h a l f b a k e r yIt's the thought that counts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
The weight of the human soul is said to be 21 grams. A beef cow at a 1200 pound average, is approximately 8 times larger than an average human of say 150 pounds.
It is feasible then to suggest a cow's soul is around 168 grams, which is the approximate weight of a small hamburger patty, depending on
the burger type.
With society's increasing infatuation on calories, grams of fat, carbs per serving etc - a ratio can be established from food derived from dead animals relating to soul weight per serving.
Pigs, chickens, fish etc would all have different ratios according to their weight and meat yield, and would be clearly labelled on any packaging that contains these items according to the soul food ratio.
Such a thing could be advocated by vegetarians and animal rights groups to focus on the lives and souls of the animals that are slaughtered to put on our plates.
[link]
|
| |
This idea comes too soon after the 21 grams idea, which wasn't universally lauded either. Sorry [ben]. |
|
| |
universal lauding isn't my aim as im sure u know, but i thought the reason 21 grams - now deleted it seems - had problems was because it fell outside of the realm of 'idea.' im unsure of what 'too soon after' means. |
|
| |
Actually, having re-read your idea, it seems to me that unlike 21 grams itself, yours is an implementable idea in its own right (assuming the soul does in fact weigh 21 grams and this is able to be proven) whereas 21 grams deserved deletion. My apologies. |
|
| |
is there a correct mourning period for deleted ideas? |
|
| |
[ben] although you say:
//Pigs, chickens, fish etc would all have different ratios according to their weight and meat yield//
you assume a soul:bodyweight ratio consistent across species in your opening paragraph. This is unlikely to prove the case but assuming your logic stood, the bigger something got the bigger it's soul would get, without a limiting trend.
Therefore, the amount of soul per serving would depend directly on the weight of the meat served, not on the species, thus making it equally reprehensible (or acceptable) to eat ducks, chickens, peacocks, pigs, cows, whales, humans, guinea pigs and so forth. |
|
| |
How do we know that plants don't have souls? If we're going to presume that animals have souls and that souls are directly linked to life (in that they are no longer present when you're dead) then surely it'd be logical to extend the presumption and conclude that plants to, as a form of life, have a soul. Obviously this wouldn't be such good news for any vegetarians or animal riights activists that you might have had in mind. |
|
| |
How much does the soul of a deleted idea weigh? |
|
| |
It depends on how much it weighs on your conscience. |
|
| |
If it's one of Vernon's about the same as a blue whale. |
|
| |
[benfrost]. You have way too much time on your hands. |
|
| |
The scary thing is that there are many people here who don't have much time on their hands. But we *make* time for the bakery. Devotion to a lost cause. |
|
| |
Schrodinger's causuality paradox? |
|
| |
This means whale have huge souls. Hmmmm. |
|
| |
What about the dinosaurs? |
|
| |
I think they had huge R souls |
|
| |
Surely fried chicken, hush-puppies and mash with cream gravy has much more soul than a cow? |
|
| |
//This leaves the vegetarians and animal rights groups without a new argument - unless someone can repeat the experiments under much more rigorous conditions.// |
|
| |
Since most ARA by far don't believe in souls, heaven, hell, God, or the devil anyway, it's a moot point. |
|
| |