Monday, June 30, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Vegetarians
So, my brother is a vegetarian. I don't see how anyone could refuse to eat meat, but I get it. I know why he would do it. He does it because he doesn't want some animal dying because of him. I can understand that. I think it's stupid, and don't really see the difference between killing a plant and an animal (In the words of 2 the Ranting Gryphon, "Taking the life of a plant is no different from taking the life of an animal. Just because it can't yelp when you pluck it doesn't mean you're not killing it.") but I can sort of see why he doesn't want to be a part of the death of that animal. But he did something the other day that really confused me.
I made mac and cheese for dinner, and as usual I grated (grote?) up some cheese to put in with the powdered shit that call cheese in the box. When I served it my bother looked at it, turned his nose up at it, and then threw it away. Apparently the cheese I added contained calf stomach lining or something, and he refused to eat, and would rather throw that food away and starve than eat it.
Now, he can starve, I don't care about that, but what I didn't get is why he would throw that food in the garbage. It is one thing to not want a animal to die because of you, but as soon as that animal is already dead and on a plate, throwing it away is, from my point of view, much worse. By throwing it away you are not preventing that animal from dying, it's already dead; All you're doing is making it so that that cow in your burger died in vain. The thing is though, that this isn't just my brother. I bet you you could not find a "devout" vegetarian who would not do the exact same thing. By throwing it away, you are taking a death that would have at least gone to giving you nutrition and energy to let you live, and taking even that away from it. While refusing to let an animal be killed to feed you, you just made that animal die for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Good job. You are now just slightly less hypocritical than Jerry Falwell if he opened a gay bar.
I made mac and cheese for dinner, and as usual I grated (grote?) up some cheese to put in with the powdered shit that call cheese in the box. When I served it my bother looked at it, turned his nose up at it, and then threw it away. Apparently the cheese I added contained calf stomach lining or something, and he refused to eat, and would rather throw that food away and starve than eat it.
Now, he can starve, I don't care about that, but what I didn't get is why he would throw that food in the garbage. It is one thing to not want a animal to die because of you, but as soon as that animal is already dead and on a plate, throwing it away is, from my point of view, much worse. By throwing it away you are not preventing that animal from dying, it's already dead; All you're doing is making it so that that cow in your burger died in vain. The thing is though, that this isn't just my brother. I bet you you could not find a "devout" vegetarian who would not do the exact same thing. By throwing it away, you are taking a death that would have at least gone to giving you nutrition and energy to let you live, and taking even that away from it. While refusing to let an animal be killed to feed you, you just made that animal die for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Good job. You are now just slightly less hypocritical than Jerry Falwell if he opened a gay bar.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Drugs are bad
omfg this is addicting. I swear it's the crack of the internet.
My high score is 3.73 seconds.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Polish Fried Chicken
I hate the media right now. I don't care what anyone else says, the whole Polish guy getting tasered thing is being completely sensationalized. They're still talking about it, like, six months later. I mean come on when was it? October? And now they just had an article in the Vancouver Sun today.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone can pick sides in this, the news has not, and probably never will get the whole story. They have completely covered the Polish guy's side of the story, I mean they dug years into his past, they interviewed his roommate and all his friends, and yet the best they can do for the police's side of the story is have one single interview with the police chief. They have not interviewed the police officers involved and to the best of my knowledge have made absolutely no attempt to try. And I've heard people say that, "Well the RCMP tells it's officers not to talk." This is such a bullshit response! To get the victim's side of the story they will find names, arrange dates for interviews, and if no date can be arranged, they'll go right to their house, shove a camera into their face when they answer the door and then interview them on the front porch. In this case they traveled all the way to Poland for a few interviews! But when it comes to the RCMP they won't even bother phoning the officers involved.
Of course, money is the only reason they do it, and don't tell me otherwise. They want to make the Polish guy to look like he was completely innocent and the cops to be the big mean bad guys, for one simple reason: so they can drag the story out for as long as possible. Think about it. If they took the cops side of this and said that it was justified and not excessive force, that would have been it. There is no where to go with the story. However, if they get the Polish guy's side they will cause anger, which will cause controversy, which will increase ratings. Plus with this controversy they can make every insignificant detail, like his past, into a huge 10 minute long piece, which will cause more anger, and thus even more ratings. (From the sound of the piece they did on his past it sounded like he was a criminal anyway, even though they did try to sugar coat it.) Don't believe me? Guess what the article in the Sun was about. It was talking about how the customs guy thought he was calm when he was checking in to Canada. That stupid, insignificant article, that held no answers as to what actually happened when the police encountered him, made front page. No joke.
And before I get a bunch of negative replies from the imaginary people who view my page saying that I condone murder, etc. just shut up and read the above paragraph again. I'm not saying the death is justified, and yes, it's tragic that he died, what I'm saying is that you shouldn't choose sides based on biased news coverage and a minute long, low quality video on Youtube.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone can pick sides in this, the news has not, and probably never will get the whole story. They have completely covered the Polish guy's side of the story, I mean they dug years into his past, they interviewed his roommate and all his friends, and yet the best they can do for the police's side of the story is have one single interview with the police chief. They have not interviewed the police officers involved and to the best of my knowledge have made absolutely no attempt to try. And I've heard people say that, "Well the RCMP tells it's officers not to talk." This is such a bullshit response! To get the victim's side of the story they will find names, arrange dates for interviews, and if no date can be arranged, they'll go right to their house, shove a camera into their face when they answer the door and then interview them on the front porch. In this case they traveled all the way to Poland for a few interviews! But when it comes to the RCMP they won't even bother phoning the officers involved.
Of course, money is the only reason they do it, and don't tell me otherwise. They want to make the Polish guy to look like he was completely innocent and the cops to be the big mean bad guys, for one simple reason: so they can drag the story out for as long as possible. Think about it. If they took the cops side of this and said that it was justified and not excessive force, that would have been it. There is no where to go with the story. However, if they get the Polish guy's side they will cause anger, which will cause controversy, which will increase ratings. Plus with this controversy they can make every insignificant detail, like his past, into a huge 10 minute long piece, which will cause more anger, and thus even more ratings. (From the sound of the piece they did on his past it sounded like he was a criminal anyway, even though they did try to sugar coat it.) Don't believe me? Guess what the article in the Sun was about. It was talking about how the customs guy thought he was calm when he was checking in to Canada. That stupid, insignificant article, that held no answers as to what actually happened when the police encountered him, made front page. No joke.
And before I get a bunch of negative replies from the imaginary people who view my page saying that I condone murder, etc. just shut up and read the above paragraph again. I'm not saying the death is justified, and yes, it's tragic that he died, what I'm saying is that you shouldn't choose sides based on biased news coverage and a minute long, low quality video on Youtube.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Story
This story will have a moral that will apply to my experiences today. Now sit and listen.
One time there was a little lobster. His name was McHenry. Now, McHenry was a lobster and he was also little. He lived in the ocean, and McHenry was a little lobster, who lived in the ocean. In the ocean lived a little lobster, named McHenry, who lived in the ocean and was a lobster. McHenry was small, so the ocean, which he lived in, was large to him, him being McHenry, a small lobster who lived in the ocean.
Now McHenry, this lobster who lived in the ocean was small. He felt small because he was little, and his best friend was a shark. The thing was this shark was very large, and also had to be constantly moving, or else his gills would not work and he would die. This made McHenry
No, no, stop the story.
I just noticed that whenever I push the apostrophe key, I get the same results as inputting CRTL+F would normally get me. Hold on, let me try it again.
Yeah... yeah.
Oh, now Im just in no mood... to...
See, it didn
DAMNIT!
What kind of disgusting world do we live in, where I can
...where I cannot use proper grammatical punctuation? No wonder the youth of today cannot speak properly anymore.
Oh, and this story was going to go into gay lobster-shark sex, and now you arenAPOSTROPHEt getting any.
Also I cannot do a backslash here either.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
