I buy mine at Tractor Supply. There is one on the fridge right now. Just ask a friend at the slaughterhouse to grab you a handful from the separator machine that pulls them from the ruminant stomach.

karenw wrote:

Help explain this for me. I understand the benefits of not allowing foreign matter to pass through the disgestive tract -- however, at some point, wouldn't you wind up with a large mass of assorted metal in the tummy? I can't imagine that this would be good for the cow.

I'm not a cow expert, but it seems to me that if the metal collected in one place in the digestive tract it would still be less problematic than having bits of metal scattered throughout the system.  At the very least it would be much easier to remove the metal surgically.

We don't use these in our cattle.

Roger_That wrote:

Moo.  I don't eat cattle.

Your loss.

Dmtdust wrote:

Roger_That wrote:

Moo.  I don't eat cattle.

Sure a lot of don'ts coming from direction Hunny.

Speaky Engrish?

Dirckman wrote:

Also, anyone who doesn't eat cow is unpatriotic and should be treated as a suspicious person.....

I love a good steak, and will eat it about as close to mooing as the local places are allowed to serve it. I once horrified an entire table of lesbians by digging into a 30+ oz t-bone, cool and purple at its core, by responding to their protestations with bloody burps and satisfied grunts. I don't think I've ever been so keen to piss off dining companions.

The Buddhist sect to which I belong does not emphasize vegetarianism (actually, vegetarianism isn't a Buddhist mandate, but that's another discussion). I always enjoyed interdenominational activities with other Buddhists and watching their horror as they delicately picked their way through the potluck spread of fried chicken, musubi, spaghetti and meatballs, etc. In fact, it's one of the things most members of my denomination enjoy doing to other Buddhists.

karenw wrote:

GooberMcNutly wrote:

I buy mine at Tractor Supply.

Help explain this for me. I understand the benefits of not allowing foreign matter to pass through the disgestive tract -- however, at some point, wouldn't you wind up with a large mass of assorted metal in the tummy? I can't imagine that this would be good for the cow.

The ruminant stomach where grass is held before regurgitation and rechewing as "cud" is quite tough. Often tough stuff like briars, thistles and sticks will end up there and held for hours. But cows will eat staples, pieces of busted barbed wire, bottle caps, all kinds of junk. When the mass of metal gets big enough it will get tossed out and the cow will throw it up.

The worst issue now is aluminum cans though. People driving down the road throw cans into the ditch or over the fence. The bush hog mower chops them into small enough pieces to get eaten and then they cut the hell out of the cows. That Busch can could kill a full sized milk cow.

Modern farms don't use magnets as much as they used to because they are more careful about pasturing cattle where people aren't throwing junk. Plus, many farmers attach some of the new rare earth magnets to bars slung under the mowers and tractors, picking up any nails or staples or bottle caps that might be around the farm yard.

Eat meat or don't. Just don't be a hypocrite about where it comes from. Your steak wasn't born on a Styrofoam platter.

pALEPHx wrote:

jesusluvspegging wrote:

I bet dining with dykes is a colossally unfun experience.

Seriously, the only thing worse is shopping with them. One is never more confronted with the desire to make someone over according to contemporary Western tastes than when he is confronted with a person who appears as if she WANTS to be her "least attractive self." My last lesbian friend (probably, for life, at this point and given the woeful negativity of the experience) always tried to dress like a little boy and selecting cosmetics was like arguing with a five year-old. I considered it a minor triumph to actually get her into a tailored pantsuit (for "interviews") that might plausibly present her as the fairer sex without doing a great disservice to her utterly disposable "principles."

You can meet plenty of homos who are "post gay," but you'll never meet any dykes who are "post lesbo." Once they start heading down that plaid flannel road, there's plenty of country for old men.

Still, there is, perhaps, nothing worse than a lesbian who claims to be vegan until you catch her with a sackful of McDonald's, dying to purge.

Of my three straight friends who are now lesbians, one is the political kind who doesn't wear makeup, looks like a little boy, and dresses as unattractively as possible.  It's ironic because she's the one who used to be the biggest slut when she liked men.  The other is political, and I lost touch with her when she came out and decided to emerge herself in the lesbian culture.  She was overweight and had  thing for bad boys when she liked men (like married, wife-abusing, drug dealers, and the like).  The other has been in a relationship with a woman for 18 years.  She's still (relatively) feminine and fun, and not in the least bit political.  There's a spectrum, but most lean in the direction that you speak of.

When I'd go to clubs with my lesbian friends I always wondered why the only chicks that ever tried to hit on me were the big, bull-dyky, icky ones and not any of the (relatively) hot ones.  Apparently, it's just like a hetero bar...the feminine looking women are there trying to meet the more masculine ones who will take a more active "male" role in the relationship.

Of course there are the couples who both look like men.  I'm not sure what that's all about.

I get the point that dykes don’t care what men think about their looks, so they don’t starve themselves, get silly cones, wear makeup, or do any of the other things that straight women do to make themselves more appealing to men.  What I don’t get is why most of them wind up looking and acting like ugly fucked up lower class men.

jesusluvspegging wrote:

Here's another stumper: how come every fag (fag being a subset of gay men; flamers) talks like a circa-1995 valley girl? Like, ohmygod!

I don't suppose it would help to tell you that they talked like that long before movies and popular culture made people off the coasts aware of its existence. Still, it's like asking why they lisp and flounce. As with the aforementioned lesbians (a thread about cows and dykes, yay), it's a matter of which feminine/masculine archetype they're trying to embody or channel; what they observe and incorporate into their own personalities or modes of dress.

From my own observation, gay men of my age and to about a decade older or younger can--when stereotypified--talk like a cross between a sixteen year-old white girl and a 56 year-old black woman. The gushing, effusion, and chattiness is a cross between the older "diva/mother" aspect they admire and the emotionally stilted (or overblown) blank of someone half their age. Think, "You GO, gurl!" screamed at the top of one's lungs as indicative of a person who wants to annex an established subculture of long-endured suffering, combined with a child/twink's complete lack of nuance.

Butchy lesbians in bars getting drunk and forward are simply emulating what they think is a male trait, but is really just acting out a caricature of masculinity. Gender roles are a lot more flexible than we like them to appear in our culture, but when you've grown up modeling your behavior on one thing (or yearning to be something other than you are or what people expect you to be), you tend to go overboard in this simulation of man- or womanhood. Most gays and lesbians "even out" to their own interpretations once the experimental phase ends. Straight teens, adolescents, and young men/women don't have this added period of self exploration and expression, and thus settle into their "adult personalities" about 10-15 years sooner.*


*This model incorporates several other behavioral studies (Erikson, et al.), not necessarily limited to the GLBTQ community (for whom there is an astounding lack of investigation)...and it's important to remember that there has not been much time to observe sociological phenomena in an open setting since, say, Kinsey, who still jacked up his own data.

Good observation Pale.

Fnord, I ask this in all seriousness. I don't wish to come across as jumping on you for your beliefs about race. Isn't it reasonable for someone who doesn't know you to assume your feelings are based on stereotypes of various ethnic groups? Dirckman's observation ("It's pretty easy to sterotype a 'gay' type because the ones that do act that way are so flamboyant that they stick out like a sore thumb....") is what brought this to mind.

You've alluded to less than happy encounters with people of other groups before; doesn't living apart from them prevent you from seeing a broader view of those various groups? Am I asking a stupid question?

Last edited by Taint (2008-08-28 22:29:30)

fnord wrote:

It takes a lot of brainwashing begun at an early age to make Whites tolerate the presence of non-Whites and frequently the conditioning wears off after significant contact with minorities.

My experience is exactly the opposite.  Perhaps your values aren't as intrinsic as you thought?

fnord wrote:

My parents saw to it I had minimal contact with minorities when I was a child; my intense dislike of them didn’t set in until I had extensive contact with them.  It takes a lot of brainwashing begun at an early age to make Whites tolerate the presence of non-Whites and frequently the conditioning wears off after significant contact with minorities.

You are so right!  My parents used enormous amounts of Oxiclean and a stiff brush, and it worked quite well.  Now I hardly even cringe when a non-White speaks to me.  It's a miracle, I tell you.  A miracle.

The more education a White has, the more likely they are to live in a White neighborhood and use race as a criteria when evaluating schools.

Dirckman wrote:

On the flip side, if some dumb shit thug nigger is on TV murdering the English language and acting like a buffoon he'll be nothing more than a nigger to me...

There is a popular mode of thinking that goes, "It is not what you are, but what people would call you" that defines who we are (to others, obviously, but also to ourselves, if treated pathologically). F'rinstance, nobody knows for certain that I'm gay. Hell, I don't think I could even prove it, if such a circumstance arose, but this is no bar to people considering me as such and making value judgments on that basis. Likewise, I'm a Jew, yet I don't go to temple and haven't uttered a word of real Hebrew since 1984. What makes me Jewish, therefore, is not what I would call myself or how I live my life, but what someone else (usually, someone who didn't have my best interests at heart) would say that I was.

I'd also call myself a New Yorker, because I was born, raised, and lived there for nearly all but the last 8 years of my life. Whether they'd still have me back is very much a matter of debate.

tojo2000 wrote:

fnord wrote:

The more education a White has, the more likely they are to live in a White neighborhood and use race as a criteria when evaluating schools.

Of course, whites with more education also tend to be raised by people with higher educations, who also just happen to be more wealthy and tend to run in more homogeneous circles, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.

According to university sociologists, higher-educated whites, regardless of their income, are more likely than less-educated whites to judge a school's quality and base their school choice on its racial composition.

fnord wrote:

fnord wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Of course, whites with more education also tend to be raised by people with higher educations, who also just happen to be more wealthy and tend to run in more homogeneous circles, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.

the study author wrote:

According to university sociologists, higher-educated whites, regardless of their income, are more likely than less-educated whites to judge a school's quality and base their school choice on its racial composition.

Yes, yes, we're all racist.

We know and admit this.

The point of disagreement is over whether this racism is correct or not.  Most of us think it is surmountable and without a factual basis.  You do not.  What fucking ever.

sigmoid freud wrote:

You'd never believe this started with cow magnets.

This started somewhere?

Honestly, High Street could be one long goddamned thread for all the difference it would make.

tojo2000 wrote:

You know, I'm a strong proponent of a woman's right to choose.  Discuss.

Medium rare, American cheese instead of Swiss, and NO goddamn PICKLES.

George Orr wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

You know, I'm a strong proponent of a woman's right to choose.  Discuss.

Medium rare, American cheese instead of Swiss, and NO goddamn PICKLES.

That's Freedom Cheese from now on.

How many dead babies does it take to paint a house?






It depends on how hard you throw them.

Dirckman wrote:

On the flip side, if some dumb shit thug nigger is on TV murdering the English language and acting like a buffoon he'll be nothing more than a nigger to me...

Yet if it's Hunter S Thompson or William Burroughs, or any one of a number of "poets" experimenting with language, that's OK?

Coo Coo Kachoo, indeed.