Mr. Sausages Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 What I don't quite understand is the campaign is trying to get people to not eat meat and dairy products because the animals create far more green house gases etc etc. But if we didn't eat the animals, wouldn't there be many many more of them creating more gases? Even if you use the argument that no, they're currently farmed and livestock farming would become obselete if no one ate meat or dairy products. Wouldn't the animals be free to roam because no one would be trying to eat them? Or should they all just be killed off so as not to create any excess gas? Stav. The current livestock would be eaten as normal, and then farming would end. I don't think even Heather Mills is crazy enough to suggest that the livestock be released into the wild. Although it would be excellent entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Heather Mills' latest bizarre rant: 'Why don't we drink milk from rats and dogs?' Maybe she's getting her ideas from the Simpsons? Wasn't there an episode of the Simpsons where Fat Tony sold rats milk to the schools? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 As an aside: Gladys, surely the fairly widespread custom of eating dog meat (South-East Asia, China, and indeed amongst American Indians) invalidates your idea that there is an inbuilt taboo amongst humans about eating a food chain equivalent. Dog is a relatively 'new' animal, it is also domesticated so an available source of protein. So where there are shortages of the correct protein then they will be eaten. As for fish, well there are different rules under the sea! It is only a theory and could well be bollocks, but it as good a theory (particularly when you think of how CJD came into existence; cows being fed sheep products) as any I have recently made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted November 23, 2007 Author Share Posted November 23, 2007 Heather Mills' latest bizarre rant: 'Why don't we drink milk from rats and dogs?' Maybe she's getting her ideas from the Simpsons? Wasn't there an episode of the Simpsons where Fat Tony sold rats milk to the schools? You're not the only one to think that: Heather Mills steals Fat Tony's rat milk idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Dog is a relatively 'new' animal, it is also domesticated so an available source of protein. So is the Cat, which you cite as an example in your hypothesis. Why does this inbuilt taboo then apply to cats, but not dogs, given that they occupy roughly the same position in their respective food chains and are both domesticated. It's more likely that the taboo is cultural and localized to specific areas, not inherent to all humanity - the west is particularly suited to animal husbandry and intensive farming, and so over time the consumption of the meat of animals such as cats, dogs, and rats came to be viewed as the preserve of the poor and "uncivilized", whereas in South East Asian Countries where farming of animals was more difficult or limited in scope, and for some American Indian nomadic tribes such animals provided a legitimate source of meat, and so the taboo never formed. It is only a theory and could well be bollocks, but it as good a theory (particularly when you think of how CJD came into existence; cows being fed sheep products) as any I have recently made up. CJD (or more accurately, BSE) has little to do with the food chain with regards to how your theory works - the disease is thought to be transmitted by the consumption of meat from an already infected animal, manifesting originally as a spontaneous mutation. If so, cows developed BSE not because they were eating the flesh of an "equivalent" animal, but because they were eating the flesh of already infected animals (sheep have been identified as a possible cause because they develop Scrapie, which is apparently similar). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 I'm wrong then. Oh well, off to concoct another elegant theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 My theory is all women are mad, scary! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 I'm wrong then. Oh well, off to concoct another elegant theory. Don't take it too hard - if you ignore pigs, dogs, salmon, tuna, seals, whales, dolphins, and snake etc - I'm sure there's something in it. Maybe the reason we mainly stick to herbivores is that higher animals are rarer because of the very nature of the food chain and hence less easy to scoff - how about that for an elegent theory! Other than dolphins I've tried out all the above carnivores - trip to Japan anyone? Ducks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Not taking it hard at all! (oops wrong thread) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 The Paul & Heather Song Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Apparently after 4 years of 'marriage' she's being offered £24.3 million (Lump sum of £16.5M plus £7.8M in assets). Rumour is she's appealing - though I never found her appealing at all. Edited to add: she's just said she's happy with the settlement - and is appealing about the publication of the details. Kerchhhhhhhhhhing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Apparently after 4 years of 'marriage' she's being offered £24.3 million (Lump sum of £16.5M plus £7.8M in assets). Rumour is she's appealing - though I never found her appealing at all. Edited to add: she's just said she's happy with the settlement - and is appealing about the publication of the details. Kerchhhhhhhhhhing! I'm surprised she even went to court - she hasn't got a leg to stand on. <drumroll, cymbals> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studmuffin Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 She is upset cause she cant take her daughter first class whilst travelling five times a year 17k a trip with only 24 million in the bank What a fucking muppet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 How much interest can you get off 24m? And with 24 million surely you could afford to invest at least 1/4 of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Heather a gold digger? Surely not! Of course she's well pleased with the settlement. After all, that £24m she has been awarded is not far off the £125m she was claiming now is it? And she's not bitter, oh no. I mean, this is what she had to say about their daughter: "Beatrice only gets £35,000 a year - so obviously she's meant to travel B class while her father travels A class, but obviously I will pay for that." I like the way she's going to pay for Beatrice to get an upgrade. Only she seems to have forgotten she will be using Paul's money to fund it. Funny that, it must have slipped her mind.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.