing there inviting me to," said Arthur, "It's heartless."

"Better than eating an animal that doesn't want to be eaten," said Zaphod.

"That's not the point," Arthur protested. Then he thought about it for a moment. "Alright," he said, "maybe it is the point. I don't care, I'm not going to think about it now. I'll just... er [...] I think I'll just have a green salad," he muttered.

"May I urge you to consider my liver?" asked the animal, "it must be very rich and tender by now, I've been force-feeding myself for months."

"A green salad," said Arthur emphatically.

"A green salad?" said the animal, rolling his eyes disapprovingly at Arthur.

"Are you going to tell me," said Arthur, "that I shouldn't have green salad?"

"Well," said the animal, "I know many vegetables that are very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually decided to cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am."

It managed a very slight bow.

"Glass of water please," said Arthur.

"Look," said Zaphod, "we want to eat, we don't want to make a meal of the issues. Four rare stakes please, and hurry. We haven't eaten in five hundred and seventy-six thousand million years."

The animal staggered to its feet. It gave a mellow gurgle. "A very wise choice, sir, if I may say so. Very good," it said, "I'll just nip off and shoot myself."

He turned and gave a friendly wink to Arthur. "Don't worry, sir," he said, "I'll be very humane."

It waddled unhurriedly off to the kitchen.

Slavvy posted:

"Edwadian"?

Slavvy posted:

Meat is murder!*

*: only adorable animals matter



They should genetically engineer cattle/pigs with an extremely repulsive appearance for every stage of their life cycle so people shut up.

Dingleberry posted:

Nckdictator posted:

Times like this I'm ashamed to be left-leaning. I know it's just a vocal minority, but still, ugh.

Those On My Left posted:

that first one is actually entirely correct.

http://o.canada.com/news/blog-news/charlie-hebdo-massacre-573543
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-islamophobia/

Those On My Left posted:

that first one is actually entirely correct.

http://o.canada.com/news/blog-news/charlie-hebdo-massacre-573543
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-islamophobia/

Those On My Left posted:

that first one is actually entirely correct.

Exclamation Marx posted:

quote:

That’s what’s happening today in regards to the terrorist attacks in France. We are having a series of loud, impassioned, righteous conversations about questions like “Should people murder?” and “Should we have the right to publish cartoons?” We’re debating, in other words, dead moral questions, and for the same reason we always do: because that debate allows us to ignore the ones that might lead us to a different place than the celebration of our own liberal righteousness. To read the people writing about this attack, this is the fundamental question at hand: were these killings OK? If that were actually a moral question worth asking, then it would provoke disagreement. And yet I see no disagreement. None at all. Please: point me to any piece that endorses these killings that does not come from the looniest fringes of our political order. This Jacobin piece is getting passed around as an example of left-wing illiberalism, and yet in its very first paragraph, it asserts what absolutely everyone else is asserting: that there are no justifications for this, that the attacks are abhorrent, that free speech must be defended. Please, point me in the direction of a defense of these attacks that is anything resembling prominent or empowered. You are all debating an idea that no one at all is advancing.

The question of the price that Muslims will pay for these attacks– that is a live question, the security and rights of the Muslim people is very much uncertain, indeed. If there is anything that this country has stood for in the last 15 years, it is its willingness to sacrifice anything to fight Muslim extremism, and in the process, innocent Muslims. We have invaded multiple Muslim countries, sent secret raids into far more, killed Muslims with drones and bombs, wiretapped Muslims at home and abroad, sent agents to infiltrate their mosques, thrown dozens of them into a prison camp without trial or judicial review, assassinated them without due process, tortured them, and spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives in doing so. Of all the things that you should fear your government will lose the resolve to do, fighting Muslim terrorists should be at the absolute bottom of your list. There is no function that our government has performed more enthusiastically for years. Can any credible person doubt our commitment to fighting Muslim terrorists, in 2015?

Peter Beinart and Ross Douthat and Jon Chait and hundreds more will take the time in the week to come to beat their chests and declare themselves firmly committed to brave ideas like “murder is bad” and “free speech is good.” None of them, if pressed, would pretend that we are at risk of abandoning our commitment against murder or in favor of free speech. None of them think that, in response to this attack, we or France or any other industrialized nation is going to pass a bill declaring criticism of Islam illegal. In fact, all of them would, if pressed, likely admit that the result will be literally the opposite: that we will become more belligerent against Muslim extremism, not less; that we will become more aggressive in our posture against Islam, not less; that the public mood, already dark towards Islam, will grow only darker. They know all of this. They simply won’t tell you about it.

Those On My Left posted:

http://fredrikdeboer.com/2015/01/07/on-debating-dead-moral-questions/

Exclamation Marx posted:

That Jacobin piece is really odd and disjointed & stinks of trying to be the bestest leftist without saying very much at all, to me.


http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpening-contradictions-satirists.html

Those On My Left posted:

it's pretty straightforward

1) these murders are atrocious
2) the magazine was racist

there is no contradiction in saying both those things

you can support freedom of speech without supporting every instance of speech itself

you can be opposed to these murders without literally saying I Am <racist publication>

lucky13pjn posted:

Spotted this in an episode of Pingu. Wasn't expecting political messages there.

Jonad posted:

Jonad posted:

Those On My Left posted:

it's pretty straightforward

1) these murders are atrocious
2) the magazine was racist

there is no contradiction in saying both those things

you can support freedom of speech without supporting every instance of speech itself

you can be opposed to these murders without literally saying I Am <racist publication>

Broken Cog posted:

Those On My Left posted:

that is a pretty excellent image to post to prove the point that you can support freedom of expression without supporting every expression ever

because wow i'd hate to be the puerile idiot who thought that was a great and vital piece of speech, worthy of identifying with by saying "I Am <the publication who printed this as their front page>"

Those On My Left posted:

that is a pretty excellent image to post to prove the point that you can support freedom of expression without supporting every expression ever

because wow i'd hate to be the puerile idiot who thought that was a great and vital piece of speech, worthy of identifying with by saying "I Am <the publication who printed this as their front page>"

N. Senada posted:

Why do so many people think I'm clever enough or smart enough to discern what an image means or what something in non-English text says? I'll admit I'm dumb and read this thread. Can you, and other people who post vague or no context images, do me the favor of explaining poo poo for me? Presumably that says something like Russia and freedom or whatever, but I don't want to guess

Those On My Left posted:

yes, if all you want to do is sit around saying "MURDER BAD, NO ONE SAY ANYTHING ELSE", go ahead, you're being very righteous and making an important contribution

N. Senada posted:

Why do so many people think I'm clever enough or smart enough to discern what an image means or what something in non-English text says? I'll admit I'm dumb and read this thread. Can you, and other people who post vague or no context images, do me the favor of explaining poo poo for me? Presumably that says something like Russia and freedom or whatever, but I don't want to guess