Luxor4u

At the end of the day, it is up to the individual as to whether they do something or don't. What is seen as being wrong to some eyes, will create an opposite opinion in others. We are so ready to condemn acts that people carry out because it dose not fit into our/their way of thinking or levels of acceptance. And it is, usually, the most mundane of actions that receive the loudest of protests.

We all condemn something within our lifetimes, and we each have our own height of pedestal that we do it from. It is said that rules are there for a purpose and should be accepted and adhered to, but I believe that some rules are there to be broken, because if you do not question and feel the need to change some rules, then society as a whole will never progress.

Breaking the rule of the sacrificial sheep for instance. What real harm has been done? Against the people that benefited from the act by receiving meat to feed their families that they could never normally afford. Or the religious doctrine that states such acts as being against the teachings of that religion. It has been proved time and time again that religion does not feed the masses. You do that either with charitable acts or money. You only have to see the expressions of joy on the people in recite of these free offerings to clearly see that you have done good towards others.

As a byline to this, I was in the KZ supermarket the other day buying some meat. The cost per kilo is now 91Le. This must be more expensive than say the UK. I know it is cheaper outside on the streets, but not by much. I no longer see the people clamber around the hanging carcasses as they fight for the preferred cuts.

Not by much? Ahram markets have fresh meat for half of KZ! And KZ's is of dubious freshness and safety. And technically Ahram's is supposed to be even cheaper than that as they announced two months ago that for one year there would be Sudanese meet for 35LE, but that only appeared during Ramadan, and last time I bought some they only had for 45LE.

There's nothing wrong with slaughtering an animal to feed the poor and the poor will not be blamed whether the meat was slaughtered with the proper intentions or not. But that can be done without it being intended to propitiate the jinn that live under your doorstep, or to stop the magic that someone might have buried there. One can do right just as easily as one can do wrong in a case like this so why do wrong? You could just as easily have the animal slaughtered at the butcher's shop so why not if you all you really want to do is help the poor? And when I say you I mean people in general rather than you specifically.

They reckon the Ebola virus arose from consumption of bushmeat....

"Life cannot go on without the mutual devouring of organisms. If at the end of each person’s life he were to be presented with the living spectacle of all the he had organismically incorporated in order to stay alive, he might well feel horrified by the living energy he had ingested. The horizon of a gourmet, or even the average person, would be taken up with hundreds of chickens, flocks of lambs and sheep, a small herd of steers, sties full of pigs, and rivers of fish. The din alone would be deafening. To paraphrase Elias Canetti, each organism raises its head over a field of corpses, smiles into the sun, and declares life good."

-- Ernest Becker (Escape from Evil)

jewel wrote:They reckon the Ebola virus arose from consumption of bushmeat...

Bushmeat is presumably vegetarian. :-)

Brian Yare wrote:
Bushmeat is presumably vegetarian. :-)

Vegetarian cannibals eat bushmen.

Bush meat is a nasty business where anything that flies or moves is eaten as meat...even still born babies are seen as " meat"
The connection between this and the Ebola virus is well known and despite this the business flourishes in parts of Africa and the UK ( imported by African immigrants)
Unless people realise that a vegan diet is the healthier way to live, it will end up that humans revert to cannibalism as other meat sources are extinguished.

Oh, yes and incidentally this is a sky burial in Tibet, where bodies are fed to vultures. We are all meat, and I reckon this is as good a way to go as any!

I've had some pretty tough meat from KZ,and know of the problems they have had, but at the end of the day, they seem to still have the best choice in the local supermarkets. I will not buy off the street as the sight of flies turns me off and the lack of disposable gloves when cutting/serving and smoking while doing this. I bought four thick steaks at the 91Le price [118Le]. had one last night and I have to say it was absolutely delicious. It is a long time since I could say that concerning shop bought meat here, no matter the price.

I've seen plenty of flies in KZ and other filth and one hears constantly of them getting in trouble for health violations in the news. But the thing that really just turned me off big time was when one of the employees was standing on the deli counter to adjust a sign hanging from the ceiling, IN HIS BARE FEET. Who cares if they have plastic gloves on their hands when their dirty feet are being placed on the cutting surface?

I'm not a major meat consumer but, convenience aside, I think I'd rather buy meat from a grubby butcher than any pre-packed supermarket offering.

At least you know the former has been exposed to filth & can wash it thoroughly.

A nice piece of steak, cut & clingfilmed, can lull you into the belief that it doesn't warrant the same care.

Having spent some days in my youth in a food processing factory, trust me...it does!

I'm a vegan but am given to understand human meat is delicious, you probably already eat it Much of it imported from China...with 1.6 billion where do you think it all comes from?

You can usually visually decide the age of the meat on the counters. In KZ I always ask them to show me the meat outside of the range of counter lighting. Starving or not, I could just not envisage myself consuming one or two members on here, but a few choice short cuts would be good. As for buying meat in general, I would rather have a foot stained meat prep area than be served by a bollock scratching cig smoking nose picking arse plugging set of fingers any day. The former is easily sorted with a wash, the later needs decontamination.

Soylent green freshly prepared

http://metro.co.uk/2014/12/04/cannibal- ... h-4974132/

Meat for sale in the markets in Central America. Fresh meat is red. What isn't sold on day #1 fresh is taken home and salt is rubbed into it as a preservative. This causes the meat to yellow.



I've never bought and cooked this as am not too sure I could get past the yellow. I'd also think there would be boiling of the meat involved to remove the salt prior to eating. Just doesn't look that appealing to me.

Dusak wrote:

Zooropa wrote:Im afraid it was mealy mouthed in my view.

You allowed something which you didn't like and would not do yourself to occur in your own house.

The example was not silly, violence in a lot of cultures is accepted as part and parcel of everyday life.

Who are you to alter a persons way of life?

That's not the point really, its one thing to not interfere with that and another to allow them to do it in your home.

To say its ok to do something if its part of a culture gives free license to do a lot of bad things.

Im sorry my friend, but I question whether you would do the same thing in another house in every situation, im sure there are some things you would not accede to.

I just disagree with you that you think its ok to do things if its part of a culture, where do you draw the line?

We read on here recently about persecution of people attempting inter-faith relationships and FGM, I think you have spoken out against these things yet both could be described as part of the "culture"

You have quite rightly spoken out against the beating of females and have refused to engage with the people in your friends family that have done this but again this is very much part of the "culture".

I think you are being inconsistent.

Each to their own Zooropa. Just because I have voiced my opinions towards some ''cultural'' practices and objected strongly towards them, that does not mean that all should be placed into the same basket of ending them all. Take the animal rights movement when first started. They shouted out about cruelty to animals, that these painful experiments and treatments should be outlawed. So what did they do to put across their point? They kidnapped, firebombed their way through peoples lives. They released animals into the open that devastated the local wildlife, going on a killing spree themselves to survive. They have been linked to murder of scientists and researcher's involved in this field, a field of research that could save our lives, yours and your children's included, the dominant species of this planet. I know that this is not a ''cultural'' thing, but an example of how things can turn out when people that object to such practices, practices that have existed for hundreds of years are 'forced changed' on a population.

The decision that I made that day, was in my opinion, a valid on. The end result was that quite a few poor people in the area received meat. If you object to the act, then you have to object to the end result as well. One thing that I will never do is sign any form of partition against this that or the other, there are the correct channels to go through to achieve a change.

I see again that this post is being dominated by clergy with dirty habits and should people remove themselves from their religious beliefs because you and others do not prescribe to them. You have stated in the past that although you personally do not believe in such things people should be allowed to practice what is preached to them, then you have said in the past that all religions should be ended because you, and others, do not believe in God, heaven or hell. But others do. You smoke, and smoking has been referred to as a 'culture' but you strongly defend your right to smoke, yet condemn me for making a decision to engage myself within a culture that has existed far longer than the noble art of inhaling. Life is always about making decisions, sometimes you get it right, other times you get it wrong. In my case I'm quite happy with my decision.

On a final point, I have no problem with your terminology towards myself, a lively debate can enlighten, but a stagnant one, as this now is, only produces dross after many airings on the same topic.

Ive obviously hit a nerve here my friend as its not like you to misquote people.

Im afraid your post is strewn with errors which I must correct.

First of all, as stated, im not an animal lover and don't agree with some of the "terrorist" animal groups - they are just nasty undemocratic hypocrites.

I agree that not everything should be placed into the same basket, some things in any culture are bad and others are not.

My argument is your stance that a cultural practice can be justified because its part of said culture, I disagree.

Ive never, ever said that all religions should be ended because I don't believe in them, so you are completely wrong there.

I may have eluded to the point of view that I think all religions should be ended, and I do, but that's because I believe them to be a blight on society, dangerous, divisive, homophobic, prejudiced, life threatening and harmful, not because I don't believe in the existence of a supreme deity.

I have no problem with people liking things I don't, I hate the colour pink but I don't want to ban it because I don't like it, nor do i want people to stop liking pink either, but then again the colour pink does not impact on my life and influence people who do impact my life quite like religion does, so maybe that explains why im not too fussed about pink.

Im mystified as to the point you are trying to make re smoking, it has no place in conjunction with you explaining your decision.

If anyone has said that smoking is a culture then they are wrong, its a nonsensical statement, smoking and many other things may be part of a culture but they are not in themselves a culture, that's like saying a wheel is a car, it is not it is merely a part of one.

I defend the right of people to smoke as long as respect and restraint is used in the presence of others who do not, I think that's fair enough.

I do not smoke and you are very aware of this!

Im not condemning you for your decision my friend, i was just disagreeing with you, so its unfair and inaccurate to say i was condemning you. You do what you like, I was just saying that a "culture" cannot be used to justify something which is wrong and the way animals are treated in this culture is wrong in my view.

I was just pointing out what I consider to be an inconsistency on your part.

Im not sure how trying to find an inconsistency on my part, even if you have found one or more which I don't believe you have, explains your inconsistency?

Im sure im inconsistent all the time, most of us are to one degree or other, we can discuss mine if you like but it cannot be used to explain yours, my friend.

I have no raw nerves to hit Zooropa and your comments were welcomed as most are concerning what I post.

One of the definitions of the word culture.


5.
the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group:
''the youth culture; the drug culture.'' [the smoking culture]

Smokers are united in their beliefs that they have the right to smoke, myself included. And smoking has been referred to as a cultural practice for decades. They are also collectively engaging in a prolonged mass suicide, myself included, as the affects of the chemicals in the tobacco take their hold within our system. We are also responsible, us smokers, for the countless thousands of deaths around the world due to the results of passive smoking. Family, friends and total strangers all fall victims to an unwanted and untimely death due to us. Health systems around the world waste much needed money looking after and treating the problems created by smoking.

Any intelligent person or government would/should ban tobacco as a product, but this would have the adverse affect on the countries revenues, create mass unemployment and exacerbate the already high poverty levels which the tobacco producing countries suffer from that employ thousands of workers, paying them a monthly pittance. So what is more important? The cost of innocent lives, or the sustainability of a nations fiances. This is a culture at its worst, but we allow it to continue. I choose to smoke knowing this, as I chose to have a sheep slaughtered on my doorstep. If you read this in time, I would suggest that you watch the E-cig program that I've given information on posted the other day, what you believe is just water vapor is much more. The tobacco industry is going to throw money in the direction of any research that proves the E-cig is not all that it seems, to them the market is worth billions each year, a sum that they are not willingly going to take a cut from.

Evolution (or the Almighty if you prefer) was 'avin' a Turkish when it/HE gave us a brain to ponder these issues.

Bloody annoying sometimes

Oh to be a long-tailed, big-eared mouse. All I'd have to worry about is the next meal....and dodging Dusak's cats

Dusak wrote:I have no raw nerves to hit Zooropa and your comments were welcomed as most are concerning what I post.

One of the definitions of the word culture.


5.
the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group:
''the youth culture; the drug culture.'' [the smoking culture]

Smokers are united in their beliefs that they have the right to smoke, myself included. And smoking has been referred to as a cultural practice for decades. They are also collectively engaging in a prolonged mass suicide, myself included, as the affects of the chemicals in the tobacco take their hold within our system. We are also responsible, us smokers, for the countless thousands of deaths around the world due to the results of passive smoking. Family, friends and total strangers all fall victims to an unwanted and untimely death due to us. Health systems around the world waste much needed money looking after and treating the problems created by smoking.

Any intelligent person or government would/should ban tobacco as a product, but this would have the adverse affect on the countries revenues, create mass unemployment and exacerbate the already high poverty levels which the tobacco producing countries suffer from that employ thousands of workers, paying them a monthly pittance. So what is more important? The cost of innocent lives, or the sustainability of a nations fiances. This is a culture at its worst, but we allow it to continue. I choose to smoke knowing this, as I chose to have a sheep slaughtered on my doorstep. If you read this in time, I would suggest that you watch the E-cig program that I've given information on posted the other day, what you believe is just water vapor is much more. The tobacco industry is going to throw money in the direction of any research that proves the E-cig is not all that it seems, to them the market is worth billions each year, a sum that they are not willingly going to take a cut from.

Well, im afraid your misquoting me again Dusak, its getting irritating!

I have never said, that e-cigs are just water vapour, never.

I have said that the "smoke" some posters referred to is just water vapour, actually its a little more than water vapour but its not smoke and does no harm to people around you.

Im sorry, you can use as many definitions as you like, your stretching the point re smoking and culture.

Smoking may, in some circles for decades have been referred to as a culture, but in my view its not, its a practice and a behaviour and is no different to saying that almost any habit or practice is a culture, the "washing your clothes in a washing machine" culture, the "eating your dinner at the dinner table" culture. As we quite often do, we are commonly miss using words out of context to the extent that in a lot of cases more people use a word incorrectly as those who don't.

In my view this is such an example.

When people refer to a smoking culture or a culture of crime or a culture of violence they are referring to a practice that is becoming common place in a particular area or country etc and, for the most post is a passing practice that most of the time goes away.

Cultures endure.

This is not like a "culture" in the true sense of the word, a proper culture is a tradition that's handed down and has been prevalent over a long period of time, its a collection of practices, beliefs and customs.


A culture is a collection of practices, customs and beliefs and no single act should be described as a culture, not in the proper sense of the word.

I still maintain that smoking whilst part of a culture is not a culture in itself and not in the true sense of the word and you are over stretching it as part of your argument my good sir.

I don't think either of us should get onto the topic of passive smoking.

Like climate change after it, theres has been much muddying of the water, hyped up inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims and the general public has and is being mislead.

Do not forget that "studies" have to be funded and the people funding them, including and especially governments have a vested interest.

A journalist once posed as a scientist and approached several companies and bodies requesting funding for a a study into the eating habits of the squirrel.

All were rejected.

He tried again but changed the study to how climate change is affecting the eating habits of the squirrel and was buried in cash.

I am not suggesting that passive smoking is good, only that there has been much hyping of the facts.

Governments are indeed hypocritical when it comes to smoking but I do not agree that any good government should ban it.

A governments job is to inform and give the facts so that we can decide, not to ban and to control.

Im sick to death of being told by the ever increasing socialist tendencies of all political forces whats good and whats not for me.

Give me the facts and let me decide.

As ever its a case of where you draw the line.

If you are going to ban smoking then why not fat people from over eating or any kind of sport that has risk or rock climbing or white water rafting?

I do demand the right to smoke, and that's fair enough as long as I don't affect others.

I demand the right to abuse my body in whatever way I choose, I pay my taxes and no one has the right to examine the reason why I may need medical assistance, have a go at all the lazy ******** that never work and have access to the same services - is my attitude to this and it will remain so.

I did predict on here that e-cigs would be found to be harmful, of course they would and im not saying that they are not but once again it comes down to vested interests.

E-cigs bad for you? - oh wed best tax the tits off it as a disinsentive, nothing to do with the fact that standard cigs are not bring in the dosh that they used to.

The report that Hepzibah quoted is the only one I know about, and it was only referring to some makes of e-cig and as such is incomplete regarding e-cigs as a whole.

And its only one study so no one should jump the gun here.

In any case I still believe at this point that they are less harmful to me than normal cigs, and I have lost my slight breathing problems since I quit so that's good enough for me.

The tobacco companies wont in my view throw money at any research, at the moment they are too busy jumping on the bandwagon.

Perhaps in readiness for the "e-cig culture" perhaps?

This quote is for me very telling:

How must they feel? those that have taken authority as the truth rather than the truth as the authority

Funnily enough, the guy who said that (i forget his name) is or was an Egyptologist.

Zooropa wrote:
This quote is for me very telling:

How must they feel? those that have taken authority as the truth rather than the truth as the authority

Funnily enough, the guy who said that (i forget his name) is or was an Egyptologist.

It was Gerald Massey and, yes, he's an egyptologist.

I've lost the score in the Dusak - Zooropa match. Where are we.....15-30?

Smokers are addicts. Their body has a need for nicotine. Many don't WANT to smoke, but got addicted before they knew any better. Choosing to smoke or take any other addictive drug once you are already addicted is hardly the same as choosing to slaughter an animal on your doorstep. If you don't slaughter an animal, there won't be any withdraw symptoms to be felt.

Smoking may be more common in some cultures just as certain other addictive drugs are more common in one culture or another, but once someone is addicted, it ceases to become an issue of culture as much as it becomes a chemical trap.

I perceive the sound of splitting hairs here.

Smoking is, of course, a habit but how often do you hear people speak of the "culture of smoking" in Egypt?

And some people take up smoking because that's what their associates are doing...copying a habit...rather as Egyptians might copy the custom of slaughtering animals to propitiate the jinns or whatever.

Anyway...before I lose the plot...where are we score-wise? 15-40? Mind you, it has turned into a doubles match Dusak so you may need to find a partner.

Hardly cricket...what?