Hmmm! For centuries various people have taken parts of select passages from the Bible to create an entirely different context to suit their own purposes.... seems what I have written here has suffered the same fate.  And such strong language too... me being guilty of worse atrocities than someone who, from a safe distance, picks up a gun and shoots a defenceless wild animal, and with no need whatsoever to do so.  It's one thing to have a topical opinion, but that' personal and is going too far.

Doc, if you re-read my post, you will see that I am quite aware of the fact that some people can not access a butcher shop and thus must depend on hunting/slaughtering their own animals for food: eg, those in isolated locations, etc. 

As for the images of slaughthouses, my brother-in-law owns a sheep farm and slaughters his own sheep for local butchers, friends and family, etc... when a sheep was slaughtered for the missus and I, I was involved/assisted him in the process, so I have no illusions and know all about getting my hands bloody to put meat on the table when there IS a need.

Yeah, I'm with Doc Jo on this one... I'm out too.

Again, the animals being slaughtered for you by others are also defenceless and you too have no need whatsoever to eat meat.

Does the Bible add that this only applies to some people but not others?

I hate to use Christianity as an argument against something Jewish, but you seem to be very willing to cast the first stone, despite the fact that you call "filth" an explanation of why using bad words can be considered wrong.

I'm still trying to get down the concept of 'humane butcher.'

One that doesn't hurt animals more than needed.

They love them to death.

Not bloodlust - what they call sport.  And as they do consume the meat (which means they do not deprive others of that satisfaction) they are just part of the food chain - like you.  Perhaps more honest in that they donot demand their food in tiny desicated pellets that have no inkling of their living origin.

Only if you have lost all objectivity.  I guess if she was black, you would declare nigger to be legitimate too.

Dr Guy ....are you trying to be objectionable or just argumentative?

Last time I checked 'bitch' is not a taboo word no matter who/what it's applied to.  The same does not apply to 'nigger'.

If she were black I'd not be calling her 'nigger' just as I do not call her 'bitch' now, either.

I have a better handle on vocabulary and English expression.

If someone else calls her  'bitch' I'll let it wash....if someone calls someone a 'nigger' I'll remove their posting privileges here.

I call her a naive incompetent....and you can argue the validity/veracity as much as you wish...

In Dr. Guy's defense, Jafo, I took it that he was pointing out that the social acceptability of epithets is now defined by the objects of those epithets.  You may not consider the word 'taboo' but I doubt women object any less vigorously to the B word than blacks do to the N word.  The only truly acceptable use of the word bitch is to describe a female canine.

Might want to recheck that.

At one time, I would wager the majority of Americans didn't see the N word as pejorative either. My money is also on the B word becoming less and less socially acceptable.

Paranoid much? You ever thought that these kind of pictures might just come from someone who thinks she's an idiot and wants a laugh?

Or is everything on this planet a dichotomy now? "You are either with us or against us!"

 But what about us new guys who want to learn the trade? Are we to go to da? Who will answer questions? We need you guys, come back!

Necrothread...

Shoulda stayed necro, imho.

Just keep on working on your Mandarin Chinese...