goats_ebooks posted:plus goat bucks stink, because they urinate all over themselves to make themselves more attractive,
I know you goons have trouble with the ladies sometimes. It's a problem for all of us. Well I have developed a technique that will allow you to attract ladies using the secrets of your own body chemistry - pheromones! I want everyone who has a chance should try this out and post their results. Warning: If you are a girl and you try this the results may be unpleasant or even disastrous. I warned you.
Instructions:
You don't need to spend your parent's hard-earned money to buy sex pheromones anymore! Yes, you can now prepare it right in the privacy of your room at almost no cost in your own time. I used to work at a popular sex pheromones firm and learned the secret while at it for 7 months. Without going into the physiological details of how pheromones are produced naturally by all individuals and how they work, I explain you how to prepare it on your own. Please note, the method is applicable only for the male sex pheromone.
Requirements
1. Test tubes or any other glass container (no metal)
2. Filter paper
3. Early morning fresh urine
4. Enriched semen
Procedure
This is gonna be the hardest part for many of you. You gotta abstain from sex/masturbation in any form for 10-11 days. Don’t extend it beyond 12 days though. This is to enrich your semen.
After you have completed enrichment, arouse yourself to an intense degree with the aid of your sex partner or quality porn. Masturbate and collect the enriched semen in a glass container. Now filter the collection into another glass container using a filter paper. It should be done within a minute of ejaculation or the pro-pheromone in the semen will be oxidized. Seal the container tight after you collect the filtrate.
The urine in the early morning (after an adequate sleep) is very different from urine at other times of the day. It contains high levels of urea, w
"lifestyle questions are sub-reformist" - monkey smashes heaven
i might become an anarchist and vegetarian though just for the aesthetics.
roseweird posted:well thats just like your opinion man
well if there is some transhistorical moral imperative not to eat meat then why hasn't that been obvious and why is it constantly broken with very little worry at the hands of the perpetrators?
like maybe you could say that we're only now becoming aware of the moral autonomy of animals and that we now have the capacity to feed ourselves without them, and as a matter of moral change that we can embrace this new stage of humanity, but that doesn't seem to account for the anger that people feel when they express animal rights viewpoints. like they consider it trivially obvious that killing animals is abhorrent, when that isn't obvious to most people.
if it's just a matter of "it is virtuous not to kill animals" or something then why should there be all that anger involved? like it seems very clearly to depend on a kantian view of morality but i'm not sure that kant is right at all.
roseweird posted:it sounds like your argument amounts to, if morality matters, why isn't everything better yet ?
well i think you'd have to historicize morality at some level. like show why certain principles were not followed for a long period of time by most people, show why that has the possibility of changing, show why those principles are rooted in reason, etc.
i think it's possible to make arguments about social situations or outcomes we'd prefer, i'm not sure those preferences are rooted in anything close to "morality" really, unless the word is being stretched pretty far. so i mean swampman to me is just saying "i really don't like this" or something, it's not like that convinces much in itself.
i dunno i'm just thinking out loud, sorry.
roseweird posted:i think that if you can't talk about a moral issue without attacking the very nature of morality you're probably just exposing discomfort with the question
i don't really care about vegetarianism, it was more because it applies much more broadly and i've been thinking about that.
like i consider socialism desirable. but what makes it desirable? is it because it is more moral? then why wasn't it always obvious that socialism was superior? so it might be because now it's become possible, but then is it really that history has sort of been leading up to this point? that humanity will finally be united and master itself and unite public purpose and private striving? that seems sort of odd and unlikely, but it's the basis of large numbers of types of socialists. is it just a possible solution to our problems without much moral content? then the ideological trappings around it seem a bit odd - willing to give your life for a better social outcome?
i'm not really sure what the answer is. a lot of possible outcomes of that debate seem plausible to me. i'd personally like it if the kantian angle were right, but i'm not sure it is.
roseweird posted:i'm not convinced that you don't care about vegetarianism when you are trying to derail a thread about it by calling its proponents first angry, then morally incoherent, and then distracting us with a general discussion on kantian morality and socialism...?
the thread seemed to be dying, i was tacking my thoughts on to the end, which were related to things i was thinking about re: socialism and morality in general. i guess i do care about vegetarianism somewhat because i was a vegetarian from 2005 - 2009, i just mean it seems like a secondary or subsidiary question compared to politics and morality in general.
roseweird posted:how do we measure "the propagation of life"?
It's not something measured, it's a judgment made from the standpoint of the will to power.
I eat meat but the factory farms and random shootings and whatnot seem cruel. An animal should be raised well and should only be killed in a dignified manner, with a prayer that acknowledges the life of the animal and represents our communion with it
thepollanator posted:haha im a jew
well that was enlightening
marimite posted:roseweird posted:how do we measure "the propagation of life"?
It's not something measured, it's a judgment made from the standpoint of the will to power.
yea I remember reading Walter Kaufmann's Nietzsche biography a while back and even Kaufmann basically admits Nietzsche's ontological argument for the will to power, which Kaufmann stresses is not some form of geist or subjectivity for Nietzsche, is a bunch of horseshit
roseweird posted:i mean it seems dangerous to me to confuse will to power with arbitrary callousness in the service of one's appetites, but maybe that's what nietzche actually meant by will to power? if so i feel pretty justified in continuing to not read nietzche
I didn't mean to do this. Sorry I wasn't clear enough. I meant that the attitude towards animals taken in this thread is a case of inverted human values. Animals certainly don't have compassion for their prey; we only feel this way either because of an inversion of the predatory instinct against ourselves or the similarity of animals to our own children. Perhaps we should treat animals better, but that would be more compassion for ourselves than animals. The point is, we can only judge animals from the standpoint of the human. And similarly, the human can only be judged from the standpoint of the overman. So there's a bit of moral luck involved: if meat helps you exhaust your possibilities as a human being towards giving birth to the overman then go ahead.
getfiscal posted:i'm not sure morality is real. or at least it might not be all that important at an individual level. especially with respect to something like meat, which most people with access to it tend to eat on a regular basis. it'd seem odd to say that somehow they are all moral idiots or something. i've taken various courses on ethics and i don't really see how the fact that there are radically different views on the same things can jive with the idea that you can be certain that this or that is somehow strongly immoral. it's just social convention. which is fine, i just don't see why it's a big deal.
"lifestyle questions are sub-reformist" - monkey smashes heaven
i might become an anarchist and vegetarian though just for the aesthetics.
getfiscal posted:roseweird posted:well thats just like your opinion man
well if there is some transhistorical moral imperative not to eat meat then why hasn't that been obvious and why is it constantly broken with very little worry at the hands of the perpetrators?
like maybe you could say that we're only now becoming aware of the moral autonomy of animals and that we now have the capacity to feed ourselves without them, and as a matter of moral change that we can embrace this new stage of humanity, but that doesn't seem to account for the anger that people feel when they express animal rights viewpoints. like they consider it trivially obvious that killing animals is abhorrent, when that isn't obvious to most people.
if it's just a matter of "it is virtuous not to kill animals" or something then why should there be all that anger involved? like it seems very clearly to depend on a kantian view of morality but i'm not sure that kant is right at all.
vegetarianism has actually been around since basically the earliest recorded history, and it existed across multiple cultures as well, including ancient greeks, hindus, buddhists, and so on. pauline christianity did a pretty good job wiping it off the map. nevertheless some famous christian saints were also vegetarians, although then it was often for reasons of asceticism rather than because of care for the animals. however, jesus himself may have been a vegetarian according to the ebionites because of his objection to animal cruelty, including animal sacrifice. interesting read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kamran-pasha/was-jesus-a-vegetarian_b_276141.html
so anyway i say all this to note that people of all stripes and from all times, from pythagoras to jesus to hitler, have considered the ethics of slaughtering and eating animals. this isn't something that's just now being considered, and previous people weren't all moral idiots. at the same time though yeah most people do eat meat now. and this is troubling 2x, first because i believe one will find that people have not eaten meat in the quantities they do today at any other time in human history, and secondly because, dovetailing from there, the methods used to raise and kill the animals involved has become more cruel than at any other time in human history in order to meet these demands. this also isnt because people are moral idiots, it's because of capitalism which has a life of its own, and which is inhuman and predatory. it's for exactly the same reason we're consuming corn syrup in record quantities, it's cheap and it sells, humans like sweet things so corn syrup gets put into everything and people buy it. well, meat is tasty so it sells, and in order to maximize profits, factory farming naturally ensues.
people still aren't moral idiots though, or at least not totally. certain church teachings say that people can enter the gates of heaven even if they did not know god, as long as they did not reject god but simply were ignorant of him. well, most people simply accept the mores of the society they live in. challenging meat-eating may win a few disciples from the public but in most cases it will not even be considered, flesh eating simply seen as being basic and fundamental to human life today. expecting modern humans to accept the moral necessity of vegetarianism is a pretty tall task considering that even the most basic, basic questions of morality (thou shall not kill) are constantly ignored when it comes to the troops our culture glorifies and worships. but i guess my view is trhat if a weird light comes on for you and you suddenly realize that capitalism is immoral and you reject the assumptions of neoliberal society, then probably you should support socialism, and if you do challenge the ethics of meat eating and determine from your perspective that it's morally untenable (at least from a mass production ponit of view) then probably you should stop instead of asking whether morals are real.
Edited by ilmdge ()
and i am filled with so much disgust i can't even consider eating
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/virginia-acts-to-reduce-population-of-wild-pigs-the-most-invasive-animal-in-us/2013/11/24/aa4077ca-52b9-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html?hpid=z4
Virginia acts to reduce population of wild pigs, the ‘most invasive animal’ in U.S.
There’s a population explosion of large, wild animals in the Virginia woods, and it’s not the cute, doe-eyed kind that conjures images of Bambi.
They have razor-sharp teeth, curling tusks and a nasty temper that prompts some to charge humans. They’re called feral hogs, wild pigs or big boars, but the names are lumped together because, said Mike Dye, a biologist for the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, “a pig is a pig.”
Feral pigs are farm escapees living in the wild; wild pigs are born in the woods. They’re roaming at least 20 Virginia counties, including Fauquier and Culpeper. An unconfirmed sighting was reported in Prince William County.
The animals were introduced to America centuries ago, but the recent population boom, state game officials and biologists say, is largely the fault of hunters who imported wild pigs to hunt year round.
The hunters either didn’t know or didn’t care that the pigs are considered the most invasive animal in the United States. As a menace to ecosystems, they put the dreaded northern snakehead in the Chesapeake Bay to shame.
“As far as ecological damage, there is probably not a worse animal that’s out there,” said Dye, regional coordinator for feral pigs in Northern Virginia.
They eat like hogs. Turtle eggs are on the menu, along with the eggs and newly hatched young of wild turkeys and quail that nest on the ground. Buried roots and tubers are dug up for snacks. Acorns and chestnuts that bear the next generation of trees go down their gullets.
Farmers lose millions of dollars in yearly revenue to wild pigs that are established in 47 states, including massive populations in Texas, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina. They cause an estimated $1.5 billion in damage nationwide each year, prompting some state game officials to shoot them from the air.
In Lithonia, Ga., a populous suburban community near Atlanta, a wild pig ran amok in September, knocking over garbage, digging up yards and terrifying residents. Georgia wildlife officials sent in a team of trackers who shot it dead.
It’s exactly the kind of thing Virginia is trying to avoid by assembling a task force to address the problem.
If wild pigs develop a stronger presence in Virginia, they “will be the same as deer” that residents often see roaming the yards and streets of housing developments “but there will be more of them,” said Jim McGlone, an urban forestry conservationist for the Virginia Department of Forestry.
Wild pigs are baby-making machines, mating year-round. There can be eight piglets in a litter and as many as three litters in about a year.
With no natural predator, a pig population can triple in just over a year. To keep the population from growing, 70 percent of it has to be killed, which is nearly impossible. Virginia’s most recent estimate last year put the pig population at 2,500 to 3,000, with plenty of pairs to mate.
Texas has as many as 5 million wild pigs. Florida has about 400,000. Georgia officials said they have too many to count. South Carolina and North Carolina are in an uphill fight to keep their populations under control.
“We’re far beyond any ability to eradicate them from the state,” said Charlie Killmaster, deer and feral hog biologist for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
Feral hogs date back to Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto, who brought them to Florida as a food source in 1539. Later, American colonists allowed some domesticated hogs to feed in the woods, freeing many of them forever. They continue to escape from farm pens, Killmaster said.
But hunters are most responsible for Georgia’s population explosion, he said. Echoing officials in other states, including Virginia, Killmaster said they often free pigs to have something to shoot.
Killmaster thinks hunters know that wild pigs are an ecological nightmare. “I think they’re selfish. I think they just don’t care,” he said. Wild hogs caused an estimated $81 million in agricultural damage in 2011, according to a University of Georgia survey.
“States north of us like Tennessee, Kentucky and Virginia have some opportunity to eradicate them” because the invasion is relatively new, Killmaster said.
Virginia took the obvious first step toward eradication when wild pigs were first considered a problem 20 years ago. It’s legal for licensed hunters to kill a feral pig in any manner, any day but Sunday.
But the pigs are notoriously hard to hunt.
“You hardly ever get a shot where the pig is just standing still,” said Deedy Loftus, a hunting guide and the owner of Bryson Hesperia Resort near Monterey, Calif. “They’re nocturnal. During this time of season, when it cools off, they’re out during the day.”
They can smell people. “We are predators. We smell like a predator in the food chain,” Loftus said. That doesn’t mean they won’t turn and fight, especially to protect piglets.
“They’re mean. They’re aggressive. They’ll charge you. They’ll cut you or stab you with their teeth. They have big tusks, or cutters, as we call them,” Loftus said.
Wild pigs can rip open the femoral artery in a person’s leg, causing massive bleeding. “You have to be real careful when you’re up close and personal,” she said. “It’s hard to shoot when you’re shaking and running.”
The difficulty of hunting might help explain why Virginia’s wild pig population keeps growing. The thought that it will grow out of control haunts McGlone.
Wild pigs are an “ominous smoke on the horizon,” he said. He worries about the future of trees in woods full of pigs.
“The ground looks plowed up,” he said. “They create disturbed land that can be taken over by invasive species like Japanese honeysuckle, multiflora rose.”
Japanese honeysuckle kills trees. Like its faster-growing cousin kudzu, honeysuckle wraps around trees and slowly strangles them. The vines drag across limbs and leaves, choking them.
“The pigs create good habitat for the plants to invade. Deer already do that; pigs will add another layer,” McGlone said. “They’re already doing a number on the environment.”
looks like i might not have to wait to crush the porcine invaders
