[EU rope]

Come on, Rei, don't play stupid. Nobody is forcing lil Muslim to eat pork. There are probably plenty of food to choose from.
But banning pork in public institutions just "not to hurt the feelings of the Muslims" is ridiculous. Let ban infidels altogether then, not to offend Muslims with our presence, huh?

[Rei Murasame]

I'm not playing stupid at all. My 'ban everything' stance remains the same whether Muslims are inside the country or thrown into the middle of the Mediterranean Sea to drown.

My alignment with them on this issue is purely incidental.

Don't forget that on 18 Feb 1872, ten warrior monks actually stormed the Imperial Palace of Japan and fought their way through the gates before finally getting taken down by gunmen. Why did they do that? Because Emperor Meiji was eating pork and beef like a westerner and was asking others to follow him in that degeneracy. The monks therefore were intending to assassinate the Emperor, and have cadres of politicians seize the moment to reconstitute correct governance, ban the consumption of those meats, return the laws of Shintoism and Buddhism to prominence, and expel all foreigners.

I have always believed that the assassins had a good point, the same thing should have been done everywhere, and I'm not going to reverse my view just to spite Muslims. My stances exist entirely independently from what Muslims think of it.

[Pants-of-dog]

They're actually pissed off at the left-liberals who took pork off the menu for fear that it could traumatize the Muslims, and at the Muslims who can't eat anything that has come into contact with things that are haram.

Basically, if you're a Muslim living in a Western country and you are afraid that your meal at the canteen could have come into contact with pork back in the kitchen, bring your own lunch. Don't expect the natives to drop pork altogether to entertain your ideological idiosyncracies.

For someone who pretends to be so culturally sensitve, you sure like to play dumb when it comes to our culture.

Again, talk about easily offended.

Thirty out of 1719 places took pork off the menu. Slightly less than 2%.

How does this affect most people? It doesn't, especially in the region where it was passed. I guess we have reached the point where we pass laws based on our precious feelings.

[The Sabbaticus]

If I was part of the Danish government I would place all of these municipalities under supervision in light of the apparent Islamification going on in these areas. It's basically a litmus test of the amount of Left-Islamic radicalization present in the areas. Once they're taking pork off the menu, in light of multicultural sensibilities, these municipalities are to be treated as high risk areas.

Similarly, contracts with the halal industry should be indicators for Left-Islamic radicalization.

[Rei Murasame]

Pork is actually bad for human consumption, and farming it en masse negatively impacts the environment. Pigs also act as a vector for just about every horrendous flu virus that threatens to destroy the world economy from time to time (the 1918 flu was actually a swine flu!), because pigs living in contact with humans and with birds in close proximity, gives flu viruses plenty of practice for making cross-species jumps.

The other factor to consider is that red meat causes the most profound obstruction of prana possible.

Also, the entire cattle industry has a blatant disregard for national health, never forget that it was the cattle industry coupled with MAFF, which vectored mad cow disease and literally brought the UK to the brink of annihilation. The entire circle of filth led to them actually rendering dead BSE-infected cows and feeding them to pigs and sheep who then also became infected. The cattle industry is not your fucking friend, they are scum and always have been.

I actually regard the pro-pork people in this thread as being equally as dangerous as Islamist militants are, it's just that the pro-pork people are less informed about what they are defending than the Islamists are.

I would urge all the pro-pork people in this thread to stop and reconsider the issue, because sometimes the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. People need to stop eating pork, and stop supporting that industry.

[Ganeshas Rat]

Don't forget that on 18 Feb 1872, ten warrior monks actually stormed the Imperial Palace of Japan and fought their way through the gates before finally getting taken down by gunmen. Why did they do that? Because Emperor Meiji was eating pork and beef like a westerner and was asking others to follow him in that degeneracy. The monks therefore were intending to assassinate the Emperor, and have cadres of politicians seize the moment to reconstitute correct governance, ban the consumption of those meats, return the laws of Shintoism and Buddhism to prominence, and expel all foreigners.

I have always believed that the assassins had a good point, the same thing should have been done everywhere, and I'm not going to reverse my view just to spite Muslims. My stances exist entirely independently from what Muslims think of it.

Things Japanese do: try to assassinate the ruler of the country with swords. In the end of XIX century. For pork-eating.

At least Muslim fanatics know how to use powder.

[Rei Murasame]

Things Japanese do: try to assassinate the ruler of the country with swords. In the end of XIX century. For pork-eating.

Yes, it's completely logical and correct to do that. When the government is committing those kinds of errors, there's a limited window of time that a person has to nip it in the bud, otherwise the practice ends up proliferating and then it becomes much more difficult to reverse later (eg, the year is now 2016, and people are still eating red meat because no one was able to kill these people -- the task of reversing it is now more difficult), so it's good to at least try assassination, even if you fail at it. You can never find out whether it will work unless you try it a few times.

The use of guns in 1872 was not very good for high speed, high mobility conflict inside of an urban area or inside of a building. You would have to bring a sword because realistically - as the attacker - you are only going to get one shot off with the rifle and you will never be given the luxury or time to reload for another shot (it's ten attackers versus more than a hundred people scattered all over the complex), so at that stage you should just throw the gun aside and use the sword up close.

A lot of Japanese gunners in the mid to late 1800s used to get killed by bladed weapons if they ended up having to reload while people holding bladed weapons closed the distance between them. That's how things were back then, and it probably was part of what the monks were hoping to exploit.

At least Muslim fanatics know how to use powder.

They benefited from the luxury of coming into existence after guns had become more versatile.

[Ganeshas Rat]

The use of guns in 1872 was not very good for high speed, high mobility conflict inside of an urban area or inside of a building. You would have to bring a sword because realistically you are only going to get one shot off with the rifle and you will never be given the luxury or time to reload for another shot, so at that stage you should just throw the gun aside and use the sword up close.

It is exactly why pistols were invented. Even single-shot pistols. Two single-shot pistols to rise up the stoping power. Two pairs of pistols to get more chances. I even do not speak about that one fact that wasn't the XVIII century and there were the colonel Colt and his revolvers. The only reason they took swords was they were stupid fanatics who hated all Western: ties, guns, pork and, probably, potatoes.

This story only shows how constrained religious fundamentalists are: in any century and any state the biggest harm they could do to sane secular people is to kill themselves.

[Zamuel]

I would urge all the pro-pork people in this thread to stop and reconsider the issue, because sometimes the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. People need to stop eating pork, and stop supporting that industry.

Now I get it - You ALSO need a good STEAK !

Don't forget that on 18 Feb 1872, ten warrior monks actually stormed the Imperial Palace of Japan and fought their way through the gates before finally getting taken down by gunmen. Why did they do that? Because Emperor Meiji was eating pork and beef like a westerner and was asking others to follow him in that degeneracy.

Bunch of irate Sushi Chefs I'll bet !

Zam

[Rei Murasame]

It is exactly why pistols were invented.

East Asia was far behind on this issue. The pistols that were most readily available to them were still single shot, as you yourself pointed out, so it would still be a case of fire once and then experience blades all around you.

The only reason they took swords was they were stupid fanatics who hated all Western:

You're just guessing that the weapon choices were somehow ideological, but you're forgetting the facts about what weapons were actually available on the ground in Japan. The fact remains that you would not be able to get more than one shot off with a rifle in the midst of all that confusion. Even the pistols available would have largely been a one-shot affair, and the time wasted trying to reload would only be to the advantage of the defenders.

This is not something unique to those attackers, it was the case in almost all engagements by everyone, that the reload-time was enough to warrant retaining the use of bladed weapons right up to the advent of the Meiji period.

Japan experienced 5 civil-war style insurgencies by regional powers during the Meiji period, and in all of them bladed weapons were used alongside guns (just as had been occurring ever since Nobunaga popularised that way of fighting in the previous era), by all sides involved. The government's own soldiers still carried swords in addition to their rifles.

Japanese warlords were never anti-gun, regardless of ideological or political affiliation. At one stage in the early 1700s, Japan had the largest ratio of guns to people on earth, it actually surpassed the US. It's just that guns did not become the end-all-be-all of fighting.

This story only shows how constrained religious fundamentalists are:

But you just made the claim that Islamists are less constrained than Shintoists and Buddhists were. In your attempt to troll me, you're now flatly contradicting yourself.

sane secular people

Are you seriously trying to characterise Emperor Meiji as secular? That concept did not yet even exist in Japan. There was not even a word for that concept, that's how much it didn't even exist. Emperor Meiji was a lot of things, chiefly a misguided panderer with stupid compromise-based social policies, but he definitely was not secular.

NB: All of this is slightly off topic though, I mentioned this story only as part of the overall array of posts about how there are plenty of reasons to hate pork and beef, and that hating it is not just 'a Muslim thing'.

[Frollein]

Well, this is one of the only cases in the 'multiculti' phenomenon where I have no problem with what has been happening. People needed to cut down on pork and beef consumption, in an ideal world they would both be banned completely, so any series of 'polite' attempts by Europeans to avoid offending someone actually was working in favour of reducing consumption.

While I agree that people should reduce meat consumption, I just have to ask what you have against beef and pork.

Whose agenda does it really serve to just blindly go with 'opposite day' on everything?

People have been eating pork here since forever. They are simply going back to this, after a brief stint of humouring the multiculti appeasers.

I don't eat pork, and I don't eat beef,

Do you eat chicken? Fish? I hate to tell you, but both meats are produced just like beef and pork, and the seas are dangerously overfished.

and I refuse to sit at a table with people who are eating those things.

*shrug* Then I guess we'll never share a table. I'll no more tailor my eating habits to your preferences than I'll tailor them for a Muslim's.

Furthermore, I'm not going to suddenly start eating pork just to piss off a bunch of stupid Abrahamics who are already pissed off with me for 500 other reasons anyway.

And nobody's asking you to.

Pork is actually bad for human consumption, and farming it en masse negatively impacts the environment.

That's also true of other meats. Everything that's produced en masse like that negatively impacts the environment.

Pigs also act as a vector for just about every horrendous flu virus that threatens to destroy the world economy from time to time (the 1918 flu was actually a swine flu!), because pigs living in contact with humans and with birds in close proximity, gives flu viruses plenty of practice for making cross-species jumps.

That's also true for chickens, if they are farmed on masse, which is why East Asia is frequently the origin of yet another outbreak of birdflu. Let's ban chicken!

[EU rope]

I actually regard the pro-pork people in this thread as being equally as dangerous as Islamist militants are, it's just that the pro-pork people are less informed about what they are defending than the Islamists are.

I think you went a little too far with this one (also, that with the table), Rei, equating peaceful and cheerful pork eating people with the daemons of Islam. What a strange effect - people who eat pork are relaxed, smart, beautiful and hard working, and people who don't, namely Muslims, are not. Can you explain this?

[The Sabbaticus]

Porcine flesh is like a canary in a coal man. Together with halal industry contracts they could be potent instruments in rooting out dissident municipalities that have been taken over by Islamic radicals and their Left-leaning sympathisers.

[Frollein]

Porcine flesh is like a canary in a coal man. Together with halal industry contracts they could be potent instruments in rooting out dissident municipalities that have been taken over by Islamic radicals and their Left-leaning sympathisers.

[Rei Murasame]

I think you went a little too far with this one (also, that with the table),

Why? If someone sets a table and covers it with things that I can't eat, why should I sit at that table? To get me at that table, it needs to simply not have those things on it. It's not that difficult.

peaceful and cheerful pork eating people

Just admit that you have no justification for what you're doing.

______________

While I agree that people should reduce meat consumption, I just have to ask what you have against beef and pork.

I already explained this ages ago:

[...]

Rather than having this be just a personal consumer action about liberal market choice, this must be a political action if it is to really work out in the longterm. In other words a prohibition on the slaughter-for-consumption of cows and pigs at some point in the future. However, we are not unsophisticated, we understand that a ban is going to be resisted unless it's a ban 'whose time has come' socially.

We can help that time come by pointing out that we can drive down the numbers of cattle that can be farmed, which would have a knock-on effect of reducing the amount of red meat that people consume, which would also be a good thing since that would mean healthier humans and less damage to the land and water, and less catastrophes.

With these arguments it's possible to lay the groundwork for the public accepting a ban.

Let's also look at an example population. The UK has 10% of the population that claims to be 'meat avoiders', and 23% who call themselves 'meat reducers', and 11% claim to be 'vegetarian'. That 11% number apparently includes the people who went for the semi-vegetarian pattern (read: pesce-pollotarianism) but still misrepresented themselves as 'vegetarian' - they mean well, but it tilts the stats a bit. The main underlying trend in all this seems to be less red meat consumed by the population. It could be possible to build on that.

[...]

It's just that no one agreed with it, because they claim that it 'tastes nice'. I can neither confirm nor deny that, having never eaten them, but it definitely shouldn't be a reason for them to keep doing it.

If red meat tastes anything like it smells though, then I literally cannot understand what you all like about it.

Speaking in the context of the UK, Britain was already heading in the correct direction by itself, I wouldn't want to see them reverse course just to spite Muslims. The UK is also the #1 example of a European country that cuts down on red meat without the world coming to an apocalyptic end.

Do you eat chicken? Fish? I hate to tell you, but both meats are produced just like beef and pork, and the seas are dangerously overfished.

Yes, I'm okay with fish and poultry, which places me in what the UK would call the 'semi-vegetarian' category (and I also believe that going full vegetarian leads to health problems and should not be attempted).

The seas would be less overfished if the cattle farmers weren't making deadzones with their runoff and causing the rise of algae and jellyfish. It's also easier to devise a project to manage the fish problem and the chicken problem, than it would be to deal with the effects of marching cattle up and down large swathes of land compacting the soil constantly.

Cattle farmers are the biggest offenders out of all offenders, and so obviously the solution to the problems starts there. The rest of the world shouldn't have to cut back on everything just because red meat eaters have decided that their cattle consumption is a political statement.

Furthermore, the amount of energy wasted on feeding and maintaining cattle, is productive capacity that could instead be directed elsewhere. How many billions of dollars a year of economic activity are wasted on this?

[Frollein]

I went back and read that thread and I have to second what Figlio di Moros said then. Besides, I'm all for a ban on factory farming, no matter what meat - that includes chicken and fish, btw. I eat almost no meat anymore, because I want to eat meat from animals that I have killed myself. That would restrict my consumption to chicken, fish and wild game. But I'm against a ban for certain meats. Just make factory farmed meat a) ridiculously expensive and b) socially taboo, and the problem will go away on its own.

[Zamuel]

Why? If someone sets a table and covers it with things that I can't eat, why should I sit at that table? To get me at that table, it needs to simply not have those things on it. It's not that difficult.

I understand your conceit, I hope you like to eat alone.

peaceful and cheerful pork eating people

Just admit that you have no justification for what you're doing.

Some of us don't feel the need to "Justify' everything we do, and some of us ENJOY a little irrational pleasure as counterpoint to the tangible analysis of reality we live by. Those of us who DO are often inclined to tolerance of the small foibles of others. "Judge not lest ye be judged" isn't just a platitude, it's an operative social function.

But it's a free country (here anyway) we're not going to tie you down and insert a gravy flavored saline drip ... Do you really want to find a cave somewhere and live off the nuts and berries the squirrels bring you? (hmmm, squirrels, now there's some GOOD gravy!)

Tonight I think it'll be those tenderloins in the freezer, peas and carrots ... maybe some applesauce? May you nibble your nuts in piece ... (unless you have cashews, in which case I might invade.)

Zam

[Rei Murasame]

I eat almost no meat anymore, because I want to eat meat from animals that I have killed myself. That would restrict my consumption to chicken, fish and wild game.

Well, I have no argument against that, that's a different route to the same conclusion.

Just make factory farmed meat a) ridiculously expensive and b) socially taboo, and the problem will go away on its own.

That's a possible route as well, I'm open to that method as well.

________________

I understand your conceit, I hope you like to eat alone.

Almost 40% of the UK agrees with me, and I live in Leicester, so I'm not forced to eat alone.

Do you really want to find a cave somewhere and live off the nuts and berries the squirrels bring you?

Strawman.

Why is that every time I promote semi-vegetarianism with an anti-SAD bias (ie, regarding meat: only fish and poultry allowed, and on the issue of everything else: adhering to the principle 'closer to paleolithic is better'), someone comes in and accuses me of veganism? I'm against veganism and always have been against it. Humans are omnivores, and require some kind of meat at some time in order to operate correctly.

[Ganeshas Rat]

I hope everybody agrees that raw fish (an infinite source of parasites and diseases) eating must be banned and punished with forced feeding by deeply fried steaks, 3 times per day, 7 days per week.

[Rei Murasame]

I'm sure that the 60% of human lard bucket disasters* which currently are rolling from place to place in the USA would agree with that suggestion, Ganeshas. They'd probably want you to double-fry the steaks though.

That would rapidly increase the size of Asian-Americans and then they'd all be equally disastrous regardless of ethnicity.

Seriously though, America is going to be paying out the nose in the future for the laissez-faire approach they took to their national diet.

* NB: The comedy is that even the article which describes the fatness in America, then proceeds to offer them the wrong advice, asserting that 'a calorie is a calorie'. LMAO. If they believe that, maybe they could eat five Mars bars a day with water to meet the RDA, for 3 months, and then tell everyone afterwards how they feel, if they are still alive.