Government Brutally Killing 40,000 Pigs

[PDLM]

But YES in the case of the original argument. HK, the people , the pigs etc. The SAR WILL make its own way as Chinese first. Who are we to tell them otherwise.

Thank you. I just wanted to be absolutely sure that you are a racist before I label you as such.

[Vrindavan]

>> factually incorrect. You are plain wrong.

right or wrong in others' eyes does not matter to me.

>> Modern vegan practitioners take artificial Vitamin B12 supplements

not all, just some.
And most of such people are taking vitamin pills as they get used to it, no matter they are meat eaters, vegetarians or VEGANS.
They just trust the pills and want to have more confidence.

forget those meaningless terms as long as i know many people are healthy and strong without any knowledge of western nutrient terms

What i am talking is historically and now there are VEGANS and Fruitarians, including times where there is no vitamin shop.

In China, traditionally vegetarians are VEGAN based.

[Lammarite]

In China, traditionally vegetarians are VEGAN based.

Buddhist monks for example.

[Lammarite]

Maybe its something you can pass on to your offspring so as they do not make the same mistake.

Congratulations for bringing a nine and a half month child into the equation, desperation is indeed the last sanctuary of the fool.
I shall be teaching my child much more applicable lessons such as how not to be a tedious dolt.

[Lammarite]

- The SAR WILL make its own way as Chinese first.
- Who are we to tell them otherwise.

- Says who?
- Absolutely no-one.

[HK_Newbie100]

Human beings are NOT, as Lammarite said, physiologically designed to eat meat. Unless you believe god made the world in 7 days, primate and promo primate evolution took place over millions of years. For tens of millions of years up to about the Ice Age a million years ago, scientific evidence measuring microscopic teethwear point to that we ate exclusively fruit. Our deft hands with opposable thumbs were evolved to pick fruit, as opposed to having sharp claws or talons or teeth to rip animal flesh. Our intestines are long, designed to slowly extract nutrients from food. Carnivores have short intestines because flesh quickly putrefies and becomes toxic, and carnivores have hydrochloric acid 10 times more powerful than ours to neutralise that. Nor do humans delight in ripping animals to pieces and revelling in blood, guts and all that gore. Most people would have a natural aversion to killing animals for their own food in the wild. The cooking of food became widespread a mere several thousand years ago. In evolutionary terms, that?s a blink of the eye. And eating meat actually only become a regular thing a mere hundred or so years ago with the introduction of factory farming. Before that, it was an expensive luxury, and still is to the vast majority of the earths? population today. As for the nutrition argument, again, evolution blows it out of the water. I don?t think our ancestors sat around devising a ?balanced diet?.

People have a perfect right to eat whatever they want. But the meat industry, because of its immensely resource intensive nature in a world of finite resources, contributes hugely to the starvation of millions, along with global warming, rainforest destruction and so on. We could feed the world over many times if we didn?t have to first feed the billions of animals first. So the argument that we should worry about people before animals is also hollow. Our mistreatment of animals on many levels contribute greatly to the pain and suffering of animals and humans alike.

The meat vs veg argument is a no brainer in every respect if we accept empirical evidence, but unfortunately, people start from a point of wanting to defend a privileged status quo and then build their arguments around that. And because meat eaters represent the vast majority, it has become "normal" and people don't question it. I too ate meat for most of my life without question, but when I started to ask them, it became less and less attractive.

[Boris]

I find this assertion very surprising. Please could you guide me to some online evidence to support it?

The illegality of the language was enshrined in the language clause of The Act of the Union. It was not until 1927 that calls came for a repeal of that clause.

It was not until the WELSH LANGUAGE ACT 1967 that the lauguage was legalised in statute made recognised to be used in all matters spoken and written.

A good example about how the illegality of the language was used politically was during the Chartist
peroid in the mid 19th century. The fact that Welsh Chartist meetings where often addressed in the Welsh language. This fact was used by local magistrates to declare illegal gatherings.

In 1901 the census found only 48,000 people able to speak in any way this language. The present estimate is over 50%. Allthough in modern times (19th century + ) no one was arrested for simply being heard to speak Welsh. Before that time it was a common form of mechanism to get radicals put out of circulation. Vis - if you where heard speaking it you must be de facto a radical etc.

[PDLM]

There's a huge difference between a language not being valid for official communication and it being illegal. I accept that Welsh was not an official language until the 1967 act, but that's quite different from it being illegal. There are cases of people being thrown off planes in the US for speaking Arabic, but the irrational acts of a few renegade LEOs doesn't make speaking Arabic illegal in the US.

Would you support Cornish as being valid for official communication in the UK? What about Geordie? Cockney?

[PDLM]

The present estimate is over 50%.

Oh no it isn't - try 21.7% http://www.bwrdd-yr-iaith.org.uk/cyn...=2122&langID=2

[Lammarite]

I can't imagine there were too many people vying for that URL!