ashley-h, fair enough, but what I probably should of said is in my time I've come accross the extreme vegos especially those damn PETA tools and their mulesing campaigns (i know it's not ideal but it is necessary) I have no problem with vegetarians until they start complaining or getting all worked up over something making something that has happened for millions of years into a big issue all of a sudden, If this makes little sense it is late and I am tired
The eating of meat - The Vegetarian discussion
- Thread starter Sun Wukong
- Start date
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@Pygathrix: Your wish shall be granted-here's the answer, yet it's not the harsh and vain one You seemed to try to provoke:
1. The destruction/ non- or less sustainable use of rainforests or other landscapes isn't a result of one cause; it's multiple factors combined. This variability is important to keep in mind when talking about this subject and asking for the "truth". Due to this multifactorial cause, the shift to a less meat-orientated nutrition among the consumers would mean a shift torwards other products (as 6 billion people want their hunger to be satisfied)-which would consequently increase the need of producing these products. And as products generally don't pop up by themselves, this would lead to the destruction and industrial use of the land, just not for meat, but for something else, as the numbers of the consumers and their need to eat exists, with or without meat consumption. Simplified: if the farmers can't grow beef on the former rainforest, he will turn to something else-f.e. soy beans, pineapples, bananas... The result, the destruction of the natural habitat, is pretty much the same-or even worse. Does that now sound logical to You?
One should not draw the incorrect conclusion that this is an excuse for defeatism, or "nihilism"; instead, it should make You think more deeply how this sweeping vicious circle could be avoided, before falling prematurely for an only at first sight promising option. And the demand that people should eat less is a very friendly one, yet most likely impossible to accomplish: people want to eat, and satisfying their appetite is one of the strongest natural drives humans have. I'm honest enough to say that if I'm really hungry or thirsty, I frankly don't care about the rainforest. Do You @all?
2. Your 4 year-old list (honestly, I'm always suspicious of such lists...) still indicates that the majority of the populations of these countries isn't obese; so is it just the obese members of these societies that are responsible for this calamity? Before You flare up about this obvious thick-wittedness of mine, let me pacify You: I understood Your bloomy paraphrase right from the start; yet I wanted to show that a) the ever-growing industrial and consumptive hunger is no longer limited to the western countries, especially not due to China & India and b) this paraphrase, "fat b." has been so excessively used by various political parties that it's only result on me is one of cynical nature.
Japan btw. is a great example of a sudden increase of obesity in the last years-among others, due to a change of eating. Of course not every Japanese reaches the dimensions of Sumo wrestlers-but neither are the driving forces behind greedy & destructive international wheeling and dealing fat people; most often, the only fat or rather "phat" thing about them is their bank accounts and the limousines they use...
BTW: lederhosen? Sorry to contradict again: like I said before, I'm not a German; and it's awkward that Your stereotype of Germans just consist of such incorrect completely outdated assumptions. The percentage of Japanese being Sumo wrestlers is probably way, way higher than that of Germans or German-speaker wearing "lederhosen" and listening to brass band. Actually, it's mainly the tourists at the German Oktoberfests that wear "lederhosen"-or love the sound of an "oompah band" (not for soccer qualifying matches, though...). And as I can remember, there are quite a bunch of Brits among them loudly enjoying those folklore activities, especially the beer and the neck lines of the cute German girls' dirndl...
3. Thanks for honouring me with the omnipotence in terms of giving "permissions". In the case of NZ Jeremy, however, it was just a acknowledgement of his idea of consumption from my side, even if I don't share his opinion here.
Nevertheless, feel free to follow my "permission" a) to travel to Germany (or some of the other German-speaking countries mainland Europe has to offer) to find out that there's more about these countries than outdated stereotypes and b) not feel personally offended by posts if they contradict Your opinion.
I'm neither interested in showing off or engaging in sexual display patterns to attract females ( this forum isn't the best place for the latter, anyway...
); I'm just mildly alluding to certain inconsistencies and beg to differ if appropriate.
@Jarkari: Thanks for the affirmation.
@ashley-h, I have read and heard many times when vegans & veggies used the term "meat eater" or " meat devourer" to describe people disagreeing with their ideas-and I think I wasn't the only one who somehow received the impression that this was not meant jokingly...
@NZ Jeremy: thanks for the soy product offer-but I grew up in an area full of milk farms, studied a bit about milk science (indeed, something like this does exist) and can't resist the taste of calcium-rich milk and milk products. Additionally, I'm suspicious about the all too positive recent marketing of soy products, espcially in terms of phytoestrogen effects.
1. The destruction/ non- or less sustainable use of rainforests or other landscapes isn't a result of one cause; it's multiple factors combined. This variability is important to keep in mind when talking about this subject and asking for the "truth". Due to this multifactorial cause, the shift to a less meat-orientated nutrition among the consumers would mean a shift torwards other products (as 6 billion people want their hunger to be satisfied)-which would consequently increase the need of producing these products. And as products generally don't pop up by themselves, this would lead to the destruction and industrial use of the land, just not for meat, but for something else, as the numbers of the consumers and their need to eat exists, with or without meat consumption. Simplified: if the farmers can't grow beef on the former rainforest, he will turn to something else-f.e. soy beans, pineapples, bananas... The result, the destruction of the natural habitat, is pretty much the same-or even worse. Does that now sound logical to You?
One should not draw the incorrect conclusion that this is an excuse for defeatism, or "nihilism"; instead, it should make You think more deeply how this sweeping vicious circle could be avoided, before falling prematurely for an only at first sight promising option. And the demand that people should eat less is a very friendly one, yet most likely impossible to accomplish: people want to eat, and satisfying their appetite is one of the strongest natural drives humans have. I'm honest enough to say that if I'm really hungry or thirsty, I frankly don't care about the rainforest. Do You @all?
2. Your 4 year-old list (honestly, I'm always suspicious of such lists...) still indicates that the majority of the populations of these countries isn't obese; so is it just the obese members of these societies that are responsible for this calamity? Before You flare up about this obvious thick-wittedness of mine, let me pacify You: I understood Your bloomy paraphrase right from the start; yet I wanted to show that a) the ever-growing industrial and consumptive hunger is no longer limited to the western countries, especially not due to China & India and b) this paraphrase, "fat b." has been so excessively used by various political parties that it's only result on me is one of cynical nature.
Japan btw. is a great example of a sudden increase of obesity in the last years-among others, due to a change of eating. Of course not every Japanese reaches the dimensions of Sumo wrestlers-but neither are the driving forces behind greedy & destructive international wheeling and dealing fat people; most often, the only fat or rather "phat" thing about them is their bank accounts and the limousines they use...
BTW: lederhosen? Sorry to contradict again: like I said before, I'm not a German; and it's awkward that Your stereotype of Germans just consist of such incorrect completely outdated assumptions. The percentage of Japanese being Sumo wrestlers is probably way, way higher than that of Germans or German-speaker wearing "lederhosen" and listening to brass band. Actually, it's mainly the tourists at the German Oktoberfests that wear "lederhosen"-or love the sound of an "oompah band" (not for soccer qualifying matches, though...). And as I can remember, there are quite a bunch of Brits among them loudly enjoying those folklore activities, especially the beer and the neck lines of the cute German girls' dirndl...
3. Thanks for honouring me with the omnipotence in terms of giving "permissions". In the case of NZ Jeremy, however, it was just a acknowledgement of his idea of consumption from my side, even if I don't share his opinion here.
Nevertheless, feel free to follow my "permission" a) to travel to Germany (or some of the other German-speaking countries mainland Europe has to offer) to find out that there's more about these countries than outdated stereotypes and b) not feel personally offended by posts if they contradict Your opinion.
I'm neither interested in showing off or engaging in sexual display patterns to attract females ( this forum isn't the best place for the latter, anyway...
); I'm just mildly alluding to certain inconsistencies and beg to differ if appropriate.@Jarkari: Thanks for the affirmation.
@ashley-h, I have read and heard many times when vegans & veggies used the term "meat eater" or " meat devourer" to describe people disagreeing with their ideas-and I think I wasn't the only one who somehow received the impression that this was not meant jokingly...
@NZ Jeremy: thanks for the soy product offer-but I grew up in an area full of milk farms, studied a bit about milk science (indeed, something like this does exist) and can't resist the taste of calcium-rich milk and milk products. Additionally, I'm suspicious about the all too positive recent marketing of soy products, espcially in terms of phytoestrogen effects.
Last edited:
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@ashley-h: For me, "meat-eater" is a synonym for "carnivore". Therefore, using this term as a differentiation or sometimes discrimination isn't correct. Unlike real "meat-eaters" like cats, I don't eat just (!) meat-I eat different foods, may they be animal products or not; therefore, like it was mentioned before, the term "omnivore" would be, if at all such labelling is used, more appropriate. Similarily, a vegetarian doesn't only eat just plants, but also consumes animal products-sometimes even unknowingly (cakes, cough lollies etc.)
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@ashley-h: That's OK if You just wanted to state that. In my opinion, however, the term "meat eater" is misused by at least a part of the vegetarian & vegan community in the somehow discriminating, "labelling" way I mentioned. And here lies the danger of misunderstanding each other. Maybe let's just agree on "non-veggies" or "omnivores" then, eh?
ShadowMan5
Member
I'm quite happy to eat meat, indeed, I don't think I could get through life without bacon butties ..Noooo! 
Got nothing against people whose preferred food is vegatables either, indeed, favourite food in summer is salad, can't get enough of the stuff when it's warm. (The weather that is - not the salad )
Choosing vegan / veggie for health reasons or personal choice is fine, not my thing, but then neither is squid.
However, what I wonder about is people who are against eating meat on "ethical grounds" who then quite happily, will wear or use leather.
To me, if you're going to kill an animal for it's hide and it's edible, it's only proper to use as much of it as you can.
Now if you can't stand the taste, that's good, I can't say I'm fond of tripe, though me ole dad loves it, but an animal kept in poor conditions and killed inhumanely is in the same situation be it for lining your sofa, car or shoes, or indeed, your stomach.
Saw a program not long back where a woman was remonstrating about how cows are killed, whilst sat on a huge leather settee. Strangely, she did not see the irony of it. Indeed, scarily, she couldn't figure out what the interviewer was trying to say when he pointed it out - Eeek!
Now I am not saying vegans / vegetarians are all like this, but to me, it's more 'natural' to eat the flesh and wear the hide than it is to kill simply for fur.
(Which is an altogether different area of debate).
Got nothing against people whose preferred food is vegatables either, indeed, favourite food in summer is salad, can't get enough of the stuff when it's warm. (The weather that is - not the salad
)Choosing vegan / veggie for health reasons or personal choice is fine, not my thing, but then neither is squid.
However, what I wonder about is people who are against eating meat on "ethical grounds" who then quite happily, will wear or use leather.
To me, if you're going to kill an animal for it's hide and it's edible, it's only proper to use as much of it as you can.
Now if you can't stand the taste, that's good, I can't say I'm fond of tripe, though me ole dad loves it, but an animal kept in poor conditions and killed inhumanely is in the same situation be it for lining your sofa, car or shoes, or indeed, your stomach.
Saw a program not long back where a woman was remonstrating about how cows are killed, whilst sat on a huge leather settee. Strangely, she did not see the irony of it. Indeed, scarily, she couldn't figure out what the interviewer was trying to say when he pointed it out - Eeek!
Now I am not saying vegans / vegetarians are all like this, but to me, it's more 'natural' to eat the flesh and wear the hide than it is to kill simply for fur.
(Which is an altogether different area of debate).
Ashley-h and Sun. . . I'd say 90% of the population would agree with ashley-h in calling non- vegetarians meat eaters, i call myself a meateater. Why not Sun, The majority of carnivores do eat other kinds of non animal foods. A Carnivore is something that primarily eats meat, not only eats meat.
NZ Jeremy
Well-Known Member
I don't know what this means nor do I want to..! LOL
Sun - you really are quite literal aren't you? You'd be a hoot at the Asperger's Christmas Party!
When your wife met you did she think she had found Mr Right? Only to realise later that your first name is "I'm Always"?
*(Apologies if I have the genders the wrong way round).
Don't take any of this as criticism - we are who we are!
I've even filled in part of your reply for you already:
@Pygathrix
Quote: your first name is "I'm Always"
This is two forenames so I'm afraid You're wrong
When your wife met you did she think she had found Mr Right? Only to realise later that your first name is "I'm Always"?
*(Apologies if I have the genders the wrong way round).
Don't take any of this as criticism - we are who we are!
I've even filled in part of your reply for you already:
@Pygathrix
Quote: your first name is "I'm Always"
This is two forenames so I'm afraid You're wrong
ShadowMan5
Member
Yup, I agree, I figure you're either against animals dying for our consumption and "benefit" (eg, leather, oils ets..) or you're not.
Eggs is more of a grey area, but still, if you think about what an egg is, a similar argument could be made. Where possible, I'd love to buy from places that gave their animals a good life and were handled well - not least of which, the meat from the animals so kept is always better in quality.
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@Pygathrix: At first You allege that I'm engaging here in courtship behaviour, and now I'm married; interesting...
I'm actually pretty disappointed about Your response-and this was indeed meant seriously. It seems that my assumption, based on previous posts, of You as an intelligent and clever person has been a little too premature, maybe.
I really expected more from You than a quite ineffectual attempt to lower the level of the discussion down to mere personal mud-throwing. I also doubt that there are no rational arguments You could have used to parry my last post. It seems that You wanted to quit the dispute-that's fine with me. But there are smarter & more polite ways to end a displeasing dispute than by trying to personally insult the dialogue partner, don't You think?
And btw.: I fail to find even the slightest humour in calling someone an autistic notorious clever clogs; that's just little boys' way of debating at basic education. Neither can I find any apposite "criticism" in Your last post-only a rather unconcealed defamation and an ineptly allegation relating to my very person. If You fell unable to argument rationally and want to insult me personally, then please do it in a more mature and clever way next time; for instance, You could rely on the famous British sarcastic black humour-or is this marvellous stereotypical trait equally outdated as German "lederhosen" (which btw. are usually part of only South German ancient customs; do all residents of the UK hence wear kilts?)
And to borrow Your not quite comprehensible little word game:
"I'm Always"...interested in a good discussion, but not in filial jawing matches...
Have a nice week.
I'm actually pretty disappointed about Your response-and this was indeed meant seriously. It seems that my assumption, based on previous posts, of You as an intelligent and clever person has been a little too premature, maybe.
I really expected more from You than a quite ineffectual attempt to lower the level of the discussion down to mere personal mud-throwing. I also doubt that there are no rational arguments You could have used to parry my last post. It seems that You wanted to quit the dispute-that's fine with me. But there are smarter & more polite ways to end a displeasing dispute than by trying to personally insult the dialogue partner, don't You think?
And btw.: I fail to find even the slightest humour in calling someone an autistic notorious clever clogs; that's just little boys' way of debating at basic education. Neither can I find any apposite "criticism" in Your last post-only a rather unconcealed defamation and an ineptly allegation relating to my very person. If You fell unable to argument rationally and want to insult me personally, then please do it in a more mature and clever way next time; for instance, You could rely on the famous British sarcastic black humour-or is this marvellous stereotypical trait equally outdated as German "lederhosen" (which btw. are usually part of only South German ancient customs; do all residents of the UK hence wear kilts?)
And to borrow Your not quite comprehensible little word game:
"I'm Always"...interested in a good discussion, but not in filial jawing matches...
Have a nice week.
Last edited:
I'm sorry you regarded my last post as mud-slinging, that was not my intention. However I do think that it is difficult to argue with a concrete thinker who wishes to score points no matter what. Eg, the very point of my Lederhosen comment was that it is a foolish stereotype which does not represent the German people, like your comment about Sumo wrestlers. I'm sorry you missed this point.
Regarding the "I'm always, Mr Right" thing, this is a joke, although old and perhaps not very funny. I did think you might be married as you mentioned your children in the first post - how very old-fashioned of me!
And why do you assume I am British? You are at least partly wrong.
To get back on topic: my contention is that, broadly, reducing the amount of meat we eat will improve our health and make it easier for the earth to support its growing population. Obviously the issues are much more complex than this, but I think it is true and you have said nothing to disprove this.
Best wishes
Regarding the "I'm always, Mr Right" thing, this is a joke, although old and perhaps not very funny. I did think you might be married as you mentioned your children in the first post - how very old-fashioned of me!
And why do you assume I am British? You are at least partly wrong.
To get back on topic: my contention is that, broadly, reducing the amount of meat we eat will improve our health and make it easier for the earth to support its growing population. Obviously the issues are much more complex than this, but I think it is true and you have said nothing to disprove this.
Best wishes
Last edited:
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@Pygathrix: About the "children" issue-this misunderstanding seems to be a result of the orginal context being split apart. I answered ashley-h's question regarding how to explain eating meat to kids in general.
At the moment, I do not have children on my own-I'm currently "the-awesome-relative-the-kids-turn-to-if-Mommy-doesn't-want-to-buy-the-new-IPod". And like You, I seem to be equally old-fashioned as I usually suspect children = marriage...
I'm not interested in "scoring points". Like I wrote before, I'm not a shilly-shally kind of person; if I'm convinced of something, I usually vouch for it, honestly. That does not mean that I'm dogmatic and mulish; but the argument has to be plausible, provable and reasonable to convince me of the opposite and change my mind.
The "Sumo Wrestler" reference was actually a broad hint in regard to the "fat-behinded Europeans & Americans" to underline the equally stereotype of this bloomy circumscription and to remind of the increasingly important part Asia (especially Japan & China) as consumers play in this affair. Yet to be totally "I'm always", I might add that Sumo wrestling is still part of Japanese modern culture, wheras lederhosen have the single role in the German, or rather Bavarian, society as folcloric tourist attractions and in the last years as a very expensive fashion item for young dandies at the Munich Oktoberfest.
Trachten Angermaier - Modisch in Leder - Stark in Tracht
The only German "Oomph" band I know of:
OOMPH! - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
British assumption? See at Your "location".
Back to the main subject: Actually, I did (another "bossy" moment) write quite a few things in regard to this subject, but I might add some more:
It's way too easy (and not really correct) to blame western meat consumption as the main culprit for all the things going wrong in this world. There is way too much interdigitation on all levels of human life & consumption to narrow down the issue on this tiny aspect. I can give You a good example: in 1997, the consumption of milk products in Europe skyrocked, just like the European consumption of exotic meat(kangaroo, croc etc.) in the same year and in 2006. The main reason? BSE and Avian Flu. And how do You get milk? From lactating cows-which have to give birth to lactate, which means more calves are produced->beef/veal. Consumer behaviour can change radically-but it's like a pair of balances; if You take something away from one side, it will have an effect on the other. After all, the number of consumers doesn't equally dwindle-it rather increases day by day.
Yes, eating less meat would have its benefits-but it's the downregulation of the general consumptive behaviour and the improving of living conditions that is really desirable. People don't become sick just because they eat too many beef patties and the Amazonian Rainforest is not just cut down to make room for some extra zebu-crossbreads; in both cases, it's a multi-factor issue. There are two obstacles that make tackling & solving these problems almost impossible: the already mentioned number of 6 billion (constantly growing!) human consumers, and one trait which is actually one of the most important and probably most anthropogenic trait we all share: the will to reach the optimal for oneself and the ones closest and dearest to oneself. It's great if the western countries (who secretly still like to have a rich array of products in their local supermarket-including me) want to teach upcoming nations like China that they should limit their consumptive behaviour (including meat-eating) to turn for the better-but I can also understand that the Chinese could interpret this as patronizing and dominating behaviour. After all, they now want a piece of the action.
This does not indicate that the "tackling" should not be done; it just means that just eating meat for dinner on 4 (or 2 or 0) instead of 5 days a week doesn't have the proposed effect.
At the moment, I do not have children on my own-I'm currently "the-awesome-relative-the-kids-turn-to-if-Mommy-doesn't-want-to-buy-the-new-IPod". And like You, I seem to be equally old-fashioned as I usually suspect children = marriage...
I'm not interested in "scoring points". Like I wrote before, I'm not a shilly-shally kind of person; if I'm convinced of something, I usually vouch for it, honestly. That does not mean that I'm dogmatic and mulish; but the argument has to be plausible, provable and reasonable to convince me of the opposite and change my mind.
The "Sumo Wrestler" reference was actually a broad hint in regard to the "fat-behinded Europeans & Americans" to underline the equally stereotype of this bloomy circumscription and to remind of the increasingly important part Asia (especially Japan & China) as consumers play in this affair. Yet to be totally "I'm always", I might add that Sumo wrestling is still part of Japanese modern culture, wheras lederhosen have the single role in the German, or rather Bavarian, society as folcloric tourist attractions and in the last years as a very expensive fashion item for young dandies at the Munich Oktoberfest.
Trachten Angermaier - Modisch in Leder - Stark in Tracht
The only German "Oomph" band I know of:
OOMPH! - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
British assumption? See at Your "location".
Back to the main subject: Actually, I did (another "bossy" moment) write quite a few things in regard to this subject, but I might add some more:
It's way too easy (and not really correct) to blame western meat consumption as the main culprit for all the things going wrong in this world. There is way too much interdigitation on all levels of human life & consumption to narrow down the issue on this tiny aspect. I can give You a good example: in 1997, the consumption of milk products in Europe skyrocked, just like the European consumption of exotic meat(kangaroo, croc etc.) in the same year and in 2006. The main reason? BSE and Avian Flu. And how do You get milk? From lactating cows-which have to give birth to lactate, which means more calves are produced->beef/veal. Consumer behaviour can change radically-but it's like a pair of balances; if You take something away from one side, it will have an effect on the other. After all, the number of consumers doesn't equally dwindle-it rather increases day by day.
Yes, eating less meat would have its benefits-but it's the downregulation of the general consumptive behaviour and the improving of living conditions that is really desirable. People don't become sick just because they eat too many beef patties and the Amazonian Rainforest is not just cut down to make room for some extra zebu-crossbreads; in both cases, it's a multi-factor issue. There are two obstacles that make tackling & solving these problems almost impossible: the already mentioned number of 6 billion (constantly growing!) human consumers, and one trait which is actually one of the most important and probably most anthropogenic trait we all share: the will to reach the optimal for oneself and the ones closest and dearest to oneself. It's great if the western countries (who secretly still like to have a rich array of products in their local supermarket-including me) want to teach upcoming nations like China that they should limit their consumptive behaviour (including meat-eating) to turn for the better-but I can also understand that the Chinese could interpret this as patronizing and dominating behaviour. After all, they now want a piece of the action.
This does not indicate that the "tackling" should not be done; it just means that just eating meat for dinner on 4 (or 2 or 0) instead of 5 days a week doesn't have the proposed effect.
Last edited:
Good, so we agree - kind of
Re British - location does not equal nationality. There are more non-British people in Britain than there are Sumo wrestlers in Japan
Oompah not oomph, I don't know what you call it in German
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oompah
Re British - location does not equal nationality. There are more non-British people in Britain than there are Sumo wrestlers in Japan
Oompah not oomph, I don't know what you call it in German
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oompah
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@Pygathrix: About the agreement-well, finally!
"Re British - location does not equal nationality." Same here.
You once again fell for a pun of mine-, using the similarily written "oomph"
"Oom-pah" = Blaskapelle/Harmonieorchester = wind ensemble
Funny enough, I have seen more "oom-pah" bands in the form of marching bands in the USA than in Germany. And to finally eradicate other German stereotypes:
-sauerkraut, knuckle of pork & sausage are not what most Germans eat today; the modern common German cuisine is usually heavily influenced by Italian dishes, as well as by various other cuisines
-nobody does the Chicken Dance or yodels; and if so, he/she's going to be really, really sorry...
-Fritz, Karl-Heinz, Otto, Franz etc. are no longer common German names
-Germans are only the second worldwide when it comes to beer consumption; first place = CZ
and finally: yes, there is no speed limit at the Autobahn-but not everywhere.
All obscurities eradicated?
"Re British - location does not equal nationality." Same here.
You once again fell for a pun of mine-
, using the similarily written "oomph""Oom-pah" = Blaskapelle/Harmonieorchester = wind ensemble
Funny enough, I have seen more "oom-pah" bands in the form of marching bands in the USA than in Germany. And to finally eradicate other German stereotypes:
-sauerkraut, knuckle of pork & sausage are not what most Germans eat today; the modern common German cuisine is usually heavily influenced by Italian dishes, as well as by various other cuisines
-nobody does the Chicken Dance or yodels; and if so, he/she's going to be really, really sorry...
-Fritz, Karl-Heinz, Otto, Franz etc. are no longer common German names
-Germans are only the second worldwide when it comes to beer consumption; first place = CZ
and finally: yes, there is no speed limit at the Autobahn-but not everywhere.
All obscurities eradicated?
Last edited:
I can't believe I fell for the old oompah/oomph trick
That just disproves the stereotype that Germans have no SOH
More stereotypes -
Germans are good at football
German pop music is rubbish - actually, this isn't a stereotype, it's true...
And of course, the biggest stereotype of all....but I'm not going there as I fear Godwin's Law
That just disproves the stereotype that Germans have no SOH
More stereotypes -
Germans are good at football
German pop music is rubbish - actually, this isn't a stereotype, it's true...
And of course, the biggest stereotype of all....but I'm not going there as I fear Godwin's Law
NZ Jeremy
Well-Known Member
I was reading the other day of a conservationalist (who was a Westerner) who was talking to a leader in a Western African nation. He was trying to convince him to protect their rainforest. The leader dismissed him with, "The West has grown rich by using their resources now its own turn"...
It must have been hard for him to have a comeback without sounding like a hypocrite...