It's my new car!

Awww he waited for me!

Just a block or so north of 17th street and PCH; look over to the far right and you can see Ruby's on the Pier.

To the persecuted carni/omnivores:

I apologise for being so confusing in my previous post. I will clarify with a more organised version:

Given:
X.) As we live on earth, we must eat to survive.
Y.) Anything we eat must die.

Scenario # 1: ''Hierarchy''
ALL lives are valued differently, and some lives are more valuable than others.

What we can conclude:
A.) Cows deserve to live more than plants.
B.) Humans deserve to live more than cows.
1.) Wait, how did I arrive at Conclusion B?! The same way anyone arrived at the conclusion it was less evil to eat plants than cows.
C.) It is not wrong for humans to kill cows for food.
D.) It it less wrong for humans to kill plants for food.

IF Scenario # 1 is wrong to say that some things deserve life over others (Human > cow > soy ), then everything has the same right to live as everything else (human = cow = soy).

Scenario # 2: ''Pervasive Equality''
ALL lives are valued equally and have an equal right to life.

What we can conclude:
A.) It is just as bad to kill a cow or plant for food as it would be to kill a person for food.
B.) Humans still must kill in order to eat.
C.) Rather than killing humans; cows and plants are killed, incurring the same guilt nonetheless.
1.) if you have killed a carrot by eating it, you may as well have killed a cow or a person.
D.) In this scenario, killing a cow or killing a plant deserves no condemation, since all must kill to eat, so all are equally guilty.
1.) if you farm cows for food, you ARE killing more plants than those who eat strictly plants; however, ALL are murderers in the gravest degree.
a.) Mathematically speaking, the cow farmer has caused more death, but how many times must one kill before he is considered a murderer?


Conclusion:
Scenario # 1.: Eating animals is okay. Eating plants is ''more okay.'' Neither action is bad. Eating humans is the most evil thing to eat.

Scenario # 2.: Eating animals is terrible. Eating plants is terrible. In order to survive, we must do terrible things. Eating humans is just as bad as eating anything else. Just...please, don't eat humans, okay?

What cannot be is (human = cow > soy) Either there is total Pervasive Equality, or there is a hierarchy. If some lives are equal to humans, and other lives are not, who gets to make such an arbitrary judgement which determines the morality of everyone else's food?

*here's the reason this post was originally written*
Those who still eat meat are made to feel guilty (by SOME vegetarians/vegans, not all) by means of the ''Pervasive Equality'' idea. If Pervasive Equality is true, then everyone who lives is a murderer, and to point a blood-stained finger and shout through dripping red teeth at your brother or sister they are a murderer is more evil than necessary.
*that was the reason this post was originally written---^*

For the record, I identify with the ''Hierarchy'' idea. I addressed ''Pervasive Equality'' to show, in its entirety, the reasoning being used to condemn omnivores/carnivores for eating animals when, according to some, there is more equality across different life forms than others are aware of.

For example, let's say you draw the line at cows, and say it's wrong to eat cows. That's fine for you, but to push that guilt system on someone who loves hamburger is wrong. You have drawn the line, but what about that other person? What if THEY want to draw a line? Doesn't it matter what they say, every bit as much as what you say? Who wins? Either: (Scenario#1).: lines can be drawn by everyone, or (Scenario#2).: no lines can ever be drawn; otherwise it just gets tainted by one person's personal arbitration. This means that ''Pervasive Equality'' is the only other viable scenario to the ''Hierarchy'' idea (i.e.: ''If they're not all unequal, then they are all equal.'')

This is different from your own personal code of ethics. I won't touch that. This is talking about the institution of a policy on all people (something I wouldn't attempt, but it seems others are more bold than I am.) in Scenario # 1, it's not wrong to eat cows. Stop putting guilt trips on me. In Scenario # 2, how can you condemn me while the blood is still fresh on your hands?

Also, please don't ask me to defend ''Pervasive Equality'' (questions/statements such as ''why don't we eat humans, then?'' and ''well, your cow farms kill more plants than we do.''). It's not my stance. I know that cow farms cause the death of countless plants. I don't care about plants that cows eat. You (though not ALL of you) wanted to condemn me based on ''Pervasive Equality,'' why are you asking me to defend your own position?

Cali Pics

Click the pics for larger versions :-)

My first night in California, Miss Ortal took me to Moonshine, an adorable restaurant in Malibu, just off the Pacific Coast Highway. It was perfect. Good food, fresh ocean air... :-)

A few days later, Miss Joni and I met up at In 'n Out and fed the little birdies our leftover french fries :-) awwww look at 'im! :-)

Then we went to huntington beach, where we first met :-)

I wrote in the sand and took a picture of what I wrote, because that's how I roll.

And here's California, being photogenic, again ;-)

Then today, I was driving around and found this place near Camino Estrella and Camino Capistrano, in Dana Point. That's a good view of Dana Harbour in the distance.

High tide of the same scene I took pictures of about a year and 5 months ago.

Look at all those pelicans hangin' out on that rock... pelicanning.

That's right between the pelican rock and the big rock. See in the distance, there would be a walking trail to go around to the cave, but it's allllll under water! So, I went to the jetty.

This is about halfway on the jetty, looking south.

Same picture, with the moon at the top :-)

Hey man, you should watch where you're walking. I bet that rock's slippery.

Oh, hey guys! I mean...gulls ;-)

This one gallie said...

Warning! Warning! Rant in... 3... 2... 1...I'm sick to death of listening to people talk about how much they love animals and care about the environment, how much they want to save the world...PUT DOWN YOUR STEAK! If you loved animals and the environment so much, you wouldn't be eating animals and thusly killing it. There are so many facts and figures I could throw at you, but instead I'll repost something from this...

"#6, is a first time mother. She is frantic. Her baby is missing. She is pacing desperately up and down the paddock, bellowing and crying, and calling for her lost boy, fearing the worst, having her fears confirmed. She is one of the thousands of defenseless females born into a quaint, verdant, organic dairy farm. She will spend her entire short life grieving the loss of baby after baby. She will be milked relentlessly through repeated cycles of pregnancies and bereavements. Her only experience of motherhood will be that of a mother's worst loss. In the prime of her life, her body will give, her spirit will break, her milk 'production' will decline, and she will be sent to a horrifying slaughter, along with other grieving, defeated, 'spent' mothers like herself.

She is the face of organic milk.

"You cannot care about animals or the environment THAT MUCH as long as you go on consuming them and their bi-products.


So I said:

Dear _________, you had to know you'd get some people riled up with a post like this. I love ranting like this, though, so I can't say much about that.

I will say this, though: soy is still murder. It's just that soy doesn't scream when you kill it, so those who kill it don't feel so guilty.

We're a part of the earth, so eating other things on earth will happen.

Suppose eating soy is decidedly not as bad as killing cows. Fine. In that case, some lives are more valuable than others.

1. Is a human life, then, more valuable than that of a cow?
2. If so, then why is it less important that humans to live and be happy than it is for cows?

However, if a cow's life is significant to such a degree that humans ought not eat cows, then all life, likewise, shares that same pervasive significance; even though one must still eat living matter to survive.

1. In that case, it is the same sin to eat soy as it is to eat cows, and we might as well eat cows if we're going to ''mercilessly slaughter'' countless soy plants.
2. It would be better to kill just a few cows, so that less lives will be snuffed out.

either way, using cows for food is not as evil as you make it out to be.

you're as ________ as you think you are

having things and being happy are two different things.

1.) it can be right in front of you, everything you wanted, but if you're not convinced in your own heart/mind that you are happy, you will be miserable.

2.) on the other hand, you can have what some would consider a ''shit life'' but can be convinced that you are truly happy in it.

a person is rich in proportion to the things he is willing to live without.

100% of people who live will die. the things that make you cry the happy tears on your deathbed can't be bought with money.

And really, the ''things'' that make you cry happy tears on your deathbed aren't ''things'' at all. they're ideas.

happiness, or more accurately, your state of mind, has effects on the physical world, not the other way around.

That which you imagine, feeling its end, will bring itself about. your imagination is creative. it creates what you live: happy or sad.

disagree? well it sure isn't gold that makes you happy ;-) it isn't a bunch of ppl who make you happy either. you know you can be surrounded by lots of friends, and yet feel all alone.

you also know you can talk to just one really good friend, and they don't say a word, and you feel better. what has that good friend done to make you feel better? nothing. absolutely nothing. the ''healing'' took place in your mind, in your perception of your friend. it all depended on what you were convinced of.

you are convinced of the truths that govern your life, and that is the only thing that makes them true. yes, the line is drawn in some places; proving that there is an absolute truth** that keeps everything within certain boundaries. but as far as having a happy and successful life are concerned, it's what you imagine, feeling its accomplishment, that shows itself on the screen of your ''life movie.''




** Note: absolute truth has been dealt with in the previous entry ''perception is delusion.''

you'll never get the patent for this idea...

brake lights that extend all the way across the back of the vehicle, and the harder the brake pedal is pressed, the more of them light up. THAT way, you can tell how hard the person in front of you is braking, so you can either avoid being in a pile-up, or tell if the person in front of you is just riding his brake down the hill.


And while we're at it, let's add a similar apparatus to the dash, so the driver can tell if he or she is braking harder than normal because let's face it...some people brake extrememly hard: they wait till there's 15 feet of stopping distance to go from 50 mph to''0.''


and don't give me that ''oh, that's a worthless invention.'' The WHEEL SENSOR was a worthless invention. just check your air monthly like you're supposed to, right? All it does is cost ABSURD amounts of money, be complicated, be easily broken, slow down the tire changing process, and my idea would actually be used all the time to save lives and improve the flow of traffic...make it not so much of a stressful thing, too.

Awww look at little Plantie! he thinks it's springtime. Aww :-)

And here is Little Sprout. i know the seed came from plantie, i'm positive. maybe it was the milkman... i don't even have a milk man, so i should have suspected something when he showed up that one day...

don't worry, i'm going to find out very soon what kind of plant Little Sprout is...he's actually starting to form bark already, and he's got a few flowers starting. he's only a few months old!