Chop it up, peel the skin, slow dissection
sick minds – I’m blind to the reason.

Are we not all predatory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly from preying….could they continue to exist?

Ragnar Redbeard

What is vital isn’t always humane.

– Slipknot

Man …just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all.

-Anton La Vey


So, what with taking in recent songs by the likes of Static-X and Sepultura, listening to friends extol the virtues of a meat-free diet, and recalling the modii operandi of various members of the animal kingdom – human and otherwise – my brainspace has very much been bouncing around the hot potato known as vegetarianism.

(Ha! See what I did there?)

Now,it ain’t vegetarianism per se that disturbs my thought-space, but rather a certain strain of it – vegetarianism topped with an unhealthy dollop of moralic mayonnaise. A placard-pointing, “MEAT IS MURDER!!” mob march through my mind, observed overhead by self-deified denizens from planet PETA – and do I see Derrick Green’s severed head hanging from a clasped fist?

Yes, yes, you vegevangelists – my malevolent meat-eating ways assume clear and sharp visibility under the glare of your (way, truth and) light; my hearty consumption of home-cooked, farm-killed food, plus my (not as) frequent excursions to the likes of Subway and KFC aid and abet the slaughterhouse shuffle.

But what of the alternative? I mean, a veggie diet may or may not be healthier than an omni one, but does it not also depend on the culling and consumption of life? If rights extend to fauna, why not flora too? What’s the stop off point that separates plants from the rest of us in regard to regard? Sentience? Suffering? Well, since plants lack a literal voice, any grievances fail to be aired in regard to the issue, but can it safely be said that they don’t exist? It amuses me that humans do so much hand-wringing over the “rights” of human vegetables, invoking Bibles and Hippocratic Oaths all the way, yet think nothing of pruning the gardens, countrysides and rainforests of the world.

At least animals, endowed with mobility, have the options of fight and flight; those floral fuckers don’t stand a chance!

But, from the looks of things, it seems the animal rights activists even have trouble consistently implementing principles when it comes to their chosen *ahem* underdogs. I notice that the most prominent organization in defence of rights for our four-legged friends, PETA, believes that “… like you … [animals] are capable of suffering and have an interest in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use — for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other reason.” To this end, they launch a variety of awareness-raising campaigns, one of the most notorious being the exhibition equating slaughterhouses with Nazi death camps. According to campaign head Matt Prescott: “The very same mindset that made the Holocaust possible,that we can do anything we want to those we decide are ‘different or inferior’ is what allows us to commit atrocities against animals every single day.”

If you believe in animal autonomy, the argument holds validity…

….not unlike the reputation PETA have for “euthanizing” many an animal that falls into their caring, concerned hands. Now note that I don’t just mean incurably sick or injured animals (although one could argue if they play the non-intervention card, why not let nature take it’s course there?), but also strays, the unwanted and those of certain breeds, indeed! In other words if humans fail to put a worth on them (via ownership, no less) – death ensues! All this from the organization that stands “against….. the killing of animals regarded as pests”. With nine-out of-ten animals placed in their care “euthanized” in 2005 alone, do PETA merely project when they criticize others for operating animal Auschwitzes and pet pogroms?


Evaluating them by their own standards, I can’t hold back the thought that perhaps PUTA serves as a more fitting moniker—no te quiero, PUTA!

Mind you, even when left to their own devices, far from the likes of brawling bipedal butchers, many a non-human animal lives out an existence best described, in the words of Hobbes, as “nasty, brutish and short”; reading Ragnar Redbeard’s pitiless 19th Century polemic Might is Right, I chuckled whilst visualizing the following passage in my head:

Upon the island of Java…giant turtles…are set upon by packs of wild dogs. These dogs roll the turtles over upon their backs then devour them alive by tearing out their unprotected entrails.When the dogs are gorged, they in turn fall in easy prey to ambushed tigers. Then hunters kill the tigers for their variegated skins.

Animal rightists (who don’t work as part of PUTA) may be able to protect the tiger, dog and turtle from the hunter; but who will protect Raphael from Rover and Rover from Rampage? Who would dare? I figure if these animal rights extremists really were of the true metal, then they’d make some stand in protecting the four-legged fellows from each other, no? If not, why not? Does the inaction serve this a tacit admission that these organizations operate with anthrophobia – as a opposed to zoophilia – in mind?

If so, this crushes their consistency further into the dust; seeing as we as a species birth, breathe, bleed and biodegrade like our beastly brethren does this not affirm our animality in the grand scheme of things? I always get irked by this fascination various ideologists possess in pronouncing us apart from nature; as I see it, we quite clearly exist as a part of it….

…and with that said, I deem the vegevangelist gospel unfit for my cognitive consumption and reject the pleas and polemics by the Pharisees for the Unethical Treatment of Animals!

PUTA, PUTA y tres veces – PUTA!!!


This entry was posted in Ethics, Moral Panic, Politics, Religion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

42 Responses to MEAT IS…MRDA!!

  1. rinku says:

    I agree that vegetarians are annoying, but, although I do eat meat occasionally, I have to agree that humans are vegetarians.

    • That’s old meme vegan/vegetarian propaganda. It’s like when bible thumpers try to point out all the flaws in evolution without really understanding the underpinnings: it makes sense if you don’t know more than a general overview.
      A lot of things are twisted around by that particular bit of “he died on the cross for your sins”. Talk to a local biologist, nutritionist, chemist, etc. They’ll explain the nuances of the human digestive tract and our unique enzymes. That’s not even hitting up the historians and anthropologists that have data out the wazoo detailing early human diets.

      • rinku says:

        Re: To save you some research trouble
        I can’t read that, I don’t have a subscription. Could you summarize it?

        • Re: To save you some research trouble
          Our tongues have a receptor for glutamate that sends extremely strong pleasurable signals to our brain. That’s a one off I thought I’d toss in there.
          Basically the article talks about how fire and the cooking of meat have helped shape our bone structure and teeth. Cooked meat is more tender.
          Also there’s the whole thing about hunting/gathering societies, how early humans subsisted. An example of such a diet would be protein rich nuts, but meat is crucial, there is nothing more calorically bountiful than animal fat. Hunter/gather societies weren’t taking shots of wheat grass, drinking diet snapples and going to the local saladworks.
          The fact that humans can digest raw meat and fish.
          There’s a lot. Like I said, the whole “humans are vegetarians biologically!” is just fallacious.

          • rinku says:

            Re: To save you some research trouble
            I think the idea that the changes to our bone structure and teeth are only the result of cooked meat is still pretty doubtful — it may be true, it may not, but it’s not proven by any means.
            The glutamate thing is interesting, I’ll look into that.
            Can’t vegetarian animals to some degree digest raw meat and fish? According to the link pseudoid posted above,
            “And even among the “plant eating” animals there is no animal that I am aware of that will not consume some type of animal protein when given the opportunity.”
            — so, because it’s possible to eat meat doesn’t mean that meat is the best food for us.

    • MRDA says:

      Selfish veggies don’t annoy me – another good friend of mine falls into that category. They’re more likely to practice what they preach with a minimum of moralizing (if that!)
      On the other hand, those PUTA fucks make me wish for a zombie apocalypse to fall upon them – not that the undead would get much nutritional value from those brains!
      As for that article – some interesting assertions made there, though I must admit I cocked a brow at all the New Agey bollocks that sprung up halfway through. However, does it stand to reason that the advisability of this diet could vary with every individual case? Could the writer be adding two and two to get five by prescribing his diet as a universal imperative?
      Not as bad as PETA in tone, but not too far off at times….

      • MRDA says:

        *not as bad as PUTA….etc

      • rinku says:

        The way I see it, whether humans are vegetarians or not:
        The first is that vegetarians live about 10 years longer and suffer fewer health problems. That’s reason enough alone, even someone who doesn’t care how long they live should care about the quality of their life, how much energy they have, how often they get sick, etc.
        The second is that meat doesn’t taste good to me. I don’t like it aesthetically. So I only eat it rarely.
        The third is that eating meat is economically every expensive. Think of the money saved by not eating it, in terms of cost per calorie. I don’t know if this is true in the UK, but a vegetarian diet in the US is something like three times as inexpensive. For people who are pretty poor like myself, that matters.
        So for me at least, there’s no reason to eat it except in those rare cases when I go out to dinner or something and am offered it (as happened just yesterday where they served pork, I’ve no problem with eating it when it’s occasionally cooked for me). I agree that the moral standpoint of vegetarianism (meat is murder) is stupid, but there are a lot of good reasons besides that.

        • The reason vegetarians even have this data is because the same modern technology that allows for you to take protein/iron/other supplements in order to not get sick off of eating leaves is the same modern technology that lets tubbos eat Mcdonald’s every day. Taken from an evolutionary standpoint, any early exclusively vegetarian humans were dead meat.
          Hence why humans universally crave and eat meat.
          Your personal preferences, eh whatevs.

          • rinku says:

            I think the data that they live longer comes from areas without heavy iron or protein supplementation, such as China.
            Even rabbits universally crave and eat meat when given the opportunity. That’s circumstantial.

    • MRDA says:

      Also, I really have trouble accepting the assertion that early man survived on a diet of nuts and berries!

      • rinku says:

        Not only. We ate meat *occasionally*, but occasionally is the key word. We weren’t built to eat it every day.

        • Early hunter/gatherers ate meat as often as they caught it. Unlike comic books and movies, even the best hunters didn’t bring down 600lb buffalo twice a day. Meat division formed the basis of early human bartering and forged social alliances, that’s how important the caloric content of meat is.

          • rinku says:

            And as often as they caught it was occasionally. It’s just that we’ve gotten so good at hunting that it causes problems because our desire for meat wasn’t intended to cause us to make it the central part of every meal.

    • psuedoid says:

      Hmm..humans are vegetarians? Then why do so many eat meat daily and live excellent lives? Is this just a coincidence? C’mon. You could look at the platypus and conclude many erroneous things by looking at single parts of it. What you link does not mean humans are vegetarians, they clearly are not. All it means is that they have things in common with vegan animals.

      • rinku says:

        Just because an animal is a vegetarian doesn’t mean it’d die if you feed it meat. Try feeding a mouse or a rabbit some meat and see what I mean. Vegetarians can survive on a meat-based diet, they just do so less well. Carnivores can also survive on a fully plant based diet; in fact cat food contains little to no meat, even though cats are carnivores. Being a carnivore or an herbivore doesn’t mean that’s the *only* thing they eat, it just means it’s the diet they were designed around.

      • rinku says:

        Also, as for “Then why do so many eat meat daily and live excellent lives?” — it really isn’t that many. Pretty much every Hindu is a vegetarian, and there are about a billion of them. Meat is also a very rare food in most third world countries, adding on another few billion. It’s really only the developed nations that eat it regularly, and that’s a relatively recent change, for most of human history even Europe survived mainly on a vegetarian diet (the exceptions being the very coldest climates where agriculture was more difficult than hunting down a seal or something). Even from the standpoint of human history, making meat a *regular* part of one’s diet, e.g. every day, is extremely rare, although it’s always been an occasional part.

        • psuedoid says:

          I accept most of what you say. None of it has any direct bearing on my main point. My point being that if people are composed in such a way to be herbivores or herb-dominant omni’s, then why are people who ARE eating meat every day flourishing? So there may be a history of eating plant food, well, so what? I’m assuming you’re not just trying to establish history and modern-day diets here, but something with bearing on what people ought to eat. I’m not a definitive expert on diet, but from my perspective excluding meat or having it very sparingly is unwise from a strictly nutritional point of view. Devastating or unsustainable? No.

          • rinku says:

            I thought all of hit had bearing on your main point. I was pointing out that being a vegetarian doesn’t mean you don’t eat meat. Vegetarian animals eat meat. You are saying that because people eat meat, they should, which makes little sense.

          • psuedoid says:

            That is an highly inaccurate depiction of what I’ve said in totality and thus I am done with this exchange.

          • rinku says:

            Maybe I misread it, but that is how I interpreted what you were saying. That billions of people eat meat and don’t die from it doesn’t mean that those people aren’t vegetarians.

        • The better off economically you are, the more meat you eat. China’s growing middle class has driven the price of retail pork up 50% in the past year. Humans crave it. Pointing out that they can’t get access to it due to being poor as balls is proof of nothing besides the fact that they don’t have the means to obtain it.
          Calorically, plant-type foods do/did make up a majority of the human diet, but the portion of it made up by meat was by far more important.

    • noshot says:

      They forgot to factor in that humans usually cook meat before eating it, which I’d imagine makes it easier for our little weak stomachs to digest.

  2. Whiny fuckers, one and all. They look like dirty, emaciated, african children. Self-righteous ones at that.

    • MRDA says:

      “Dirty, emaciated, African children” would kill for the mastication, as opposed to the masturbation, so let’s not take it there…..

  3. rawr_becca says:

    I think I basically just completely disagree with you.
    First: vegetarianism is CERTAINLY healthier than eating meat. Basically, all animal related foods are pretty bad for you- lots of fat and cholesterol, not to mention hormones and other bad stuff we put into the animals- and all the good things that we get out of animals, like protien, iron and calcium (from milk) you can get from veggies without any bad things.
    Second: Plants have no nervous systems, no brains. They can’t think or feel. And I’m pretty sure you know that. Animals, do, and that’s why it different. Chickens and pigs and cows are just as smart, have just as diverse personalities as the animals we love and dont torture, like dogs and cats.
    Third: I dont think it even matters so much that we eat animals; it is natural, or it WAS. Now, animals only live to be eaten. Some never ever see the outside a wearhouse, most are basically totured (like beaks cut off, boiled alive, cut open alive, etc) and their living conditions are terrible- trapped with their own shit and other dead animals. The suffering is unecessary. What bothers me the most about eating animals, is that they’re treated as products, not living things. Cows are fed corn, which they arent meant to eat, and other ground up cows. Which I’m pretty sure they arent meant to eat either.
    I’m sure some PETA assholes can be jsut as annoying and self righteous as televangilists, and demand that we do extreme things to save the animals. Every group has dumbasses in it. And I dont think everyone should stop eating meat now and stop eating eggs and dairy and throw away all leather or else they’re going to hell and they’re evil. It’s a personal choice. But that doesnt mean that we should continue to produce meat and dairy and eggs the way we do. Meat isnt so terrible, the way we get it is.
    There is a difference between hunting and eating animals for our own survival, and what we do now. What we’re doing is totally UNatural.

    • rinku says:

      I think chickens aren’t really as smart as cats are dogs. Pigs, though, are smarter.

    • The human body needs some amount of fat and good cholesterol. About 20% or so of plants have any protein worth mentioning. The rest of the minerals of which you speak generally require supplementation.
      Animal suffering: emotional argument. You’re anthropomorphizing as hard as possible. Chickens are so “smart” that if you decapitate them, they still run around. That’s how much consciousness and personality they possess. Turkeys drown in the rain if you let them. As for pigs and cows having personalities and being “just as smart”, someone’s been watching one too many Disney movies.
      Third: If the sorts of groups MRDA spoke about didn’t fund outright terrorist cells that firebombed, killed, stalked, destroyed property, maybe people wouldn’t group all the veggos together as a bunch of self righteous psychos. When the poster child for your movement is basically saying an animal in a cage is worth killing several scientists over, that’s when I have a problem.
      What it comes down to is that you’re arguing for the rights of something too stupid to fight back on emotional grounds. It might not be pleasant, but all I could honestly think of when watching the animal cruelty PETA vids was having a nice, juicy steak. I don’t say that for shock value.
      Evolution gave us the tools to dominate everything else.
      And on a personal note, I need meat. I lift, grapple and fight. The day a vegetarian can step in the ring with me and not die is the day you’ll get me to switch.

      • rawr_becca says:

        Hahahahah, okay.
        Well, I know people with pet chickens that are just as sweet and interesting as other animals, except shit all over the place, and have to be kept outside. Which isnt cool, and I guess you could say evidence that they’re pretty stupid?
        And I think it’s completely retarted and hypocritical for people to flip out about killing/toturing animals and then go and terrorize people. Dont agree with that at all. And I dont agree either, with guilting and pressuring people into becoming vegetarian. I think it’s important people are aware of where everything is coming from and how it’s gotten, but if it’s still not important enough to them to eat “free range organic” whatever, then, oh well. Not their thing.
        Ignorance about this and a million other things is something that really bothers me. People, here at least, dont see or care to see anything else beyond going to the supermarket and buying things. They dont think about how that neatly packaged chunk of meat has to be cooked at certain temperatures because the animal’s shit and the filth of the factory got into it, and how the animal lived before becoming a something wrapped in cellophane, or how a nice, over-waxed apple or some grapes were picked by people who live in cardboard boxes and get paid a few cents an hour, or how that $200 dress at the mall was made in a sweat shop the store only had to pay 19 bucks for. Or worse made by children who’ve been basically sold into slavery by thier parents. A lot of shit goes on for us to get everything we have, and people are too spoiled or ignorant or selfish to care. Selfishness is not so abd as the others, if it’s at least informed selfishnes.
        About animals not being able to fight back on emotional grounds- if it’s alright to kill and treat animals the way we do because they cant fight back, why not eat babies? or people who are vegetables or in a coma? Maybe grind up the homeless veterans or prositutes for a hamburger. they cant fight back either, and I bet babies make nice and juicy steaks. I guess it’s like a thing of compassion, and priorities. Maybe none of these people or animals can fight back, but I dont think it means it’s okay to be completely monsterous towards them.
        Factory farming is just one thing in a list of many shitty things that go on in the world. And of course I know that being nice to people/animals and having “respect for life” is never going to be a priority over making as much money as you can, but it’s still something that I wish wouldnt happen.
        And meat and other really heavy, fattening foods ARE “good” for people that burn lots of calories, but then you have a lot more risk for heart diseas and attacks, strokes, cancer, and all that bad stuff.

        • psuedoid says:

          There is a lot of ignorance, but in my experience most average people already have too much on their plate to give grief over children making their clothes, etc. I notice that people tend to be affected by what is in front of their eyes. The more attractive and innocent the sight, the more grief there is over tragedy. Notice that when a space-shuttle goes down, suddenly everybody is weeping, but you don’t hear of many vigils for tragic urban lives, starving children, women getting their genitals mutilated..etc. Why is that? This is gonna sound corny, but when I was your age I felt similarly to you about these things.
          Emotional grounds are very important. If it pains someone to see animals abused, then it does and this can’t possibly be said to be “wrong”. If this person then goes on to say that it is wrong in all cases for animals to be abused, that does not follow from their emotional reaction. What they really mean is…they don’t like animal abuse. How about this question: Is it more reprehensible to eat a baby or a chicken? Why? I’m gonna go out on a limb and say it doesn’t have anything to do with the intelligence of either. Also, to a chicken, it’d probably be more reprehensible to eat the chicken, but who knows. A mama bear, I’m thinking, would prefer eating a human baby to her own!
          There are many wonderful things happening in the world too.
          Meat isn’t necessarily fattening. It’s easy to get low-fat chicken for a palatable price. Tuna in cans is dirt cheap, with little fat, and much of the fat it does have is of the totally hip Omega-3 form. Of steak there are lean cuts, etc. Red meat got a terrible rap, why weren’t ranchers talking about the nutrient cocktail the stuff is? Ah, I bet some were.
          To follow the trend of over-committing to LJ posts, there is a daily value % for cholesterol, meaning it is very highly suggested that people consume some every day.

        • MRDA says:

          I agree that more care and consideration wouldn’t go amiss in regard to animals, whether destined for the dinner plate or not; in the case of the former, it’s – both physically and figuratively – a healthily selfish thing to do. If indeed PUTA got that much right, then perhaps it’s not so much the consumption of meat as the consumption of slovenly-farmed livestock that contributes to any bad side-effects of consumption.
          Besides, if non-human animals have to die for the nourishment of bipeds like myself, why not make the last days as pleasant as possible under such conditions? I agree with the idea of treating the animals with something approaching respect, seeing as they provide my omnivorous tastebuds with such delight….

      • rinku says:

        I don’t think a pure vegetarian could outfight someone who isn’t one, but I think an occasional vegetarian who eats meat once or twice a month would be on equal ground with someone who ate it in most every meal.

    • MRDA says:

      Distasteful, unhealthy and detrimental? Perhaps….
      Unnatural? The fact such practices exist nullifies that assertion.

  4. rawr_becca says:

    even IF chickens and turkeys are really stupid, it’s still not any better to kill them instead of like a puppy. Plus if Skinner could train pigeons to do all sorts of complex behaviors, I’m sure chikens could too.
    AND, our bodies make all the cholesterol we need.
    I’m putting way too much thought into this. hahahah.

  5. noshot says:

    I’ve been thinking about this a LOT lately; how harvesting vegetables is just as destructive as harvesting animals. Unlike fruit, which is destined to fall harmlessly off the tree, most vegetables must be violently uprooted or hacked off. The process kills or maims the plants, and they must be replanted in the new season. How is this any kinder than hunting? Since only in certain parts of the world is fruit able to grow in sufficient abundance, we don’t have many options.

  6. Pingback: Inconvenient Truth, or Convenient Preference? « MRDA's Inferno

Leave a Reply