Vegetarianism

[Aklerc]

Yeah I know that... but it is still hypocritical without them meaning it to be.

[Amit]

Flora aren't sentient.

And how do you know that?

[The_Passenger]

Yeah I know that... but it is still hypocritical without them meaning it to beI really cannot see how it is hypocritical. Being a vegetarian basically means that you don't eat meat or use any products that an animal was killed to make. Synthetic meat obviously isn't meat, and no animals are killed in the process of making it, so I really can't see how it's contradictary to any vegetarian "rule".

[Iskandar]

And how do you know that?
I don't see how they could be.

They don't appear to have organs which would allow them to be sentient, like brains.

They also don't exhibit signs of sentience like reactions to stimulii.

[Aklerc]

I really cannot see how it is hypocritical. Being a vegetarian basically means that you don't eat meat or use any products that an animal was killed to make. Synthetic meat obviously isn't meat, and no animals are killed in the process of making it, so I really can't see how it's contradictary to any vegetarian "rule".
Gah. I'm not saying they do it intentionally or maliciously. But if they can live without meat, they shouldn't need to imitate it. It's like saying you're against hunting, but you like the look of animal heads so you stick a fake one on the wall. Sure... it doesn't hurt anyone and it's perfectly nice and way of getting around it but that doesn't change the fact that it is hypocritical.

[sr800bkBassist]

Do vegetarians know that plants are alive as well?


Do they refuse to mow their lawns as well?
jesus christ. people always ask this, and it's always the people who know the least about anything regarding the vegetarian lifestyle. this probably ranks on the top10 of the dumbest questions asked by people trying to prove vegetarians/vegans wrong.
anyway, to answer it, here you go:

animals kill eachother in the wild because they NEED to. they starve to death without it. we have created a "civilization" filled with technology and all sorts of advancements. as long as you live in a home in a town, you have separated yourself from nature. and in nature, hunting and fighting is natural and neccessary. but we are no longer an entirely natural species. we can live without the hunting, by creating new sources of nutrients. we have learned to live and survive without the killing.

so where do the vegetables come in? we have not learned to live without them. most of the meat alternatives we have have come from vegetables and fruit. they are a neccessary part of our survival.

and then comes the prioritizing of life that we all do. if you were in a burning building with a friend and a lamb, you would save your friend. obviously. you can relate to them better and sympathize. just like how a stray mother cat would save her own kittens before a human. if you were in a burning room and could save your pet dog or a spider, you'd save the dog, because the dog is closer to you than the spider. so if we HAVE to get our nutrients from either plants or meat, what do you think is the obvious choice?

[Atomic Rain]

jesus christ. people always ask this, and it's always the people who know the least about anything regarding the vegetarian lifestyle. this probably ranks on the top10 of the dumbest questions asked by people trying to prove vegetarians/vegans wrong.
anyway, to answer it, here you go:

animals kill eachother in the wild because they NEED to. they starve to death without it. we have created a "civilization" filled with technology and all sorts of advancements. as long as you live in a home in a town, you have separated yourself from nature. and in nature, hunting and fighting is natural and neccessary. but we are no longer an entirely natural species. we can live without the hunting, by creating new sources of nutrients. we have learned to live and survive without the killing.

so where do the vegetables come in? we have not learned to live without them. most of the meat alternatives we have have come from vegetables and fruit. they are a neccessary part of our survival.

and then comes the prioritizing of life that we all do. if you were in a burning building with a friend and a lamb, you would save your friend. obviously. you can relate to them better and sympathize. just like how a stray mother cat would save her own kittens before a human. if you were in a burning room and could save your pet dog or a spider, you'd save the dog, because the dog is closer to you than the spider. so if we HAVE to get our nutrients from either plants or meat, what do you think is the obvious choice?

Starve?


I'm sorry, I'm only joke-infuriating you for fun

[Bluesiestman]

I'd also like to add, with fruits at least, taking the fruit from the plant doesn't kill the plant.

[siva_chair]

-you're not eating meat.

How is that a positive thing in of itself?

Flora aren't sentient.

How do you know? Have you asked one?

Ah, I see your point now. However, I don't know any vegetarians who say they don't eat meat because they can live without it (even though they obviously can), they don't eat meat because they think that eating animals is wrong.

Why is eating animals wrong?

I really cannot see how it is hypocritical. Being a vegetarian basically means that you don't eat meat or use any products that an animal was killed to make. Synthetic meat obviously isn't meat, and no animals are killed in the process of making it, so I really can't see how it's contradictary to any vegetarian "rule".

Actually, vegetarians kill tons of animals with their grains and field crops. More actually than people who go out and kill a cow and eat on it for many many days.

I don't see how they could be.

That is because you aren't looking past your own assumptions.

They don't appear to have organs which would allow them to be sentient, like brains.

Assumption.

They also don't exhibit signs of sentience like reactions to stimulii.

Yes they do. Many plants appear to respond to damage caused to them. They also react to temperature changes and stimuli via sunlight.

[Aklerc]

jesus christ. people always ask this, and it's always the people who know the least about anything regarding the vegetarian lifestyle. this probably ranks on the top10 of the dumbest questions asked by people trying to prove vegetarians/vegans wrong.
anyway, to answer it, here you go:

animals kill eachother in the wild because they NEED to. they starve to death without it. we have created a "civilization" filled with technology and all sorts of advancements. as long as you live in a home in a town, you have separated yourself from nature. and in nature, hunting and fighting is natural and neccessary. but we are no longer an entirely natural species. we can live without the hunting, by creating new sources of nutrients. we have learned to live and survive without the killing.

so where do the vegetables come in? we have not learned to live without them. most of the meat alternatives we have have come from vegetables and fruit. they are a neccessary part of our survival.

and then comes the prioritizing of life that we all do. if you were in a burning building with a friend and a lamb, you would save your friend. obviously. you can relate to them better and sympathize. just like how a stray mother cat would save her own kittens before a human. if you were in a burning room and could save your pet dog or a spider, you'd save the dog, because the dog is closer to you than the spider. so if we HAVE to get our nutrients from either plants or meat, what do you think is the obvious choice?
(I think he was joking)

To the bit in bold: this argument can go both ways.

Since we can live without animals, we shouldn't kill them.

OR

Just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean we should.


It is actually messing with nature. No matter what vegetarians argue, we are made to eat animals. Just because we have the opportunity not to doesn't mean that we aren't made to do it. Plus, the majority of the time (and I really don't want to start this argument again so please don't counter this) we kill animals humanely. Far more humanely probably than when we needed to kill them.

EDIT: that analogy has absolutely nothing to do with anything

[sr800bkBassist]

(I think he was joking)

To the bit in bold: this argument can go both ways.

Since we can live without animals, we shouldn't kill them.

OR

Just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean we should.


It is actually messing with nature. No matter what vegetarians argue, we are made to eat animals. Just because we have the opportunity not to doesn't mean that we aren't made to do it. Plus, the majority of the time (and I really don't want to start this argument again so please don't counter this) we kill animals humanely. Far more humanely probably than when we needed to kill them.

EDIT: that analogy has absolutely nothing to do with anything
we are not "made" to eat animals anymore.
from this new technology(medicine, transportation, EVERYTHING), we have slowly destroyed the hold that natural selection had on humans. good thing, bad thing, you decide. the fact is, thousands upon thousands of years ago a man could kill a fully grown tiger with only a simple stone weapon and eat it nearly raw.

now, we can't kill one without the help of technology, we are too weak. and if we eat it raw, we could get infections. we have devolved.

[Aklerc]

we are not "made" to eat animals anymore.
from this new technology(medicine, transportation, EVERYTHING), we have slowly destroyed the hold that natural selection had on humans. good thing, bad thing, you decide. the fact is, thousands upon thousands of years ago a man could kill a fully grown tiger with only a simple stone weapon and eat it nearly raw.

now, we can't kill one without the help of technology, we are too weak. and if we eat it raw, we could get infections. we have devolved.
Yes we are idiot. What the hell do you think our canines are for?

[sr800bkBassist]

How is that a positive thing in of itself?
because this way, we don't KILL anything. see, killing is wrong, contrary to what lots of people believe. if you had the option to kill something and get nutrients, or NOT kill something and still get an alternative, which is more respectable?


How do you know? Have you asked one?
have you studied any form of biology? plus, did you read what i said earlier about prioritizing? if you could save either your pet dog or a spider, you'd save your dog. we have to eat either plants or meat, so when the choice has to be made about which one to abstain from eating, we(vegetarians) stop eating animals because we can relate to them better than plants.


Why is eating animals wrong?
why is eating a baby wrong? it's a matter of taking a life or sparing it.


Actually, vegetarians kill tons of animals with their grains and field crops. More actually than people who go out and kill a cow and eat on it for many many days.
please prove this. the only source ever cited for this claim is Maddox Mission, so if you could please cite a legit source, that'd be great.


Assumption.
science.


Yes they do. Many plants appear to respond to damage caused to them. They also react to temperature changes and stimuli via sunlight.
it's called adaptation. in order for the plant to best grow, they need to make changes when need be.

[MAthiAS]

Actually, vegetarians kill tons of animals with their grains and field crops. More actually than people who go out and kill a cow and eat on it for many many days.
Because cows live without nutrients until they're mature enough to be eaten. :rolleyes:

If you don't buy the morality argument, its far more efficient to avoid producing meat.

[Aklerc]

Because cows live without nutrients until they're mature enough to be eaten. :rolleyes:

If you don't buy the morality argument, its far more efficient to avoid producing meat.
It's also more efficient to keep chickens caged up than let them run free- but that's wrong isn't it?

[sr800bkBassist]

Yes we are idiot. What the hell do you think our canines are for?
yes, that is a product of our early evolution. we NEEDED them. now, we don't. if Bill Gates were born 20,000 years ago, he would never grow up to the life expectancy of the time-period. natural selection upon humans still existed in that time.

now, with our technology, we don't need to fight to survive anymore. anybody can get by with our new medicines and other advancements. now, not only do the strong survive, but the weak. and this growing amount of "weak" genes in the gene pool has torn us apart from our hunting/gathering roots. we are no longer predators.

[sr800bkBassist]

It's also more efficient to keep chickens caged up than let them run free- but that's wrong isn't it?
they ran free for millions of years before selective breeding via humans turned their species into weaker, easily controlled birds.

[MAthiAS]

It's also more efficient to keep chickens caged up than let them run free- but that's wrong isn't it?
Its still more efficient not to produce chickens for consumption. Also read the first half of the sentence you quoted :thumb:

[Aklerc]

yes, that is a product of our early evolution. we NEEDED them. now, we don't. if Bill Gates were born 20,000 years ago, he would never grow up to the life expectancy of the time-period. natural selection upon humans still existed in that time.

now, with our technology, we don't need to fight to survive anymore. anybody can get by with our new medicines and other advancements. now, not only do the strong survive, but the weak. and this growing amount of "weak" genes in the gene pool has torn us apart from our hunting/gathering roots. we are no longer predators.
I'm fed up of arguing. I honestly don't care. Vegetarians are not going to change the world. I have sharp teeth and cows taste good. I don't giving a flying monkeys about them if I am being perfectly honest and have no guilt in that.

they ran free for millions of years before selective breeding via humans turned their species into weaker, easily controlled birds.
^^
this has nothing to do with anyone.

stfu

I'm going to bed.

[MAthiAS]

usually the people like that are the ones who have only been vegetarian for a few weeks/months. something i've noticed is that new vegetarians like to make EVERYONE know their beliefs, and it gets on my nerves. like in a class somebody says something about a burger, and some new vegetarian is like "EW! OMG BURGERS! GROSS MEAT IS GROSS!".

i've been a vegetarian for quite some time. most people i talk to didn't even find out i was vegetarian until i was offered a bite of something with meat in it and declined.
By the way man a good observation.

I'm fed up of arguing. I honestly don't care. Vegetarians are not going to change the world. I have sharp teeth and cows taste good. I don't giving a flying monkeys about them if I am being perfectly honest and have no guilt in that.
As we all know, the best way to change the world is to sit back and wait for it to happen.

[sr800bkBassist]

^^
this has nothing to do with anyone.

stfu

I'm going to bed.
yes it does. they were a wild animal until we destroyed all the strengths built in their species and decided we'd cage the entire population of an animal. they were naturally meant to run free. if you argue that our canines our natural, then you should also believe that we need to get our food naturally too, by hunting it on our own in the woods.

i, myself, don't believe that we NEE to advance or that we NEED to go back more natural. i have realistically looked at our society, and adapted myself to it in order to best survive and still hold strong morals about whether or not killing is wrong.

[siva_chair]

we are not "made" to eat animals anymore.

Sure we are.

from this new technology(medicine, transportation, EVERYTHING), we have slowly destroyed the hold that natural selection had on humans. good thing, bad thing, you decide. the fact is, thousands upon thousands of years ago a man could kill a fully grown tiger with only a simple stone weapon and eat it nearly raw.

We can still do that you know. Most people aren't trained in that sort of thing, but we are still perfectly able to do that.

now, we can't kill one without the help of technology,

We never really could. A stone weapon/tool is technology.

we are too weak.

No we aren't.

and if we eat it raw, we could get infections.

Always could. Most of us are more prone to diseases from the wild due to our "isolationism" from it, but that is our feeling the need to seperate ourselves from nature and dominate it instead of living with it.

we have devolved.

No, we are simply evolving in a different way. Too often we try to play God.

[siva_chair]

because this way, we don't KILL anything. see, killing is wrong, contrary to what lots of people believe. if you had the option to kill something and get nutrients, or NOT kill something and still get an alternative, which is more respectable?

You kill plants.


have you studied any form of biology?

Sure have.

I do know that plants respond to stimuli and appear to react to "pain." Tell me, what is the difference between killing an animal and killing a plant?

plus, did you read what i said earlier about prioritizing?

No, actually I didn't because I didn't look back in this thread that far.

if you could save either your pet dog or a spider, you'd save your dog.

Assumption, but probably.

we have to eat either plants or meat, so when the choice has to be made about which one to abstain from eating, we(vegetarians) stop eating animals because we can relate to them better than plants.

Oh but you are still killing a living thing. Not to mention the countless number of small animals that are chopped up in farm equipment when harvesting your grain.

And what about all the insects and other bugs you kill when you take their home out of the ground to eat your vegetables? By saying that killing animals is disrespectful while killing plants is ok is just prioritizing your prejudices.

why is eating a baby wrong? it's a matter of taking a life or sparing it.

Hey you are taking life when you kill plants, too.

please prove this. the only source ever cited for this claim is Maddox Mission, so if you could please cite a legit source, that'd be great.

Hey I don't read that site. It is common sense that a field full of grain is going to be home to many small creatures.

My grandparents are farmers. I have grown up around this stuff my whole life, and I have seen animals get chopped up in equipment.

It is also interesting to note that farming destroys lots of animals' homes and can be devestating on the ecology of the area.

science.

Science still assumes.

Ok so how do you measure sentience in a being that isn't capable of communicating with us?

it's called adaptation. in order for the plant to best grow, they need to make changes when need be.

Ok, but it still seems to react to pain and stimuli. How dare you hurt those carrots like that! It is so disrespectful!

[Joel_DK_Clash]

No, we are simply evolving in a different way. Too often we try to play God.

And in this case, we have the ability to play God. I know that when I die, there will still be horrible things in this world, and I know that our treatment of animals will not be significantly different, and realistically it will probobly be worse, but that doesent give me an acceptable excuse to pay people to treat animals like garbage.

There you go: I am a preachy vegetarian.:angry:

[MAthiAS]

It wouldn't be evolutionarily logical for plants to feel pain...
It is also interesting to note that farming destroys lots of animals' homes and can be devestating on the ecology of the area.
Moreso if you're raising livestock.

[Reaganista]

yes, that is a product of our early evolution. we NEEDED them. now, we don't. if Bill Gates were born 20,000 years ago, he would never grow up to the life expectancy of the time-period. natural selection upon humans still existed in that time.

have you studied any form of biology?

lolol

[The_Passenger]

Why is eating animals wrong?
Huh? I never said it was. I said that's why most vegetarians I know don't eat meat. I have no idea why they think it's wrong.

Actually, vegetarians kill tons of animals with their grains and field crops. More actually than people who go out and kill a cow and eat on it for many many days.
Hm, I never knew this. I'll check up on it.

[Zoroaster]

I tell you, for all the talk of man's animal-like behaviour and indeed characteristics, the most patently absured notion ever levelled by a self-purported interest group is that levelled by the vegetarian movement. It's opportunism at its worst. While they're the first ones to profess that there is no God and that it's sheer nonsense for someone to assert otherwise (in line with their predominantly left-leaning political inclinations), they fail to submit to the logical implications of the evidence they're out there touting - namely that it's precisely our animalism that render us carnivorous, not personal choice. Maybe they think we've transcended evolution and by virtue of our consciousness we should strive to upend it. I honestly don't know. And that's what makes their passionate pleas that more, shall we say, futile.

[TaylorRules]

I agree with this. I really can't stand people who are vegetarians who look down on people who choose to eat meat. "omg you are eating meat?! I can't be seen with you, you are disgusting!"

I dont get it.
You appear to be one of the vegetarians I'll get along with. Most of them do appear to be full of themselves and feel they are better than everyone because they don't eat meat. If they eat what they want and let me eat what I want then I'm fine with the whole thing.

But when I meet a vegetarian I still get the urge to bite a live pig's arse.

[siva_chair]

It wouldn't be evolutionarily logical for plants to feel pain...

Why not?


Moreso if you're raising livestock.

Livestock fertilize soil, which is very good.

[Atomic Rain]

Why not?

Because they are unable to act upon it, The mutated plant would have no benefit over any other plant and so it wouldn't carry.

Animals can move, and avoid pain, so they have a distinct advantage to know when their body is being damaged.

[siva_chair]

Because they are unable to act upon it, The mutated plant would have no benefit over any other plant and so it wouldn't carry.

Animals can move, and avoid pain, so they have a distinct advantage to know when their body is being damaged.

It would be a completely neutral quality and wouldn't hold the plant back from surviving either. If they are random mutations, then it is very possible the trait has lived on because it has no real bearing on the species' survival. The thing is, we do not know the sentience of plants or even of animals.

[pppoe]

I am one of those vegetarians that makes a big deal of others eating meat.

[DBoons Ghost]

I am one of those vegetarians that makes a big deal of others eating meat.


You're also a filthy troll. Stay in the Pit with your silly gimmick account.

That used to warrant a permaban. I guess no one gives a crap anymore.

[pppoe]

No, man, it's cool.

What's wrong with getting upset? If you become a vegetarian because you believe we shouldn't be killing animals, why wouldn't you get upset?

[DBoons Ghost]

No, man, it's cool.

What's wrong with getting upset? If you become a vegetarian because you believe we shouldn't be killing animals, why wouldn't you get upset?


Well, no.. it's not cool when you're a nitwit.

Also, because getting upset is a clear sign of massive immaturity and intolerence to be respectful about the choices of those around you. It's important to respect what you don't understand, even if you seem to think your way is best. Which it isn't.

Just the same its your lack of respect for decent discussion that you would come in here with a retarded gimmick account and try to make a statement like that as some pathetic ploy for attention.

You're a turd. Be a turd in the Pit. If you have something meaningful to say on the topic, by all means, enlighten us with something more than your trolling.

[pppoe]

It's hard to respect people for supporting the wholesale slaughter of innocent animals. But I guess acting pissy isn't going to help me out at all. I'll just turn people off of vegetarianism.

If you're going to buy meat, please look around for farms with grass-fed AND gras-finished meat. It's healthier for you and the animals are allowed to graze and they're not cooped up indoors the whole time.

By the way, this isn't a retarded gimmick account. I'm only using this because my main account, dei, was banned again because the moderators don't have a sense of humor.

[DBoons Ghost]

It's hard to respect people for supporting the wholesale slaughter of innocent animals. But I guess acting pissy isn't going to help me out at all. I'll just turn people off of vegetarianism.

If you're going to buy meat, please look around for farms with grass-fed AND gras-finished meat. It's healthier for you and the animals are allowed to graze and they're not cooped up indoors the whole time.

By the way, this isn't a retarded gimmick account. I'm only using this because my main account, dei, was banned again because the moderators don't have a sense of humor.


Save your nonsense trollboy. IP bans 4tw. Animals are on the planet to serve us, human beings, who breed animals simply to slaughter them.

Sorry, but if I was to actually take you serious, I'd say you are just another bleeding heart retard who has no apparent concept of wildlife and humans and the whole sharing the planet thing.

Like why farmers are forced to kill rabbits and such so the plants they plant actually grow. There is no other way. Rabbits are like cockroaches, and they taste good. So why not eat the ones you kill so you can protect your cabbages? Deer and cows, if left to breed wild, would destroy the human habitat, and have. So, we hunt them to keep populations where they should be so everyone can live in relative harmony. I could care less about how animals I don't keep as pets feel, especially if they taste good and provide human beings with the nutrients they require for survival.

Human beings are more important then animals. Since we breed animals we eat specifically to eat them, I see no problem. Lions would eat you if you were all that's left and they were hungry. So.. would you explain to the Lion how you pity them? What would Mr Lion say to you? Oh right.. they can't talk.

It's called instinct. I seem to recall something about that..

[PerpetualBurn]

It would be a completely neutral quality and wouldn't hold the plant back from surviving either. If they are random mutations, then it is very possible the trait has lived on because it has no real bearing on the species' survival. The thing is, we do not know the sentience of plants or even of animals.

If you understood evolution or even basic biology you might realise that one or even several gene mutations in a generation would not make plants suddenly feel pain. It would require 1000's of generations to refine the trait, which if it isn't advantageous, wouldn't happen.

[siva_chair]

If you understood evolution or even basic biology you might realise that one or even several gene mutations in a generation would not make plants suddenly feel pain. It would require 1000's of generations to refine the trait, which if it isn't advantageous, wouldn't happen.


Since I know you aren't a fan of the idea of irreducibly complexity within biology, you would agree that parts may have had other uses that later develop into a new system, correct? I am not asserting they do feel pain, I am saying we do not know.

Mimosa leaves fold up when you touch them to avoid being damaged. Thus "feeling" is apparently a survival trait for some plants. Plants react to stimuli via nastic movements, but then again, perhaps they feel pain via nastic movements. The only concept of pain we have is through ourselves, so there really isn't a way of knowing if they suffer or not.

[PerpetualBurn]

Response to stimulus does not equal pain. Plants don't have pain because they don't have a nervous system and a brain to interpret the signals like animals do.

[halfdeadhippo]

if you could save either your pet dog or a spider, you'd save your dog.
That's a loaded question. If you could save either your pet fish or a stray cat, which would you save?
we have to eat either plants or meat, so when the choice has to be made about which one to abstain from eating, we(vegetarians) stop eating animals because we can relate to them better than plants.But from my point of view, the concept that we have to abstain from eating one or the other is all in your head and has no basis in absolution.
why is eating a baby wrong? it's a matter of taking a life or sparing it.Eating a baby isn't just a matter of taking a life or sparing it. It's a matter of keeping society in one piece. If people just ran around eating each others' babies, the emotional responses of the victims' families would tear society apart. It's the same reason why eating rabbit isn't illegal, but if you ate somebody's pet bunny there'd be legal repercussions, and why anybody else would choose to save the stray cat over your pet fish. Helping society run smoothly is also the reasoning behind many other popular concepts of morality.

I hope all that makes sense.

[DBoons Ghost]

My opinion:

Vegetarians who care more about animals than sustaining human life should be drawn, quartered and shot until they are dead. Then feed them to pigs simply for pure irony... We don't want this kind of human breeding and spreading their weakness among other helpless people.

Vegetarians who care more about their body and their health, and therefore abstain from anything meat related, get respect and adulation from all aroud them, as well as a hug. People who eat all that curd and soy have some stankin farts, so they probably need a hug or two. Since they choose to abstain, it's more tasty beef, pork, veal, rabbit, quail, pheasant, venison, chicken and bologna for me. We're still trying to determine the animal, or animals who produce whatever the substance bologna is made from. Hot dogs too. We are thankful for your abstinance oh great vegetarians... We kiss your feet in worship, and shall eat many steaks in your great name.

This is a joke, but not so much.

[pppoe]

I care more about my health. That's why I became a vegetarian. But I like pushing buttons, though, so I went along and trolled it up.

[B Radd]

I care more about my health. That's why I became a vegetarian. But I like pushing buttons, though, so I went along and trolled it up.

but you also need meat for protein, so it isn't all that healthy to be a vegatarian, but i've heard that there actually are protein in some vegetarian products.

[ratsinthecity403]

You can easily get enough protien when you're a vegetarian, there are actually a lot of foods like eggs, beans, rice etc. that have protien in them naturally. There are also soy fake meat products made that have protien in them.

I notice that this hasn't been brought up much in this thread, but one of the big reasons I became a vegeatrian was from reading about slaughterhouse conditions for the workers. Animals are fine, I don't want to hurt them (by the way, in dealing with animals getting chopped up by harvesting: I don't feel so bad because the amount of grain harvested to feed me is much, much, less than the amount that would have to be harvested to feed cows for me to eat. So overall there's less animals killed even if some do get harvested into grain).
I'm able to live with myself better knowing I don't support an industry with such ****ty woking conditions. I know that of course it's a hard job and it has to be done, but the way meatpacking companies will work people until they're useless and then send them off without heath insurance makes me not want to support it. Fast Food Nation states that levels of injury in slaughterhouses are among the highest of any occupation in the United States.

It's not just animals that are hurt by the meat industry....

[sr800bkBassist]

but you also need meat for protein, so it isn't all that healthy to be a vegatarian, but i've heard that there actually are protein in some vegetarian products.
Boca burgers = real burgers as far as protein levels go, plus they have none of the cholesterol(causes heart-attacks) or fat that real meat has.

[sr800bkBassist]

That's a loaded question. If you could save either your pet fish or a stray cat, which would you save?

But from my point of view, the concept that we have to abstain from eating one or the other is all in your head and has no basis in absolution.
Eating a baby isn't just a matter of taking a life or sparing it. It's a matter of keeping society in one piece. If people just ran around eating each others' babies, the emotional responses of the victims' families would tear society apart. It's the same reason why eating rabbit isn't illegal, but if you ate somebody's pet bunny there'd be legal repercussions, and why anybody else would choose to save the stray cat over your pet fish. Helping society run smoothly is also the reasoning behind many other popular concepts of morality.

I hope all that makes sense.
paragraph one: the stray cat. humans are closer to cats than fish and can sympathize better.

paragraph two: what we need to fix is the idea that if you own an animal its life is suddenly worth more than a free one. killing a free rabbit and killing a rabbit that lives in a human household are the same thing, and need to have similar consequences. the entire concept of domestication has created so much unjustifyable hypocracy that we need to look outside of our current deffinitions of "pets" and "wild animals" and "livestock" and realize that it's not so different. killing an animal in a barn is the same thing as killing an animal in a field or killing an animal in your own home. a location doesn't change the deed.

BUT that brings me back to my point of prioritizing.
to exist on our own, we NEED to take lives. it's survival.
so when given the option of killing a plant or an animal, i kill the plant. i can't sympathize with a plant the way i could sympathize with a mammal. so when it comes to keeping myself alive, a put it all into perspective and kill the plant.

when countless rabbits and mice need to die in order to harvest grain to support our population, i say that it needs to be done. if we don't kill those few animals, human society falls apart. i avoid killing animals when i have a CHOICE, so i don't eat meat when there are alternatives. if there were no alternatives, i would eat meat. that is survival. and since the only way to get these alternatives is to kill a few animals during the harvesting process.

I tell you, for all the talk of man's animal-like behaviour and indeed characteristics, the most patently absured notion ever levelled by a self-purported interest group is that levelled by the vegetarian movement. It's opportunism at its worst. While they're the first ones to profess that there is no God and that it's sheer nonsense for someone to assert otherwise (in line with their predominantly left-leaning political inclinations), they fail to submit to the logical implications of the evidence they're out there touting - namely that it's precisely our animalism that render us carnivorous, not personal choice. Maybe they think we've transcended evolution and by virtue of our consciousness we should strive to upend it. I honestly don't know. And that's what makes their passionate pleas that more, shall we say, futile.
i believe in God. i would not label myself a "Christian", but i believe in a God, a Heaven, and a Hell. i know many Christian vegetarians and vegans as well.

i personally believe that when God created animals, he did not wish them dead. of course there are the laws of nature in which everyone must kill to survive, but i'm sure he did not wish for any unneccesssary violence against his creations.

i believe God looks down upon what happens to animals today (fur coats, excessive indulgeance in fastfood, unneccessary consumption of large quantities of meat, etc). i don't think God ever wished there would be a billion dollar industry thriving off of the proffits gained from killing the life he created.

[siva_chair]

Response to stimulus does not equal pain.

Good thing I never said it did.

Plants don't have pain because they don't have a nervous system and a brain to interpret the signals like animals do.

That's quite the assumption. How would you know what experiences pain and what doesn't?

[Pint of stella]

No more vegan propaganda.

[PerpetualBurn]

Good thing I never said it did.

You said:

"Mimosa leaves fold up when you touch them to avoid being damaged. Thus "feeling" is apparently a survival trait for some plants. Plants react to stimuli via nastic movements, but then again, perhaps they feel pain via nastic movements."

You drew a parallel between the response to a stimulus, and the sensation of pain. Which is just plain wrong.

That's quite the assumption. How would you know what experiences pain and what doesn't?

Medical research.

[halfdeadhippo]

paragraph one: the stray cat. humans are closer to cats than fish and can sympathize better.My point was that comparing a random animal to somebody's pet in a one or the other situation will almost always end up with the person choosing their pet, due to the emotional attachment to the pet. Clearly you don't have pets if you'd value the life of a stray animal over that of a member of your household in a one or the other situation.

paragraph two: what we need to fix is the idea that if you own an animal its life is suddenly worth more than a free one. killing a free rabbit and killing a rabbit that lives in a human household are the same thing, and need to have similar consequences. the entire concept of domestication has created so much unjustifyable hypocracy that we need to look outside of our current deffinitions of "pets" and "wild animals" and "livestock" and realize that it's not so different. killing an animal in a barn is the same thing as killing an animal in a field or killing an animal in your own home. a location doesn't change the deed.It's not that "owning" an animal makes its life worth more. It's that, for me at least, a pet is like another member of one's family. That's why we give them names, talk to them, and generally make them seem more human than the stray that we see wandering around the alley. In the absolute sense, you're probably right that neither of them are worth more than the other. However, human emotions don't work that way. Human nature generally holds one's family over others, one's possessions over others, etc. That's why a person could go into an emotional breakdown when his/her mother dies, but simply say "well, that sucks" at the news of a thousandfold death toll following an earthquake on the other side of the world. There's nothing anybody can do to change that, because to make one's value of life completely unbiased, one would have to either go into a complete breakdown over the swatting of a mosquito or feel completely numb to one's close family.

BUT that brings me back to my point of prioritizing.
to exist on our own, we NEED to take lives. it's survival.
so when given the option of killing a plant or an animal, i kill the plant. i can't sympathize with a plant the way i could sympathize with a mammal. so when it comes to keeping myself alive, a put it all into perspective and kill the plant.

when countless rabbits and mice need to die in order to harvest grain to support our population, i say that it needs to be done. if we don't kill those few animals, human society falls apart. i avoid killing animals when i have a CHOICE, so i don't eat meat when there are alternatives. if there were no alternatives, i would eat meat. that is survival. and since the only way to get these alternatives is to kill a few animals during the harvesting process.I can see where you're coming from and can agree with your reasons for this portion. I just see things from the point of view where it would bother me to see a person killing for pleasure, but that as long as I'm eating said animal (without being a glutton), it's not a waste, if that makes sense.

[sr800bkBassist]

My point was that comparing a random animal to somebody's pet in a one or the other situation will almost always end up with the person choosing their pet, due to the emotional attachment to the pet. Clearly you don't have pets if you'd value the life of a stray animal over that of a member of your household in a one or the other situation.

It's not that "owning" an animal makes its life worth more. It's that, for me at least, a pet is like another member of one's family. That's why we give them names, talk to them, and generally make them seem more human than the stray that we see wandering around the alley. In the absolute sense, you're probably right that neither of them are worth more than the other. However, human emotions don't work that way. Human nature generally holds one's family over others, one's possessions over others, etc. That's why a person could go into an emotional breakdown when his/her mother dies, but simply say "well, that sucks" at the news of a thousandfold death toll following an earthquake on the other side of the world. There's nothing anybody can do to change that, because to make one's value of life completely unbiased, one would have to either go into a complete breakdown over the swatting of a mosquito or feel completely numb to one's close family.

I can see where you're coming from and can agree with your reasons for this portion. I just see things from the point of view where it would bother me to see a person killing for pleasure, but that as long as I'm eating said animal (without being a glutton), it's not a waste, if that makes sense.
paragraph one: i actually own 2 cats. one was bought from a store, one is an adopted stray kitten (a runt who was about to starve) that my friend's family took in and gave shots and such. and there are many animals that live in my neighborhood as well, such as a family of racoons that has been here for a few racoon-generations, stray cats, etc. i like to leave food out for them all (cat food, cheese-crackers, crust from bread, bowls of water).

paragraph two: i know exactly what you're saying here, but i was pointing out that if a person saw any dog get kicked, they'd say "awww, poor puppy." but if the same person saw a cow in a pasture waiting to get slaughtered, they'd feel no sympathy. people get the idea that if an animal can not live in a household, it is less worthy of sympathy. and when it comes to swatting a mosquito and such, that brings me back to my point about prioritizing. humans are naturally closer to mammals. dogs, pigs, cats, cows, monkeys, etc. they think more like us than insects, have closer feeling to us than insects, and so on. this may seem hypocritical after talking about treating domesticated animals like strays, but i feel less connection to an animal such as an insect or arachnid(sp?) than a warm-blooded mammal. if i had to choose between saving a bee who has absolutely no connection to me, or saving a rabbit who is closer to my own species in all aspects, i'd save the rabbit.

but i personally avoid killing any bugs at all. i kill black widows around my house because it's a matter of safety, but no killing random ants or flies. i've never even swatted at a bee, and i guess karma truely exists because i've stood by a trashcan for 2 minutes finishing a PB&J sandwich while at least 100 bees swarmed around it, and didn't get stung. never been stung in my life and i go near bees all the time.

[siva_chair]

You said:

"Mimosa leaves fold up when you touch them to avoid being damaged. Thus "feeling" is apparently a survival trait for some plants. Plants react to stimuli via nastic movements, but then again, perhaps they feel pain via nastic movements."

Yup I sure did.

You drew a parallel between the response to a stimulus, and the sensation of pain. Which is just plain wrong.

And you are drawing a parallel between the source of our pain (our concept, ect.) and the (non) source of pain in plants. I never said plants feel pain or that because they respond to stimulus they must also feel pain. I simply said we do not know.

Medical research.

So medical research has found out what it is like to be a plant?

Why are you assuming something has to have a nervous system to feel pain?

[Bluesiestman]

Well, in animals, medicine has shown that if you damage or sedate the nervous system (thru drugs or thru injury), the feeling of pain in impared. Anesthesia anyone? That implies a connection between the presence of a nervous system and the perception of pain. Perhaps plants work in different ways, but we honestly don't know.

[Atomic Rain]

So medical research has found out what it is like to be a plant?

Why are you assuming something has to have a nervous system to feel pain?

Because that's what pain is.

When you feel pain, your nerves react and send information to the brain. These are detectable. The pulses appear exactly when the pain is caused.

Plants do not have these.

Unless you reject all evidence of any description (including but not limited to scripture, your own thoughts, ears, feelings that without self we find god, etc.) then this is incounterable evidence that plants do not feel pain.

[PerpetualBurn]

And you are drawing a parallel between the source of our pain (our concept, ect.) and the (non) source of pain in plants. I never said plants feel pain or that because they respond to stimulus they must also feel pain. I simply said we do not know.

We do know. They don't.

So medical research has found out what it is like to be a plant?

Exactly!

Why are you assuming something has to have a nervous system to feel pain?

Because I know what pain is and how the nervous system works. I know from this that plants do not have the capacity for pain.

[siva_chair]

Because that's what pain is.

To us, sure. Pain is defined as: "an unpleasant sensation occurring in varying degrees of severity as a consequence of injury, disease, or emotional disorder."

The only thing that holds your argument together is the assumption that a nervous system such as ours is the only thing capable of sensing injury/feeling/sensation/ect. It may be true that in mammals and humans, that is how it works, but unless you have been a plant, you cannot know.

When you feel pain, your nerves react and send information to the brain. These are detectable. The pulses appear exactly when the pain is caused.

Plants do not have these.

Why do you assume that a nervous system like ours is the only thing that can feel discomfort and unpleasantness?

Your logic is going something like this:

A possesses C and therefore can feel P
B does not possess C and therefore cannot feel P.

For you to conclude that, you would first have to show that C is the only "cause" of P. (ignoring the fact that the nervous system doesn't "cause" pain, per se, but you get the idea).

You assume something must have a nervous system for it to feel because that is how we feel. That is like assuming that only things with lungs can "breathe".

Unless you reject all evidence of any description (including but not limited to scripture, your own thoughts, ears, feelings that without self we find god, etc.) then this is incounterable evidence that plants do not feel pain.

No, there is the assumption that they do not. There is only the evidence that they do not have a central nervous system. You are jumping to conclusions you cannot possibly know based on that evidence, which is, frankly, very faith based.

I do not assume to know if plants feel or not. I simply do not know and I am not about to make assumptions like that.

[siva_chair]

We do know. They don't.

Wow, prove that please.

Exactly!

So they figured out how to become plants and experienced what it is like to be a plant? Hmm, I'll have to read about that one! Linksplzkthx.

Because I know what pain is and how the nervous system works.

You know what your pain is.

I know from this that plants do not have the capacity for pain.

You are making an awful lot of assumptions into the unknown. Now, what was that about faith....?

[Atomic Rain]

Wow, prove that please.



So they figured out how to become plants and experienced what it is like to be a plant? Hmm, I'll have to read about that one! Linksplzkthx.



You know what your pain is.



You are making an awful lot of assumptions into the unknown. Now, what was that about faith....?

why does your debating so frequently consist of you removing the meanings of words and then saying we can't prove that they don't apply to hopeless siutations?

If plats feel an unpleasant sensation through EARTH ATOMS and the LIGHT ETHER that's fine, but you're not allowed to call it pain because that's not what it is. It's something unknown and completely different and it requires a new word.

I don't think it'd be very constructive for me to recommend new words for you to use ;)

[PerpetualBurn]

Wow, prove that please.



So they figured out how to become plants and experienced what it is like to be a plant? Hmm, I'll have to read about that one! Linksplzkthx.

Google "nervous+system+plants" and see what comes up.



You know what your pain is.

So this is the type of scientific discussion where you try to pretend that biological definitions aren't categorical?

You are making an awful lot of assumptions into the unknown. Now, what was that about faith....?

lol. You really don't get how logic and reason work.

[sr800bkBassist]

ok, jesus christ.
stop it.
let's just settle on this:
with the knowledge we have now, we can conclude that plants do not feel. if they do, we have NO means of finding out. so the best we can conclude right now is that they do not feel.

whether they do or don't feel, i've put this arguement down a thousand times in my posts. read any of my posts recently, i mention prioritizing what lives need to be taken to survive.

[siva_chair]

Google "nervous+system+plants" and see what comes up.

Hey wow that in no way disputes my point!


So this is the type of scientific discussion where you try to pretend that biological definitions aren't categorical?

No, its the one where you stop assuming so many things.

lol. You really don't get how logic and reason work.

lol you really make lots of unfounded assumptions.

[RockAndRoll]

Well we only know that plants don't feel in the same sense we know rocks don't.

[MAthiAS]

Stupid assumption, we can't know that rocks don't feel pain.

[PerpetualBurn]

Hey wow that in no way disputes my point

Sure it does. Plant don't have a complex nervous system.

No, its the one where you stop assuming so many things.

I haven't done anything I can't know.


lol you really make lots of unfounded assumptions.

Since pain requires a nervous system, and I know that plants don't have one, it's a logical conclusion.

[PerpetualBurn]

Stupid assumption, we can't know that rocks don't feel pain.

Quarries don't have nerves either.

[siva_chair]

Well we only know that plants don't feel in the same sense we know rocks don't.

Thank you, exactly my point.

Sure it does. Plant don't have a complex nervous system.

You assume that a complex nervous system is the only thing that can bear feeling.


I haven't done anything I can't know.

You are assuming what it is like to be a plant. Have you ever been a plant?

Since pain requires a nervous system, and I know that plants don't have one, it's a logical conclusion.

Ok, you need to prove that a nervous system is the only thing that allows something to feel.

[PerpetualBurn]

You assume that a complex nervous system is the only thing that can bear feeling.

I don't assume that. I know that. Any other "feeling" that a plant might have wouldn't be considered pain because pain is a function of the nervous system. Unless you want to redefine the word to provide a meaningless but apparently deep statement.

You are assuming what it is like to be a plant. Have you ever been a plant?

I know that plants don't have the constituent parts to feel pain. It's the same as how I know they don't talk while I'm not around because they don't have vocal cords or a mouth.

Ok, you need to prove that a nervous system is the only thing that allows something to feel.

You need to stop trying to redefine established scientific concepts.

[siva_chair]

I don't assume that. I know that. Any other "feeling" that a plant might have wouldn't be considered pain because pain is a function of the nervous system. Unless you want to redefine the word to provide a meaningless but apparently deep statement.

pain (pān)
n.
1. An unpleasant sensation occurring in varying degrees of severity as a consequence of injury, disease, or emotional disorder.
2. Suffering or distress.
3. pains The pangs of childbirth.
4. pains Great care or effort: take pains with one's work.
5. Informal. A source of annoyance; a nuisance.

Hey bud that says nothing about the nervous system, so no, I don't believe I am redefining anything. Pain is also a matter of perception and interpretation. What hurts to you may not hurt to me.

I know that plants don't have the constituent parts to feel pain. It's the same as how I know they don't talk while I'm not around because they don't have vocal cords or a mouth.

You know they don't have the constituent parts to feel pain in the same way as we do. You cannot prove they do not feel some other form of discomfort via some other method of sensation.

You need to stop trying to redefine established scientific concepts.

Except I haven't. What the hell have I redefined?

[PerpetualBurn]

pain (pān)
n.
1. An unpleasant sensation occurring in varying degrees of severity as a consequence of injury, disease, or emotional disorder.
2. Suffering or distress.
3. pains The pangs of childbirth.
4. pains Great care or effort: take pains with one's work.
5. Informal. A source of annoyance; a nuisance.

Hey bud that says nothing about the nervous system, so no, I don't believe I am redefining anything. Pain is also a matter of perception and interpretation. What hurts to you may not hurt to me.

Yes, unpleasant sensations require a nervous system. Otherwise there would be an unconscious reaction, like a plant moving towards a light source. Only a brain and nervous system is capable of interpreting "unpleasant".

You know they don't have the constituent parts to feel pain in the same way as we do. You cannot prove they do not feel some other form of discomfort via some other method of sensation.

Feel pain the same as we do? So something completely different then?

Except I haven't. What the hell have I redefined?

Well saying plants might feel "a different pain" is as good as saying "not pain at all".

[siva_chair]

Yes, unpleasant sensations require a nervous system. Otherwise there would be an unconscious reaction, like a plant moving towards a light source. Only a brain and nervous system is capable of interpreting "unpleasant".

Prove this please.

Feel pain the same as we do? So something completely different then?

No, a different delivery system for unpleasantness.

Well saying plants might feel "a different pain" is as good as saying "not pain at all".

Not really.

[PerpetualBurn]

Prove this please.

Plants aren't sentient. Therefore they can't have "unplesant".

No, a different delivery system for unpleasantness.

No such thing. Pain is transferred via nerves.

Not really.

Yep.

[siva_chair]

Plants aren't sentient. Therefore they can't have "unplesant".

Ok, now prove they aren't sentient.



No such thing. Pain is transferred via nerves.

In us, yes.

Yep.

Sorry, try again.

[Atomic Rain]

Ok, now prove they aren't sentient.

In us, yes.

Sorry, try again.

I've obviously given up here, this is like trying to find a fundamental particle...

But really, i don't know what you're achieving, other than infuriating a lot of people. I can sort of see what you're getting at, but frankly, your negation of everything is approaching Nihilism, something I seem to recall you hate.

[White Riot!]

Vegetarian logic is silly.

99.999% of vegans/vegetarians become vegetarians to peer pressure or to be 'cool' or 'indie' or whatever.......


The natural fact is that in nature ,(which is so important to vegans apparently) predators kill and eat other animals. Humans are omnivores and our physiological digestive system is halfway beetween herbivore and predator.

The manner in which animals are processed is alot less painful than bleeding to death as a result of a predator attack you for instance , and that is a natural occurence

The fact is our intestinal tract is simply not long enough to process vegetative matter in the way that a herbivore can extract the most nutrients of out the food , and we need meat.

according to vegan logic animals who are predators commit animal cruelty so therefore they should starve and die. Hmmm I think thats a tad cruel dont you think , no?

Personally I dont care what you eat , but as soon as you become a militant wanker of a vegetarian you start to piss me off with your false logic , and highly altered and contextual images of animal cruelty then try to pass off as if everyone else are cruel because they eat meat.

Get off you god damn high horse , you absolute wankers. Please deflate your undeserved ego and let other people have freedom of thought without your lame propaganda

[BassVirtuoso]

Look, let me make something abundantly clear for people, who are so bereft of activities they feel like they gotta comment on mine.

first of all being a vegetarian should never be associated with being a revolutionary or being open-minded., that's a dietary choice.

if someone wants to proliferate the type of ignorance we're supposed to be fighting by thinking that, you're just ****ing yourself.

i don't go around promoting beef and poetry shoving it in people's faces. i don't castigate people for not eating steak sandwiches; and i would never diss someone for being a ****ing broccoli-head, or living off of radishes, or eating grass or tofu.

i like a lot of vegan cuisine. but the illogicality of expecting everyone to adopt their particular idea of what being healthy is is just preposterous.

i've seen some of you herbivores; and if you want to argue health, y'all need to eat some kind of supplement because some of y'all are so skinny that it's disgusting; looking like the only hip-hop mother****ers on schindler's list.

being a malnutrition-*** got nothing to do with being revolutionary or being on-point. i'll be damned if i let somebody else push their agenda on me. you know i don't eat pork, not because i'm a muslim, i just don't really like it, but i really will **** a bird up. and fish is good when that **** is fresh.

it's like my nigga vast air from Cann Ox if you don't like the smell of burning meat, well then get the **** off the planet. you know i don't criticize people for eating moss, then don't open your ****ing mouth about my food, man. i like beef and broccoli mother****er. mind your god-damn business. matter of fact... you know what? i'm out. i feel like some arroco pollo, a banana daiquiri, and a mother****ing bistec aponado.

Guess the song.

[siva_chair]

I've obviously given up here, this is like trying to find a fundamental particle...

Perhaps that is the way to think.

But really, i don't know what you're achieving, other than infuriating a lot of people.

Why does it infuriate them to apply logic equally to everything? Is it because they would rather just assume things?

If we are speaking about truth, assumptions have no place within the discussion. We must find out what is relevant and what is not, what is conditioned and what is not, and what role we have in observing truth.

I can sort of see what you're getting at, but frankly, your negation of everything is approaching Nihilism, something I seem to recall you hate.

No, it isn't Nihilism as I haven't denied existance of anything. All I have stated is that you cannot logically know whether or not plants are sentient. I have not made a statement either way, because I do not know, and that is the most logical choice I could make. I am not about to assume something that I have no experience with.

[sr800bkBassist]

Vegetarian logic is silly.

99.999% of vegans/vegetarians become vegetarians to peer pressure or to be 'cool' or 'indie' or whatever.......


The natural fact is that in nature ,(which is so important to vegans apparently) predators kill and eat other animals. Humans are omnivores and our physiological digestive system is halfway beetween herbivore and predator.

The manner in which animals are processed is alot less painful than bleeding to death as a result of a predator attack you for instance , and that is a natural occurence

The fact is our intestinal tract is simply not long enough to process vegetative matter in the way that a herbivore can extract the most nutrients of out the food , and we need meat.

according to vegan logic animals who are predators commit animal cruelty so therefore they should starve and die. Hmmm I think thats a tad cruel dont you think , no?

Personally I dont care what you eat , but as soon as you become a militant wanker of a vegetarian you start to piss me off with your false logic , and highly altered and contextual images of animal cruelty then try to pass off as if everyone else are cruel because they eat meat.

Get off you god damn high horse , you absolute wankers. Please deflate your undeserved ego and let other people have freedom of thought without your lame propaganda
animals kill in nature because if they don't, they starve and die. it's survival of the fittest. but in our world, we can CLEARLY survive without meat because of our technology for supplements and vitamins and such. Paul McCartney is 64 and is a vegetarian, and much more energetic and lively than most 64 year-olds. so a former drug-using vegetarian 64 year old is playing shows, traveling, etc with the energy of somebody still in their thirties. how unhealthy...

anyway, in NATURE you kill to survive. i, a vegetarian, believe in this principle. if i see a poisonous spider, such as a black widow, in my house or near me, i kill it. it's for my safety. if i were under attack by a bear, i'd kill it. if i were living off the land in a forest and had to scrounge up my own food, i'd hunt animals and eat them. i'd DIE if i didn't. but these principles don't apply to me while i live in this house in a first world country. so i don't need to kill. i can get by with protein from soy, beans, nuts, milk, eggs, cheese, and so on. where's the logic in this?

before being a vegetarian i was 170 lbs.(hardly any muscle involved) at only 5 feet 3 inches. i had no energy, i was always dragging myself around. after being a vegetarian for 2 years, i've lost all the unneeded fat, gained muscle mass, and have energy to walk all over my city in less than a day. where's the logic in that?

[PerpetualBurn]

Ok, now prove they aren't sentient.

They don't have a brain.

In us, yes.

In everything.

[sr800bkBassist]

Perhaps that is the way to think.



Why does it infuriate them to apply logic equally to everything? Is it because they would rather just assume things?

If we are speaking about truth, assumptions have no place within the discussion. We must find out what is relevant and what is not, what is conditioned and what is not, and what role we have in observing truth.



No, it isn't Nihilism as I haven't denied existance of anything. All I have stated is that you cannot logically know whether or not plants are sentient. I have not made a statement either way, because I do not know, and that is the most logical choice I could make. I am not about to assume something that I have no experience with.
STOP IT! you, and PerpetualBurn. your arguement has gone nowhere.

can at least one of you acknowledge what i said here?:

ok, jesus christ.
stop it.
let's just settle on this:
with the knowledge we have now, we can conclude that plants do not feel. if they do, we have NO means of finding out. so the best we can conclude right now is that they do not feel.

whether they do or don't feel, i've put this arguement down a thousand times in my posts. read any of my posts recently, i mention prioritizing what lives need to be taken to survive.

[siva_chair]

They don't have a brain.

Ok now prove that a brain is neccessary for sentience.


In everything.

Gee, how on earth did you logically conclude that?

[siva_chair]

STOP IT! you, and PerpetualBurn. your arguement has gone nowhere.

can at least one of you acknowledge what i said here?:


No, because assuming the negative because of no proof of the positive is silly. Instead, just say you don't know. If you don't know, don't assume you do. Simple as that.

[MAthiAS]

Vegetarian logic is silly.

99.999% of vegans/vegetarians become vegetarians to peer pressure or to be 'cool' or 'indie' or whatever.......
Because that's relevent. Read the thread, just from this part of your post I'm sure its the same crap we've been talking about (and trying to avoid) for pages now. Go write a love letter to Maddox.

[PerpetualBurn]

Ok now prove that a brain is neccessary for sentience.




Gee, how on earth did you logically conclude that?

The answer to both is basic biology. Plants don't have anything to think with.

[siva_chair]

The answer to both is basic biology. Plants don't have anything to think with.

No see you are assuming that consciousness/sentience comes from a brain and is not present in anything else. Why do you assume this?

[PerpetualBurn]

To be anywhere approaching reasonable you're going to have to demonstrate that plants have a system which could possibly give rise to sentience and then you're going to have to explain why it's indetectable by our current methods.

Go.

[sr800bkBassist]

STOP IT! why do you two keep going?

we don't know. ok? it's settled.
modern biology SAYS that plants don't feel. that's all we have for now.

if you want to dispute this, go get a degree in biology and prove otherwise. but so far, our science says they don't. one side has backing, the other side either needs to find backing or give it up.

[siva_chair]

To be anywhere approaching reasonable you're going to have to demonstrate that plants have a system which could possibly give rise to sentience and then you're going to have to explain why it's indetectable by our current methods.

Go.


Easy. Consciousness is a fundamental property in all matter.

You want the quantum physics with that?

[PerpetualBurn]

No it's not and no I don't want more pseudo-science.

[PerpetualBurn]

STOP IT! why do you two keep going?

we don't know. ok? it's settled.
modern biology SAYS that plants don't feel. that's all we have for now.

if you want to dispute this, go get a degree in biology and prove otherwise. but so far, our science says they don't. one side has backing, the other side either needs to find backing or give it up.

I have a biology A-level, but frankly anyone who's played Operation is more than qualified to know that plants don't have brains.

[Mr. Ron]

I have a biology A-level, but frankly anyone who's played Operation is more than qualified to know that plants don't have brains.
My bamboo plant and I hold great conversations, thank you very much!

[Iskandar]

Easy. Consciousness is a fundamental property in all matter.

You want the quantum physics with that?
Prove that.

[PerpetualBurn]

Uh oh. You shouldn't have said that, Dropper.

[siva_chair]

No it's not and no I don't want more pseudo-science.

So you think quantum physics is psuedo-science? You were saying something about open-mindedness?

I have a biology A-level, but frankly anyone who's played Operation is more than qualified to know that plants don't have brains.

Good thing I never said they had brains. :thumb:

Prove that.

Ok, I'll post some stuff on it later. I gotta get to work right as of now, though.

As for proving it, obviously it depends upon the reader to decide if it's adequate proof or not. We shall see.

Uh oh. You shouldn't have said that, Dropper.

Yeah, I mean, we wouldn't want a paradigm shift or anything! Oh noes!

[PerpetualBurn]

No, I mean I don't want you plagiarising whole texts again and asking me to discredit the entire works of Profressor Hippy of Pseudoshire University.

[siva_chair]

No, I mean I don't want you plagiarising whole texts again and asking me to discredit the entire works of Profressor Hippy of Pseudoshire University.

No, I'll put some links up here. Don't know what good it will do, as you have made it clear you aren't going to read them.

As for the plagerizing thing, its funny, I believe I mentioned I got that stuff from a book.

[PerpetualBurn]

I remember nowhesingsnowhesobs quoting the websites that you'd copied and pasted from. No matter.

And I'll read anything you care to post and I'll read it with an open mind, that doesn't mean I'm not going to be as critical as I always am.

[halfdeadhippo]

Look, let me make something abundantly clear for people, who are so bereft of activities they feel like they gotta comment on mine.

first of all being a vegetarian should never be associated with being a revolutionary or being open-minded., that's a dietary choice.

if someone wants to proliferate the type of ignorance we're supposed to be fighting by thinking that, you're just ****ing yourself.

i don't go around promoting beef and poetry shoving it in people's faces. i don't castigate people for not eating steak sandwiches; and i would never diss someone for being a ****ing broccoli-head, or living off of radishes, or eating grass or tofu.

i like a lot of vegan cuisine. but the illogicality of expecting everyone to adopt their particular idea of what being healthy is is just preposterous.

i've seen some of you herbivores; and if you want to argue health, y'all need to eat some kind of supplement because some of y'all are so skinny that it's disgusting; looking like the only hip-hop mother****ers on schindler's list.

being a malnutrition-*** got nothing to do with being revolutionary or being on-point. i'll be damned if i let somebody else push their agenda on me. you know i don't eat pork, not because i'm a muslim, i just don't really like it, but i really will **** a bird up. and fish is good when that **** is fresh.

it's like my nigga vast air from Cann Ox if you don't like the smell of burning meat, well then get the **** off the planet. you know i don't criticize people for eating moss, then don't open your ****ing mouth about my food, man. i like beef and broccoli mother****er. mind your god-damn business. matter of fact... you know what? i'm out. i feel like some arroco pollo, a banana daiquiri, and a mother****ing bistec aponado.

Guess the song.
"Beef and Broccoli" by Immortal Technique.

[Atomic Rain]

No, it isn't Nihilism as I haven't denied existance of anything. All I have stated is that you cannot logically know whether or not plants are sentient. I have not made a statement either way, because I do not know, and that is the most logical choice I could make. I am not about to assume something that I have no experience with.

You have denied existance of knowledge (save for some of your own special ways like removing pronouns), since everything has become an assumption. Part of Nihilism is that there is no truth.

Perhaps I attatch a greater value to knoewldge then you do (in fact, I'm almost certain I do); and so I interpret what you say as nihilism. I'm not 100% sure. But if we can't be 100% sure of anything, how do we know that giving to charity will not result in donkeys being blinded? Or that we will fight for good, and will be told truthfully one day that we fought for evil? Chaos theory says that these things are quite possible. The only way to minimise damage would be universal destruction, which is nihilism.

Except that possible doesn't mean "likely". And so we do what we can, and we have to assume things, lest we find the only thing we can to to help is to destroy.

[siva_chair]

I remember nowhesingsnowhesobs quoting the websites that you'd copied and pasted from. No matter.

And I'll read anything you care to post and I'll read it with an open mind, that doesn't mean I'm not going to be as critical as I always am.


I remember I explained that I got it out of a book and had never seen those sites before then. It sure does make it much more accessable now.

You already have it in your mind that it is pseudo-science and you are not going to take it seriously.

You have denied existance of knowledge (save for some of your own special ways like removing pronouns),

No I haven't. I have said that we make an awful lot of assumptions. Knowlege is nothing more than memory. I have never denied the existance of knowlege.

since everything has become an assumption. Part of Nihilism is that there is no truth.

There is truth. I think I have said that many many times before. So no, I am definitely not a Nihilist.

Perhaps I attatch a greater value to knoewldge then you do (in fact, I'm almost certain I do); and so I interpret what you say as nihilism.

Well I assure you I am not nihilist. Not even close.


I'm not 100% sure. But if we can't be 100% sure of anything, how do we know that giving to charity will not result in donkeys being blinded? Or that we will fight for good, and will be told truthfully one day that we fought for evil?

I never said we cannot be 100% sure of anything. I have said that truth and reality is in a constant flux. Evolving, just as we are. Truth is a pathless land.

Chaos theory says that these things are quite possible. The only way to minimise damage would be universal destruction, which is nihilism.

I believe in an implicate order in the universe(s), so it is not chaos theory.

Except that possible doesn't mean "likely". And so we do what we can, and we have to assume things, lest we find the only thing we can to to help is to destroy.

Yes, this is what I was saying. For us to function as we do, we must assume, as there is an awfully lot that remains in the unknown.


Here is a couple of links I was speaking of. The first one is the one I have posted out of a book before, and thanks to nowhesingsnowhesobs (i think), I now have a link to it.

http://www.thymos.com/science/qc.html

http://www.biroz.net/words/irsonos.htm (http://www.biroz.net/words/irsonos.htm) (more on the rheomode and other stuff)

http://users.aristotle.net/~diogenes/meanmind.htm (this one isn't that in depth)

Most of my references on this stuff come from books. I can recommend those, but I am not about to type whole chapters out.

[PerpetualBurn]

http://users.aristotle.net/~diogenes/meanmind.htm

You see it should be obvious to anyone that this contains the world's biggest non sequitur, yet you've presented it as science.

Is there a single reputable source out there, or is hippy.org the best you've got?

[siva_chair]

http://users.aristotle.net/~diogenes/meanmind.htm

You see it should be obvious to anyone that this contains the world's biggest non sequitur, yet you've presented it as science.

Is there a single reputable source out there, or is hippy.org the best you've got?


Ok, tell me what is wrong with what was said in that article?

Then, I want you to propose a better explanation for the totality of consciousness. There is a reason that modern science cannot explain the totality of consciousness.

[sr800bkBassist]

you two are going to get this thread closed.

[Kobaia]

we're getting to the point where we can geneticaly engineer animals. i really dont care about animal rights, but i am fat, so i'm starting slowly.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Technically speaking, we've been genetically engineering animals for hundreds of years through selective breeding

[xLostHopex]

I'm also a vegetarian. I recently became one for health issues. There are so many extra hormones and such pumped into animals to make them bigger and jucier that we don't need. Once its pumped in it can't be taken out. The hormones and antibiotics are in the meat that You eat and your body definately does not need that extra stuff. I haven't tried any vege-fake meats yet or soy milk, but I'm planning on it.

[PerpetualBurn]

Ok, tell me what is wrong with what was said in that article?

Then, I want you to propose a better explanation for the totality of consciousness. There is a reason that modern science cannot explain the totality of consciousness.

It basically says "Modern science hasn't worked out what causes consciousness yet, therefore consciousness must be a fundamental property of everything" which is the Daddy of all non sequiturs.

And the absence of alternatives doesn't means we keep researching, not that there is any added validity to your explanation.

The argument you want to make would be somewhat analagous to this:
A:"England won the world cup in 1970."
B:"No they didn't."
A:"Who did?"
B:"I don't know."
A:"Well then we should conclude that my guess is the right one."

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

But the idea that modern science has ultimately nothing to say is wrong anyway, which seems to be his platform.

[Iskandar]

Siva still hasn't proved for me how, as he claims, "consciousness is a fundamental property of matter."
:)

[Joel_DK_Clash]

Siva still hasn't proved for me how, as he claims, "consciousness is a fundamental property of matter."
:)

And even if it were, would we stop breathing because the O2 in our air doesn’t like being metabolized into CO2 and water?

Eating a plant, (or an animal), is just changing the said matter into slightly different matter. No matter what science says, I know that I can feel pain and sense fear, and with that reasoning I feel comfortable in assuming that animals in close relation to me (dogs, fish, chickens, emus, cows) can feel the same things. Can a crop of corn feel pain? I'm sure with some scientific reasoning it can, but untill I can feel what it is like to be a cob of corn, I'm content with choosing the lesser of the two evils; staying away from meat and animal products.

[MattSharpIsCool]

Humans are omnivores. We are meant to eat both plants, and meat. Thats why we have sharp teeth, along with flat teeth.

How many rodents and small mammals are killed during the harvest of vegetables and grain? Of course, that doesnt matter. All that matters is those poor, cute baby cows and piggies that get slaughtered. Just as many, if not more, animals are killed in the carbines of harvesting machines, then in a slaughterhouse.

I'm not against vegetarianism. Do what you want. It really does have some benefits. But dont be so blind in your belief that it saves all animals on earth, and meat eaters are evil.

[MAthiAS]

How many rodents and small mammals are killed during the harvest of vegetables and grain? Of course, that doesnt matter. All that matters is those poor, cute baby cows and piggies that get slaughtered. Just as many, if not more, animals are killed in the carbines of harvesting machines, then in a slaughterhouse.
Um, if we had 100% meat diets, its not like we'd stop harvesting grain. Obviously no one can completely eliminate animal cruelty, but minimizing it is a worthy goal.

[MattSharpIsCool]

I'm not saying we should have 100% meat diets, or stop harvesting grain.

Why is it ok for a lion to eat a gazelle or a bear to eat a salmon, but its not ok for a human to eat a cow? Its not cruel, its nature.

[PerpetualBurn]

I'm not saying we should have 100% meat diets, or stop harvesting grain.

Why is it ok for a lion to eat a gazelle or a bear to eat a salmon, but its not ok for a human to eat a cow? Its not cruel, its nature.

The answer to your analogy is that neither a lion nor bear has the capacity for empathy. They do not appreciate what they do when they inflict pain upon another creature, and as such do not have a capacity for cruelty - to be evil, one must have purposeful intent. As humans know exactly what it is to feel and inflict pain on others, to do so without restraint would be cruel.

Of course, humans are also intelligent enough to kill animals in a quick and relatively pain-free way, which is why I don't think that eating animals is at all wrong provided they are treated ethically.

[MAthiAS]

I'm not saying we should have 100% meat diets, or stop harvesting grain.
I never said you said we should. If we did hypothetically have 100% meat diets, we would still have to produce grain, more grain in fact than being omnivorous, thus killing more small mammals and insects anyway, in addition to the actual animals eaten.

[Joel_DK_Clash]

So do you think that the best way to reduce the evils in the human diet (in todays world) is to have a good mixture of both plant and animal foods?

[Danger Bird]

So. I'm a vegetarian. I mainly did it for animal rights, but then it comes with added benefits such as a healther diet and lifestyle. However, it gets a lot of criticism from outsiders. The main argument against vegetarianism is people who are vegetarians don't get enough protein. This argument is so retarded because it's so untrue. Protein is also available in nuts, tofu, eggs, dairy, and a lot of vegetables. All of which I eat.. I love tofu. Anyway, my parents are really pissed as of late, literally telling me, "NO! You can't be a vegetarian. You'll get sick and your hair will lose its shine because of lack of protein." I feel like punching them.

What are your views on it?
I don't want to be a jerk, but...

[MAthiAS]

So do you think that the best way to reduce the evils in the human diet (in todays world) is to have a good mixture of both plant and animal foods?
Not at all, 100% veg. I'm just saying that the more meat we eat, the more grain we have to produce anyway, killing all those small mammals just so we can kill another.

[Joel_DK_Clash]

Not at all, 100% veg. I'm just saying that the more meat we eat, the more grain we have to produce anyway, killing all those small mammals just so we can kill another.

I get what your saying. Everyone would be so much better off if we all planted gardens and made an attempt to destroy as little wildlife as possible...but untill that day comes, I'm content with reducing guilt in other ways.

[sr800bkBassist]

I'm not saying we should have 100% meat diets, or stop harvesting grain.

Why is it ok for a lion to eat a gazelle or a bear to eat a salmon, but its not ok for a human to eat a cow? Its not cruel, its nature.
this has been explained SO many times.

if the lion doesn't kill the gazelle, it starves and DIES.
if the bear doesn't kill the salmon, it starves and DIES.

if the human doesn't kill the cow, we can create suplements and other things to substitute for the lack of protein and still live a full life expectancy.

so it's not nature. it's civilization.

[halfdeadhippo]

What about the cat mentioned in the other thread that leads the mouse on and eventually kills and leaves it for entertainment? Is it nature or just uncivilized?

[sr800bkBassist]

What about the cat mentioned in the other thread that leads the mouse on and eventually kills and leaves it for entertainment? Is it nature or just uncivilized?
it does not comprehend any pain, suffering, or even the slightest misfortune that the mouse will feel. all it knows is that it sees something moving, and knows that:
1.) fast moving small things make fun toys (just like any small toy you'd buy your cat)
2.) it'd probably taste good.

[cliffisanarcissist]

Not eating meat is a personnal choice.
I have been vegetarian for a few years and will probably remain one. I don't like the idea of eating another animal, I enjoy the health benefits, and the taste of meat makes me sick.
But if you choose to eat meat, than thats your choice. Although I do believe that humans will eventually move away from a meat based diet.

[Iskandar]

How many rodents and small mammals are killed during the harvest of vegetables and grain? Of course, that doesnt matter. All that matters is those poor, cute baby cows and piggies that get slaughtered. Just as many, if not more, animals are killed in the carbines of harvesting machines, then in a slaughterhouse.
Way to lift that from Maddox.

It's not about animals being killed. Animals get killed all the time in nature. It's about animals being killed inhumanely.

[halfdeadhippo]

it does not comprehend any pain, suffering, or even the slightest misfortune that the mouse will feel. all it knows is that it sees something moving, and knows that:
1.) fast moving small things make fun toys (just like any small toy you'd buy your cat)
2.) it'd probably taste good.
So does that make it part of nature or uncivilized to kill wastefully? To consider the cat's wasteful actions natural while calling a human killing a cow he intends to eat to be uncivilized is kind of backwards, I'd say. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting you, or something.

[sr800bkBassist]

So does that make it part of nature or uncivilized to kill wastefully? To consider the cat's wasteful actions natural while calling a human killing a cow he intends to eat to be uncivilized is kind of backwards, I'd say. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting you, or something.
cats have no idea about waste. they still have the same "innocence" that a human child does.

we humans can comprehend what we are doing and have the capacity to work out alternatives to this wastefulness. cats just run off the instinct and don't know what else they could do. humans can work out alternatives, and we have, but not everyone takes them. which is fine, but often to people who have taken these alternatives are looked at as radicals, who aren't going by "nature"'s law of survival of the fittest, even though most people who say this seem to forget that we live in a "civilization", which is the polar opposite of nature.

[halfdeadhippo]

cats have no idea about waste. they still have the same "innocence" that a human child does.

we humans can comprehend what we are doing and have the capacity to work out alternatives to this wastefulness. cats just run off the instinct and don't know what else they could do. humans can work out alternatives, and we have, but not everyone takes them. which is fine, but often to people who have taken these alternatives are looked at as radicals, who aren't going by "nature"'s law of survival of the fittest, even though most people who say this seem to forget that we live in a "civilization", which is the polar opposite of nature.I'm just trying to understand how killing and eating something constitutes wastefulness. I mean, yeah, you have to kill something, but the only way you can go about not killing something for food is to eat synthesized nutrient crap like in The Matrix. However, that would probably be viewed as being radical.

The idea that killing is wrong is just a product of humans having too much time on their hands to think about stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating sport hunting or a cattle genocide, because there's no benefit from it. The concept of civilization is a joke. It's just an excuse for people to follow fashion trends, cut their grass neater than their neighbors, and feel more important than other species. Wolves live in civilizations, but I doubt they'd feel bad if they found a tasty human snack. The concept of remorse and ego (which what all this responsibility stuff boils down to anyway) is just a byproduct of intelligence. We're nothing in the big picture, so we can do pretty much whatever we want. The moment we step out of line, nature will slap us into submission or, more likely, just get rid of us completely. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to portray nature as some sort of mother-figure entity. It's more like momentum. If one species wipes out too many other species, nature will balance her checkbook by wiping out the trouble spot. So you're right that vegetarians aren't evading "'nature's law of survival of the fittest", but not because of civilization's protection. It's because not even civilization can stop the forces of nature.

Basically, I'm trying to say that, while we may be intelligent and understand the concept of pain and suffering, that should only apply to us when dealing with each other, not to animals. As much as I hate to use this example, if a person kicks his pet dog, the dog will feel no ill will toward the "owner" because the dog can't understand the concept. If somebody were to kill and eat that dog, it would only be wasteful in the sense that the "owner" had an emotional attachment to the dog. If somebody were to kill and eat a stray, it wouldn't be wasteful, because it was for a purpose, regardless of whether there was an alternative to have steak for dinner instead.

I may have lost my point somewhere in there and/or worded some things in a manner that makes my point difficult to find/understand, but that's the way I see things.

[cliffisanarcissist]

A people with a diet based on violence will be a people with a lifestyle based off of violence.

[cliffisanarcissist]

I'm just trying to understand how killing and eating something constitutes wastefulness. I mean, yeah, you have to kill something, but the only way you can go about not killing something for food is to eat synthesized nutrient crap like in The Matrix. However, that would probably be viewed as being radical.

The idea that killing is wrong is just a product of humans having too much time on their hands to think about stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating sport hunting or a cattle genocide, because there's no benefit from it. The concept of civilization is a joke. It's just an excuse for people to follow fashion trends, cut their grass neater than their neighbors, and feel more important than other species. Wolves live in civilizations, but I doubt they'd feel bad if they found a tasty human snack. The concept of remorse and ego (which what all this responsibility stuff boils down to anyway) is just a byproduct of intelligence. We're nothing in the big picture, so we can do pretty much whatever we want. The moment we step out of line, nature will slap us into submission or, more likely, just get rid of us completely. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to portray nature as some sort of mother-figure entity. It's more like momentum. If one species wipes out too many other species, nature will balance her checkbook by wiping out the trouble spot. So you're right that vegetarians aren't evading "'nature's law of survival of the fittest", but not because of civilization's protection. It's because not even civilization can stop the forces of nature.

Basically, I'm trying to say that, while we may be intelligent and understand the concept of pain and suffering, that should only apply to us when dealing with each other, not to animals. As much as I hate to use this example, if a person kicks his pet dog, the dog will feel no ill will toward the "owner" because the dog can't understand the concept. If somebody were to kill and eat that dog, it would only be wasteful in the sense that the "owner" had an emotional attachment to the dog. If somebody were to kill and eat a stray, it wouldn't be wasteful, because it was for a purpose, regardless of whether there was an alternative to have steak for dinner instead.

I may have lost my point somewhere in there and/or worded some things in a manner that makes my point difficult to find/understand, but that's the way I see things.

You have obviously never owned a dog before.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

A people with a diet based on violence will be a people with a lifestyle based off of violence.

...what?

[ratsinthecity403]

Originally Posted by MattSharpIsCool
How many rodents and small mammals are killed during the harvest of vegetables and grain? Of course, that doesnt matter. All that matters is those poor, cute baby cows and piggies that get slaughtered. Just as many, if not more, animals are killed in the carbines of harvesting machines, then in a slaughterhouse.

Way to lift that from Maddox.

It's not about animals being killed. Animals get killed all the time in nature. It's about animals being killed inhumanely.

Not to mention that the amount of grain needed to feed a cow until it grows enough to become meat is going to be a lot more than what's in a loaf of bread.
So eating a cow or any other animal that's fed on grain or soy will in the end cause many more animals to be killed...

[halfdeadhippo]

You have obviously never owned a dog before.Definitely have, and definitely watched my younger sister kick said dog occaisionally, resulting in the dog running away for a bit, only to have the dog come back and be all buddy-buddy later that day. Most people, on the other hand, if you kick them, even if you try to explain that it's an accident, will start drawing conclusions and probably hold a grudge for a while. Maybe I should've mentioned that a single incident won't cause long-term ill will, because I'm not talking about repeated abuse, which will condition the dog into "not liking you", so to speak.

edit: A more recent example is my friend's chihuahua. My other friend and I were over at his house and he amused himself by shooting the dog with rubber bands, until my other friend yelled at him for it. I didn't see the act, but all that evening, the dog kept trying to get closer and closer to my friend while barking, until finally, the dog was in my friend's lap being petted. It's all instinct, and not true reasoning. It's like when we flinch, even when we know that something's not going to hit us.

[MAthiAS]

The idea that killing is wrong is just a product of humans having too much time on their hands to think about stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating sport hunting or a cattle genocide, because there's no benefit from it. The concept of civilization is a joke. It's just an excuse for people to follow fashion trends, cut their grass neater than their neighbors, and feel more important than other species. Wolves live in civilizations, but I doubt they'd feel bad if they found a tasty human snack. The concept of remorse and ego (which what all this responsibility stuff boils down to anyway) is just a byproduct of intelligence. We're nothing in the big picture, so we can do pretty much whatever we want. The moment we step out of line, nature will slap us into submission or, more likely, just get rid of us completely. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to portray nature as some sort of mother-figure entity. It's more like momentum. If one species wipes out too many other species, nature will balance her checkbook by wiping out the trouble spot. So you're right that vegetarians aren't evading "'nature's law of survival of the fittest", but not because of civilization's protection. It's because not even civilization can stop the forces of nature.
Dunno if this is exactly what you're talking about, but there's various nasty diseases in meat products due to the way the industry's been run and the enourmous amount of waste produced.

A people with a diet based on violence will be a people with a lifestyle based off of violence.
Reminds me of Tolstoy:
As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
Knowing of his vegetarian convictions, Tolstoy's aunt wrote to him before visiting Yasnaya Polyana to insist that meat be served during her stay. When she came down for her first dinner, she found a meat-cleaver on the table and a live chicken tied to her chair.

[halfdeadhippo]

Dunno if this is exactly what you're talking about, but there's various nasty diseases in meat products due to the way the industry's been run and the enourmous amount of waste produced.The nasty diseases you're likely to run into from eating meat products are mostly due to not cooking the meat well enough. The "wastes" in this case are stuff like the brains, the skeletons, and the organs, stuff we can't eat. The organs are usually donated to science classes for dissection purposes, and so we end up using most of the animal. That's how I understand it to be, at any rate.

And it's not like we don't do the same thing with vegetables. How many people do you know who eat the cob along with the corn or who eat the apple core?

[Joel_DK_Clash]

How many people do you know who eat the cob along with the corn or who eat the apple core?

My dad and the drummer in one of my bands do that with apples. :)

[Iskandar]

I would just like to point out that the argument "many animals are killed in the process of harvesting grains and vegetables" is absurd.

You can't statistically prove that; and I don't believe it. Are grain and soy fields full of animals that just sit there waiting for harvesters to run over them?

The ubiquity of that inane argument makes me want to shoot Maddox, because it originated with him.

[cliffisanarcissist]

You can't statistically prove that; and I don't believe it. Are grain and soy fields full of animals that just sit there waiting for harvesters to run over them?

The ubiquity of that inane argument makes me want to shoot Maddox, because it originated with him.
If you have taken Biology you should know that energy is lost as you go through the food chain. Since grains are lower on the food chain than livestock, if we cut out the livestock and eat what would be eating (grains) we are not losing the energy that would be typical used.

This is a much better explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_pyramid

[Iskandar]

If you have taken Biology you should know that energy is lost as you go through the food chain. Since grains are lower on the food chain than livestock, if we cut out the livestock and eat what would be eating (grains) we are not losing the energy that would be typical used.

This is a much better explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_pyramid
Thank you for your post. I was addressing a different issue in my above post; and I've clarified that now with an edit.

I'm familiar with the energy pyramid. Meat is fine to consume for its nutrients, but it shouldn't be the focal point of a meal. It simply doesn't provide enough kilojoules of energy.

[cliffisanarcissist]

It's more or less focused on the point that if we adverted resources away from meat production, we could feed more people. Killing animals during the harvest of grain? Perfection is impossible, the point is to do the best you are able to do.

[Iskandar]

It's more or less focused on the point that if we adverted resources away from meat production, we could feed more people. Killing animals during the harvest of grain? Perfection is impossible, the point is to do the best you are able to do.
Yep. I absolutely agree.

I edited my post above for your viewing pleasure.

[cliffisanarcissist]

Ah ha thats much more specific now.

[griftadan]

I would just like to point out that the argument "many animals are killed in the process of harvesting grains and vegetables" is absurd.

You can't statistically prove that; and I don't believe it. Are grain and soy fields full of animals that just sit there waiting for harvesters to run over them?

The ubiquity of that inane argument makes me want to shoot Maddox, because it originated with him.

it mostly displaces them from their habitat after land is cleared so that they starve.

[Iskandar]

it mostly displaces them from their habitat after land is cleared so that they starve.
Yeah, that's a good point to consider. Most Maddox fanboys don't though.

Well, destroying natural habitats is nothing new for humanity....

[clown_phobia]

Damn, I just wrote a really long reply to this thread, but somehow it got lost as I tried to post it. :angry:

[siva_chair]

It basically says "Modern science hasn't worked out what causes consciousness yet, therefore consciousness must be a fundamental property of everything" which is the Daddy of all non sequiturs.

And the absence of alternatives doesn't means we keep researching, not that there is any added validity to your explanation.

The argument you want to make would be somewhat analagous to this:
A:"England won the world cup in 1970."
B:"No they didn't."
A:"Who did?"
B:"I don't know."
A:"Well then we should conclude that my guess is the right one."

Sorry, read the thing again. It clearly states that the simplest explanation of why the physical sciences cannot yet explain consciousness is that they are not complete and gives us a model of the brain that is nothing more than a set of mechanical laws. This is obviously not how our consciousness works, as surely you would agree that we are much more than just organic turning machines.

Contemporary neuroscience rests on the idea that a physical system is made of independent parts which interact only with their immediate neighbords and whose behavior over time is deterministic. This is the principle behind all computational models (non-Quantum models) of the brain. Consciousness cannot be explained with a reductionist approach, because it does not belong to the realm of matter. So modern (non-quantum) physics cannot explain consciousness and the totality thereof by default. It isn't a question of "well, it can't explain it, so I'm right," it's the fact that logically, it can never explain it as the process of that kind of science is inadequate for explaining such a phenomenon.

But the idea that modern science has ultimately nothing to say is wrong anyway, which seems to be his platform.

Every non-quantum theory of the mind is completely and utterly inadequate at explaining consciousness. Only quantum theories of the mind do any justice to the totality of consciousness.

Siva still hasn't proved for me how, as he claims, "consciousness is a fundamental property of matter."
:)

I proposed that as it is the best explanation to explain consciousness. Much like how electricity could not be explained without first assuming the fundamental property of matter known as the electrical charge.

And even if it were, would we stop breathing because the O2 in our air doesn’t like being metabolized into CO2 and water?

Eating a plant, (or an animal), is just changing the said matter into slightly different matter. No matter what science says, I know that I can feel pain and sense fear, and with that reasoning I feel comfortable in assuming that animals in close relation to me (dogs, fish, chickens, emus, cows) can feel the same things. Can a crop of corn feel pain? I'm sure with some scientific reasoning it can, but untill I can feel what it is like to be a cob of corn, I'm content with choosing the lesser of the two evils; staying away from meat and animal products.

No, you see, that was proposed because of the "moral" reasonings of some vegetarians that it is immoral to cause something pain, even if it means the survival of the self. Life feeds on life. Instead of worrying so much about causing things pain, I am simply greatful that God/the Great Spirit/ect. has blessed me with a meal.

A people with a diet based on violence will be a people with a lifestyle based off of violence.

Funny you say that, as largescale warfare only came to be after the agricultural revolution. You see, before that, man had little concept of land ownership (there was no need for him to own land as he was a hunter-gatherer and followed the food source). After humans started planting crops, it became his land, and no other person could touch it, because it was his and no one else's. I believe your agricultural revolution spawned more violence as it lead to the rise of modern society, which pretty much consists of human beings having pissing contests of who is better and more powerful.

Not to mention that the amount of grain needed to feed a cow until it grows enough to become meat is going to be a lot more than what's in a loaf of bread.
So eating a cow or any other animal that's fed on grain or soy will in the end cause many more animals to be killed...

Except you don't need to feed cows grain. They eat pasture grass all the time, and they would eat that anyway, regardless of whether or not we ate them in turn. Besides, prairie fed cattle taste better than stockyard cattle anyway. So you see, it isn't the question of eating meat, it is how our meat is produced that would be a better discussion.

I would just like to point out that the argument "many animals are killed in the process of harvesting grains and vegetables" is absurd.

You can't statistically prove that; and I don't believe it. Are grain and soy fields full of animals that just sit there waiting for harvesters to run over them?

The ubiquity of that inane argument makes me want to shoot Maddox, because it originated with him.

Actually, it isn't absurd, as I have seen it. My grandparents and uncles are all farmers, and I have seen tons of small animals chopped up within machinery. Go out in a field and see how many animal homes you find.

[ratsinthecity403]

Except you don't need to feed cows grain. They eat pasture grass all the time, and they would eat that anyway, regardless of whether or not we ate them in turn. Besides, prairie fed cattle taste better than stockyard cattle anyway. So you see, it isn't the question of eating meat, it is how our meat is produced that would be a better discussion.


Well, they eat pasture grass until they're sent to the feedlot, where they're fed higher fiber grain diets to fatten them up for a number of months. Cows are rarely purely fed on grass diets.
Plus cattle often cause environmental problems if they're raised in an areas to which they aren't suited (like the western US). They can overgraze which leaves less food for native species and causes soil damage, which can lead to increased erosion and increase water runoff. They wouldn't be there to eat the grass if there wasn't a demand for them for food.

[siva_chair]

Well, they eat pasture grass until they're sent to the feedlot, where they're fed higher fiber grain diets to fatten them up for a number of months. Cows are rarely purely fed on grass diets.

There are several ranches here in Kansas that are purely prairie fed cattle, and it is considered some of the best beef around. I know they are rarely fed like that, but then again, I never said I was for cattle being fed like that either.

Plus cattle often cause environmental problems if they're raised in an areas to which they aren't suited (like the western US). They can overgraze which leaves less food for native species and causes soil damage, which can lead to increased erosion and increase water runoff. They wouldn't be there to eat the grass if there wasn't a demand for them for food.

That is the fault of human beings trying to use any land they want for that sort of thing. In the midwest, there are vast prairies that could be used for cattle even moreso then they already are. I do not support the cruel conditions in which cattle are placed under, but I do not think eating meat is inherently bad or evil and getting rid of meat in our diet is just silly.

[sr800bkBassist]

i think Wikipedia has a good summary of health benefits:

Most nutritionists state that a diet rich in fresh fruit and vegetables but low in animal fat and red meat offers numerous health benefits, including a significantly lower risk of heart disease, cancer, renal failure and stroke. The American Dietetic Association, the largest organization of nutrition professionals, states on its website "Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer." [5] [6] The American Heart Association's website states "Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer." [7] Studies show that a vegetarian mother's breast milk has significantly lower levels of pesticide residue than a non-vegetarian's.

plus a good statement about our position as carnivores:
Many vegetarians choose to be so in part because they find meat and meat products aesthetically unappetizing. Proponents assert that human beings are not instinctively attracted to eating live or dead meat in nature. For example, the carcass of a cow lying in a forest would attract a real carnivore like a wolf or leopard, but would disgust most human beings. The metaphor by the poet Douglas Dunn is that if one gives a young child an apple and a live chicken, the child would instinctively play with the chicken and eat the apple, whereas if a cat was presented with the same choices, its natural impulse would be the opposite. [20]

[PerpetualBurn]

Sorry, read the thing again. It clearly states that the simplest explanation of why the physical sciences cannot yet explain consciousness is that they are not complete and gives us a model of the brain that is nothing more than a set of mechanical laws. This is obviously not how our consciousness works, as surely you would agree that we are much more than just organic turning machines.

It doesn't have any reasonable explanation as to why it's a fundamental property of the Universe. And that certainly isn't a simpler explanation, as now we have to explain why rocks show absolutely no sign of consciousness.

Contemporary neuroscience rests on the idea that a physical system is made of independent parts which interact only with their immediate neighbords and whose behavior over time is deterministic. This is the principle behind all computational models (non-Quantum models) of the brain. Consciousness cannot be explained with a reductionist approach, because it does not belong to the realm of matter. So modern (non-quantum) physics cannot explain consciousness and the totality thereof by default. It isn't a question of "well, it can't explain it, so I'm right," it's the fact that logically, it can never explain it as the process of that kind of science is inadequate for explaining such a phenomenon.


You see, it's not okay to just state it's not in the "realm of matter". You have to scientifically justify this radical approach.

[nitzguy]

I like meat, so I’ll eat it. We harvest cows to consume; we do the same for carrots... both living fixtures on earth. I don't care if hate meat, just don’t ostracize me for eating it

[StrawberryFieldsForever]

I recently won a debate in my school about vegeterianism versus a mixed diet.

I, being the blood-thirsty meat eater I am, chose to be on the mixed diet side. I found some interesting facts as well as tested out a few theory's.

One of the veggy arguments was concerning the horomones pumped into animals to make them meatier.

My counter-argument was concerning genetic modification and how it is essentially the same thing.

Then they argued how all the land used for raising animals could be used for growing veggies.

So I reminded them of the massive amoutns of pesticide and herbicide use that would essentially ruin the land even more, and I even found out some crazy facts about these 'cides and their enviromental effects.

I told them that humans were essentially animals, and it is our evolutionary right to eat meat, just as it is the lions or the sharks, and I doubt that the lion or the shark cares how that damn gazelle or little Nemo feels as they tear him apart.

They talked about the healthiness of beans...I talked about how good it tasted to mix hot dogs in those beans.

They argued that if we stopped eating meat all together and started eating veggies, then all the world would have food.

I reminded them of how cows and pigs and chickens eat veggies and there would not be enough to go around without making these species extinct or atleast endangered...so much for their animal rights argument. If we were to just stop eating meat all together these animals would suffer over-population and eat all our damn veggies. Then they'd all die and look at that - millions of cows that wasted meat and veggies and could have gone into our stomachs leaving us all happy.

They're only argument that had any real impact on the morons in our class was that Einstien was a vegetarian.

But so was Hitler, as I told them.

[finnishpunkdudeowns]

The only side effect of being a vegitarian i found is being a complete pussy.

[siva_chair]

It doesn't have any reasonable explanation as to why it's a fundamental property of the Universe.

As it cannot be adequately explained otherwise. Much like how electricity could not be explained until a fundamental property of matter was assumed. It is the same kind of situation.

And that certainly isn't a simpler explanation, as now we have to explain why rocks show absolutely no sign of consciousness.

No that is easy. They lack the physical features neccessary to communicate to us so we can empathize with them. I have never said rocks are fully sentient creatures, merely that consciousness could be a fundamental property of the very matter they are made up of.

You see, it's not okay to just state it's not in the "realm of matter". You have to scientifically justify this radical approach.

Is the content of consciousness within the realm of matter? Are the concepts, thoughts, empathic feelings, ect. that make up your mind physical things? Do dreams have a mass or weight? I thought it was understood that the content of consciousness was non-physical.

[Iskandar]

Actually, it isn't absurd, as I have seen it. My grandparents and uncles are all farmers, and I have seen tons of small animals chopped up within machinery. Go out in a field and see how many animal homes you find.
I'm going to use a loaded comparison here, so don't mistake me for a militant vegan: That's like comparing the yearly murders in NYC to the Holocaust.

[PerpetualBurn]

As it cannot be adequately explained otherwise. Much like how electricity could not be explained until a fundamental property of matter was assumed. It is the same kind of situation.

It's not a fundamental property of matter. Electric currents only flow within specific arrangements of matter...like consciousness.

No that is easy. They lack the physical features neccessary to communicate to us so we can empathize with them. I have never said rocks are fully sentient creatures, merely that consciousness could be a fundamental property of the very matter they are made up of.

This is a most confusing point. If consciousness arises from the arrangement of matter then I fail to see how it's any different to current explanations of how brainwaves arise.

Is the content of consciousness within the realm of matter? Are the concepts, thoughts, empathic feelings, ect. that make up your mind physical things? Do dreams have a mass or weight? I thought it was understood that the content of consciousness was non-physical.

Begging the question is a fallacy.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

So I found out one of my best friends is a vegetarian recently.

She does it for her health, and smokes 4-5 cigarettes a day. When I told her she'd be better off quitting the smokes and eating the meat, she said she didn't want to gain weight :amaze:.

[nitzguy]

So I found out one of my best friends is a vegetarian recently.

She does it for her health, and smokes 4-5 cigarettes a day. When I told her she'd be better off quitting the smokes and eating the meat, she said she didn't want to gain weight :amaze:.

Thats funny.:amaze: :chug:

[Anti-Prefix]

I recently won a debate in my school about vegeterianism versus a mixed diet.

I, being the blood-thirsty meat eater I am, chose to be on the mixed diet side. I found some interesting facts as well as tested out a few theory's.

One of the veggy arguments was concerning the horomones pumped into animals to make them meatier.

My counter-argument was concerning genetic modification and how it is essentially the same thing.

Then they argued how all the land used for raising animals could be used for growing veggies.

So I reminded them of the massive amoutns of pesticide and herbicide use that would essentially ruin the land even more, and I even found out some crazy facts about these 'cides and their enviromental effects.

I told them that humans were essentially animals, and it is our evolutionary right to eat meat, just as it is the lions or the sharks, and I doubt that the lion or the shark cares how that damn gazelle or little Nemo feels as they tear him apart.

They talked about the healthiness of beans...I talked about how good it tasted to mix hot dogs in those beans.

They argued that if we stopped eating meat all together and started eating veggies, then all the world would have food.

I reminded them of how cows and pigs and chickens eat veggies and there would not be enough to go around without making these species extinct or atleast endangered...so much for their animal rights argument. If we were to just stop eating meat all together these animals would suffer over-population and eat all our damn veggies. Then they'd all die and look at that - millions of cows that wasted meat and veggies and could have gone into our stomachs leaving us all happy.

They're only argument that had any real impact on the morons in our class was that Einstien was a vegetarian.

But so was Hitler, as I told them.

First of all--a debate at a school, no matter how prestigous your school may be, is an institution with means of synthetic education and has absolutely no real value, or weight in this argument.

Secondly, hormone disrupting chemicals that they inject into the animals affect humans much more severely (not to mention hurt the animal) than genetically modified vegetables. I find this somewhat of an obvious statement because vegetables don't need to be in as cultured of an environment as meat, nor do they require the same amount of attention. And again, nothing with a nervous system is being tortured, slaughtered, stripped of dignity, et cetera.

Yes, the land could be used for vegetables instead of meat, and there are many attempts at eliminating the use of pesticides, however, there are still poisons used to propagate, move (PETROLEUM), kill, and store the animals. So you have no argument there.

As far as there not being enough vegetables for the animals, I guess you do not realize that our human race purposefully propagates billions of animals to feed our population explosion. Yes, the population, WHICH (along with totalitarian agriculture) will kill us MUCH faster than any pesticides used for protecting vegetables, or any other pseudo-validations you have proposed hitherto.

Lastly,

Einstein and Hitler were both very intelligent, however, Hitler used his brain power for propaganda and disgustingly inhumane, biased rhetoric. So, again, you have no well thought arguments, only ones that seemingly defeated your fellow idiot peers (really, they just didn't have the proper counter material). If you would like to present more of your pseudo-educational boondoggle that your school sponsored, I'd be happy to counter.

[Anti-Prefix]

Here's some quotes if you're interested, buddy.

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." —Albert Einstein

"Our task must be to free ourselves...by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty." —Albert Einstein

"I know that it is a hopeless undertaking to debate about fundamental value judgements. For instance, if someone approves, as a goal, the extirpation of the human race from the earth, one cannot refute such a viewpoint on rational grounds. But if there is agreement on certain goals and values, one can argue rationally about the means by which these objectives may be obtained." —Albert Einstein

[Atomic Rain]

Eintein was good at physics but frankly i've never been a fan of much else he ever said.

"god does not play dice" strikes me as one lame thing to say. One, all scientific experiments should be done with the assumption that no metaphysical beings will playw ith our results because otherwise there's no point doing anything, and secondly because it's a clear case of religion getting in the way fo hard facts; the universe is ruled by probability.

[sr800bkBassist]

Eintein was good at physics but frankly i've never been a fan of much else he ever said.

"god does not play dice" strikes me as one lame thing to say. One, all scientific experiments should be done with the assumption that no metaphysical beings will playw ith our results because otherwise there's no point doing anything, and secondly because it's a clear case of religion getting in the way fo hard facts; the universe is ruled by probability.
that's what you think.
but then again, Einstein is smarter than you.

[Anti-Prefix]

that's what you think.
but then again, Einstein is smarter than you.

Yes, this is exactly what I wanted to say, however, I didn't want to be rude.

[siva_chair]

I'm going to use a loaded comparison here, so don't mistake me for a militant vegan: That's like comparing the yearly murders in NYC to the Holocaust.


Yeah, harvesting does kill lots more animals. Not only do you have to think of the small animals chopped up, you also have to think of pesticides and insects being killed.

It's not a fundamental property of matter. Electric currents only flow within specific arrangements of matter...like consciousness.

Actually, the electrical charge is a fundamental property of all matter. Conductivity only appears in certain arrangements, but all matter has electrical charge, and conductivity cannot be explained without that fundamental property.

This is a most confusing point. If consciousness arises from the arrangement of matter then I fail to see how it's any different to current explanations of how brainwaves arise.

Because current ones cannot answer the problems of experience and how consciousness arises. Here is a good link discussing many of the problems current explanations have (even the problems some quantum explanations have), and even suggests an alternate explanation.

http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html

Begging the question is a fallacy.

I was asking you those questions, and you didn't answer them. Are those things (the content of consciousness/experience) physical in nature?

Here's some quotes if you're interested, buddy.

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." —Albert Einstein

"Our task must be to free ourselves...by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty." —Albert Einstein

"I know that it is a hopeless undertaking to debate about fundamental value judgements. For instance, if someone approves, as a goal, the extirpation of the human race from the earth, one cannot refute such a viewpoint on rational grounds. But if there is agreement on certain goals and values, one can argue rationally about the means by which these objectives may be obtained." —Albert Einstein

Good thing Einstien wasn't a dietitian.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I recently won a debate in my school about vegeterianism versus a mixed diet.

I, being the blood-thirsty meat eater I am, chose to be on the mixed diet side. I found some interesting facts as well as tested out a few theory's

One of the veggy arguments was concerning the horomones pumped into animals to make them meatier.

My counter-argument was concerning genetic modification and how it is essentially the same thing.

No. Hormones actually alter the chemical composition of the meat, which in turn has an effect on the people who eat it. If you eat a cow that was juiced on steroids, you in turn absorb a (small) percentage of the steroids. If you just genetically reprogram a species of corn to grow twice as fast, you're not altering the corn itself. You could've argued about genetic fertilizers, but you fayle at this argument.

Then they argued how all the land used for raising animals could be used for growing veggies.

So I reminded them of the massive amoutns of pesticide and herbicide use that would essentially ruin the land even more, and I even found out some crazy facts about these 'cides and their enviromental effects.

Not every farm uses pesticides, and not every pesticide pollutes.

It's a known fact that energy is lost at every step of the way. If a blade of grass absorbs the sunlight and you eat the blade of grass, you do not absorb as much energy as if you had absorbed directly from the sun. The amount of energy lost is why it's difficult to find species more than 3 or 4 rungs up on the food chain (ie sun->plankton->little fish->shark). Basically what this means is that even if you ignore the space the cattle ranch uses, people would have more energy to eat if they ate the cow's grain. I'm not exactly sure how humanly digestible cattle feed is, but the land used to grow it could still be used to grow a roughly equal amount of food for humans.

I told them that humans were essentially animals, and it is our evolutionary right to eat meat, just as it is the lions or the sharks, and I doubt that the lion or the shark cares how that damn gazelle or little Nemo feels as they tear him apart.

Do we eat lions and sharks? Pretty much all the animals we eat are vegetarians. Your argument doesn't stand, because if eating is murder, we're just co-murderers with the other carnivores.

They talked about the healthiness of beans...I talked about how good it tasted to mix hot dogs in those beans.

Hot dogs are probably 50 times worse for your health than a healthy type of bean.

They argued that if we stopped eating meat all together and started eating veggies, then all the world would have food.

There's already enough food for the entire world, but it's not being distributed properly. That's why there's famine.

I reminded them of how cows and pigs and chickens eat veggies and there would not be enough to go around without making these species extinct or atleast endangered...so much for their animal rights argument. If we were to just stop eating meat all together these animals would suffer over-population and eat all our damn veggies. Then they'd all die and look at that - millions of cows that wasted meat and veggies and could have gone into our stomachs leaving us all happy.

Whereas it's much more humane to slaughter them :confused:? I see what you're saying, but I disagree.

They're only argument that had any real impact on the morons in our class was that Einstien was a vegetarian.

But so was Hitler, as I told them.

Your arguments shouldn't have appealed to the morons of the class. You should have appealed to people with enough intellect to understand valid points. But lawl at the Hitler argument.


You know, I'm a huge meat-lover, but I think you did a terrible job at the debate. You must have been up against some complete idiots.






Good thing Einstien wasn't a dietitian.

Actually, I think that his last quote was pretty intelligent. It does a pretty good job explaining the complete impasses in a lot of conflicts around the world.

[siva_chair]

Actually, I think that his last quote was pretty intelligent. It does a pretty good job explaining the complete impasses in a lot of conflicts around the world.


Sure, it was intelligent, but also didn't inherently have anything to do with a vegetarian lifestyle.

My statement was primarily concerned with the ones about diet. The second one is great too, but the poster pressupposes that one cannot respect an animal and eat it as well.

[Jaxom_of_the_Lambs]

I don't have any real problems with vegetarianism, I just don't like the self-righteous asshole type (i.e. PETA).

PETA just really pisses me off for some reason. I've even seen a few things that I don't like the sight of and can't condone, but for some reason, because the person posting it is a PETA-freak, I just really didn't like it.

Basically, it comes down to this: PETA is a subversive, manipulative, corrupt organization that forces others to conform to their own moral views by threatening companies to launch massive smear campaigns that are biased and not even half-truths. They're pretty much the left-wing version of evangelicals.


Oh, sorry. I didn't read everything here, way too many pages. Just giving my cents!

[PerpetualBurn]

Actually, the electrical charge is a fundamental property of all matter. Conductivity only appears in certain arrangements, but all matter has electrical charge, and conductivity cannot be explained without that fundamental property.

Well you can't really use charge and electricity so interchangably, but yes, one gives rise to another. You're going to have to actually demonstrate that consciousness is like this to have a point, though.

Because current ones cannot answer the problems of experience and how consciousness arises. Here is a good link discussing many of the problems current explanations have (even the problems some quantum explanations have), and even suggests an alternate explanation.

http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html

Department of Philosophy? So you aren't going to produce any medical/biological information or research for this discussion?

I was asking you those questions, and you didn't answer them. Are those things (the content of consciousness/experience) physical in nature?

I'm not answering anything that is irrelevant to the discussion. Asking me questions will not strengthen your theory. I want some evidence to suggest that you are right, otherwise stop pretending that this is science.

[RockAndRoll]

Eintein was good at physics but frankly i've never been a fan of much else he ever said.

"god does not play dice" strikes me as one lame thing to say. One, all scientific experiments should be done with the assumption that no metaphysical beings will playw ith our results because otherwise there's no point doing anything, and secondly because it's a clear case of religion getting in the way fo hard facts; the universe is ruled by probability.
I really don't think Einstein meant that literally. Honestly how much of other things he said have you read?

[Futue te Ipsum]

I really don't think Einstein meant that literally. Honestly how much of other things he said have you read?Seeing as how he was an atheist (which makes me lol at the websites going into detail on how he kept his belief in god), him not meaning it literally is very likely.

I think he just meant that our laws were not down to chance. He was wrong.

[RockAndRoll]

Seeing as how he was an atheist (which makes me lol at the websites going into detail on how he kept his belief in god), him not meaning it literally is very likely.

I think he just meant that our laws were not down to chance. He was wrong.
Indeed. :thumb:

Einstein did have a 'religious' aspect about him but not as most people think of it, it comes from a deep love of his work and awe at the universe, I think many physicists have had similar feelings.

[Steerpike]

If you would like to present more of your pseudo-educational boondoggle that your school sponsored, I'd be happy to counter.

You have got one hell of a bug up your *** aobut this, don't you?

Here's some quotes if you're interested, buddy.

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." —Albert Einstein

"Our task must be to free ourselves...by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty." —Albert Einstein

"I know that it is a hopeless undertaking to debate about fundamental value judgements. For instance, if someone approves, as a goal, the extirpation of the human race from the earth, one cannot refute such a viewpoint on rational grounds. But if there is agreement on certain goals and values, one can argue rationally about the means by which these objectives may be obtained." —Albert Einstein

You seem confused, so I should probably point out to you that Einstein was a physicist. Physicists study the laws of matter and energy in the universe.

A nutritionist is someone who Einstein wasn't. A nutritionist devotes their life to counselling people on balancing their diets because they've put years and years of study into the science of how the human body uses the nutrients it consumes as well as keeping up with the on-going research.

I have yet to meet a single nutritionist who advocates completely cutting meats, dairy, and other protein-heavy foods out of your diet. Rather, they want you to balance it with proper helpings of fruits, vegetables, grains, and so on. And I'm more inclined to listen to them than an angry thin man on the internet.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I have yet to meet a single nutritionist who advocates completely cutting meats, dairy, and other protein-heavy foods out of your diet. Rather, they want you to balance it with proper helpings of fruits, vegetables, grains, and so on. And I'm more inclined to listen to them than an angry thin man on the internet.

But... but... Dr. Atkins is a DOCTOR!!!


lol @ "ill be healthier if i dont eat any carbs"

[Steerpike]

But... but... Dr. Atkins is a DOCTOR!!!


lol @ "ill be healthier if i dont eat any carbs"

He was also an asshole who failed to mention to people that his diet did cause you to lose weight, but not from burning fat, but rather from the body's metabolism breaking down muscle mass to fill in the nutritional gaps.

I know a couple nutritioinists and personal trainers myself. None of them support veganism, vegetarianism, or trendy quick-fix diets. Unless you have a specific health condition that mandates vegetarianism (such as anemia), then it simply isn't as naturally efficient as a balanced diet. Sure you can be healthy as a vegetarian, but it's much easier, more efficient, and convenient to balance out an omnivorous diet that you were programmed to consume through evolution.

I'm in no way saying I'm against vegetarianism. But the reasons to convert to such a lifestyle aren't enough to convince me personally. You can put whatever you want into your own body, but I ask that I be given the same respect.

[Anti-Prefix]

You have got one hell of a bug up your *** aobut this, don't you?



You seem confused, so I should probably point out to you that Einstein was a physicist. Physicists study the laws of matter and energy in the universe.

A nutritionist is someone who Einstein wasn't. A nutritionist devotes their life to counselling people on balancing their diets because they've put years and years of study into the science of how the human body uses the nutrients it consumes as well as keeping up with the on-going research.

I have yet to meet a single nutritionist who advocates completely cutting meats, dairy, and other protein-heavy foods out of your diet. Rather, they want you to balance it with proper helpings of fruits, vegetables, grains, and so on. And I'm more inclined to listen to them than an angry thin man on the internet.

Yes, and the laws of physics apply to everyone (the theory of special relativity). Besides, there is no manifestations that vegetarians lead shorter lives, it is very doubtful. Also, there is no doubt that we consume excessive quantities of meat, and I would be very skeptical of a nutritionist whom thinks otherwise.

And to answer your bromide; no, I do not have a bug up my a'ss about this. Thanks for being polite, however.

[siva_chair]

Well you can't really use charge and electricity so interchangably, but yes, one gives rise to another. You're going to have to actually demonstrate that consciousness is like this to have a point, though.

Consciousness is exactly like this. It is an observed phenomenon that cannot be explained via known fundamental forces. Gravity cannot explain the conscious experience, nor can electricity, nor can any other accepted fundamental property, as the conscious experience is wholly unlike these things.


Department of Philosophy? So you aren't going to produce any medical/biological information or research for this discussion?

You didn't read it did you?

I'm not answering anything that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Except it is all relevant.

Asking me questions will not strengthen your theory.

No, but it will strengthen your understanding, which may progress the discussion further.

I will ask again: Is the content of consciousness of the physical? This is a question that you can answer for yourself.

I want some evidence to suggest that you are right, otherwise stop pretending that this is science.

Well, I want you to stop being so close minded and read the article. If you would actually read it, I think you will find it quite detailed.

I also fail to see how this is not science. You saying it isn't science doesn't mean it isn't science, either.

[Steerpike]

Yes, and the laws of physics apply to everyone (the theory of special relativity).

So a physicist knows more about human biology than a biologist specializing in human biology?

Besides, there is no manifestations that vegetarians lead shorter lives, it is very doubtful.

Where did I say that?

Also, there is no doubt that we consume excessive quantities of meat,

Where did I challenge that perception?

and I would be very skeptical of a nutritionist whom thinks otherwise.

Are you sure you're not talking to my evil clone or something? Because I never said anything like that.

And to answer your bromide; no, I do not have a bug up my a'ss about this. Thanks for being polite, however.

You're welcome.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

He was also an asshole who failed to mention to people that his diet did cause you to lose weight, but not from burning fat, but rather from the body's metabolism breaking down muscle mass to fill in the nutritional gaps.

I know a couple nutritioinists and personal trainers myself. None of them support veganism, vegetarianism, or trendy quick-fix diets. Unless you have a specific health condition that mandates vegetarianism (such as anemia), then it simply isn't as naturally efficient as a balanced diet. Sure you can be healthy as a vegetarian, but it's much easier, more efficient, and convenient to balance out an omnivorous diet that you were programmed to consume through evolution.

I'm in no way saying I'm against vegetarianism. But the reasons to convert to such a lifestyle aren't enough to convince me personally. You can put whatever you want into your own body, but I ask that I be given the same respect.

I was kidding, dude. I hate Atkins as much as you do.

I train 4-5 times a week, and I load carbs like a mofo :p.

[Ando!]

I wrote this about animal cruelty awhile back, it fits loosley:

So KFC tortures their chickens. We can shy away from this fact, or even try to deny it. Still, such denial of this fact is obscure and unneeded. Rather, I find we must embrace this torture of chickens. The following are notes on reasons why.

Part of the biological definition of "animal" states that to be an animal, an organism does not produce its own food, meaning, of course, that an animal must consume (ie, eat) other organisms to survive. Now, these forms of life include other animals. A person cannot gain the nutritional supplement that one needs from lettuce alone. So eating chicken is not only a tasty treat, it is our duty as a species. If a person feels bad for eating chickens, since it is supposedly "cruel" to kill living things, they should really just go die somewhere. The plants they have to eat is just as alive as that chicken. We harvest, grind, process, spray, boil, bake, and eat our crops, but no one raises a fuss. So why this big deal with chickens?

Now the obvious counter-argument is that chickens are able to think, that they have a mind. For starters, it's never been proven that plants dont. They may think entirely independantly of the organ systems on which we rely (ie, we don't know how a tree thinks). Secondly, chickens are not a higher form of life. Birds are the direct evolutionary product of dinosaurs, and their evolution has not really been cerebral. Chickens are among the dumbest land animals on the planet. Domestic chickens to an even greater extent, since they were made to be stupid, fat, and ultimately eaten. Furthermore, whether or not they are a "higher" form of life is irrelevant. For example, take testing on chimps. Though what we put them through may seem "cruel," our study on SIV in monkeys is probably the most fruitfal way we can study SIV's close cousin, HIV. Now if you value a chimpanzee's life over a human's, you really need to reorginize your priorities.

Now some of the things that go on inside a chicken processing plant are, addmitedly, a bit too "economical," but the fact remains that these chickens are born to be tasty, and not to be happy. If, as an activist, you feel you should "help the cause," I would suggest trying an issue that's a bit more pertinant, like the malaria outbreaks in Africa. Over 3,000 people die daily from this disease daily. That's like 9/11 happening every single day. If you don't find that a bit more alarming than a few tortured chickens, your'e about as dumb as the birds you try to protect.

[Ando!]

And this was written as more of a joke:

Animal Cruelty is Good, Part II:
God Supports animal cruelty, and so should you.


Alright let's get right to this. I'm sure all the christian/jewish folk out there have heard the bible story of the binding of Issac. If not you can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac
OR
just read these quick points:
-God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Issac
-God was really just testing Abraham's loyalty, he had nothing against Issac
-Abraham loyally obeys and prepares to slaughter his son.
-God sends an angel and, at the last second, Issac is saved.
-Abraham finds that a ram has caught itself in a nearby bush. He sacrifices it instead.

Now, first let's make some important assumptions. Obviously, that ram didn't end up there by itself. God had to have put it there, since rams don't just go around getting caught in bushes where they can be convienently sacrificed in leau of the father of the Isrialites. So God intended that Abraham sacrificed the ram. Now let's take that and make two inferations:

1. God values human life over animal life. So if animal testing is ultimatley more beneficial that it is wasteful, then it's totally supported by God in that aspect.
2. God does in fact consider us a higher form of life. We were made in his image, and lower forms of life are our objects of eden used to appease us.

[Reaganista]

Also, there is no doubt that we consume excessive quantities of meat, and I would be very skeptical of a nutritionist whom thinks otherwise.

any nutritionist worth their macronutrients says you should eat protein with every meal

[PerpetualBurn]

Consciousness is exactly like this. It is an observed phenomenon that cannot be explained via known fundamental forces. Gravity cannot explain the conscious experience, nor can electricity, nor can any other accepted fundamental property, as the conscious experience is wholly unlike these things.

You don't just get to state this as fact, you have to logically demonstrate that it's a fundamental property.


You didn't read it did you?

I'd just like to see if you can offer an opinion of someone qualified in the department of neuroscience.

Except it is all relevant.
No, but it will strengthen your understanding, which may progress the discussion further.
I will ask again: Is the content of consciousness of the physical? This is a question that you can answer for yourself.

Once again: begging the question is a fallacy. YOU have to provide evidence for YOUR claims.

Well, I want you to stop being so close minded and read the article. If you would actually read it, I think you will find it quite detailed.

I also fail to see how this is not science. You saying it isn't science doesn't mean it isn't science, either.

I'm not going to argue with an article. I'm sure you can provide text after crappy text on the matter, but I would actually like to see you provide extracts and form some semblance of an argument.

[Ando!]

Studies have shown that local electromagnetic emmisions from are disturbed when nearby plants are being killed/harvested. The plants are then processed far more heavily that any animal. If you're so worried about "animal cruelty," then why not feel the same way for the plants on which you gorge?

[Joey Hoser]

I wish everybody would stop getting so pissy over this subject. You can be healthy whether you eat meat or not.

How can someone look so down on someone for not wanting to kill animals, and equally, how can someone view another as some sort of monster for doing what humans and many animals have done since the beginning of sentient life?

[siva_chair]

You don't just get to state this as fact, you have to logically demonstrate that it's a fundamental property.

Well, if it isn't an emergent property, it has to be a fundamental.

If you were to read the article, you may gain some insight into this specific issue a bit more. Not only does it put it better than I probably ever could, but it goes into much more detail than I could ever invest the time into posting.

I'd just like to see if you can offer an opinion of someone qualified in the department of neuroscience.

If you look at the authors credentials, I think you will find he is qualified to talk about consciousness.

If you need more, look at some of Karl Pribrams work or David Bohm's. Pribram is one of the most respected neuroscientists out there and he and Bohm both have many of the same opinions I have presented.


Once again: begging the question is a fallacy. YOU have to provide evidence for YOUR claims.

You are the only one who can observe the content of your consciousness. I can't exactly show you mine, so you will have to look at your own.

I'm not going to argue with an article.

Yeah I know, you aren't even going to read it.

I'm sure you can provide text after crappy text on the matter,

And I'm sure you won't read them and just call them crappy.

but I would actually like to see you provide extracts and form some semblance of an argument.

Look, I have presented several upon several things in this thread and various other ones. You have made it very clear that you have made up your mind that I am wrong and no matter what I present, you are just going to call it wrong and claim it isn't science or isn't logical. Instead of viewing it with an open mind and perhaps reading a few little articles (which would probably do wonders for your understanding of the subject), you just sit there and claim it is stupid or illogical or not science. You go ahead and dance around with your head up your ***, while some of the most brilliant men in these fields present many of the same opinions on the issue that I have. I am sorry that I cannot invest hours upon hours of my time in typing up long detailed arguments over this stuff (and I don't really see the point in that as you are just going to say it is all bull anyway), so I link some pages that might give you some insight into this stuff and present, more or less, the opinions I have stated in these threads. When you refuse to read them, then there is no point discussing these things as you have already refused to discuss them. Be it out of fear of being wrong or out of smug arrogance or some combination of both, I do not know, but so far you have done nothing but say I am wrong, act smug, and show yourself to be close minded.

[Ando!]

I wish everybody would stop getting so pissy over this subject. You can be healthy whether you eat meat or not.

How can someone look so down on someone for not wanting to kill animals, and equally, how can someone view another as some sort of monster for doing what humans and many animals have done since the beginning of sentient life?
Disagreement is the basis of this forum.

[Joey Hoser]

Disagreement is the basis of this forum.


I know. I just dont understand why people get so worked up and offensive about it.

[ratsinthecity403]

Studies have shown that local electromagnetic emmisions from are disturbed when nearby plants are being killed/harvested. The plants are then processed far more heavily that any animal. If you're so worried about "animal cruelty," then why not feel the same way for the plants on which you gorge?

Even if plants were to experience pain (which I doubt, but for the sake of argument), it still would end up being less cruel to eat just plants. Cows don't photosynthesize, they require a lot of range grass (range cattle can cause environmental damage when raised in the wrong areas) and beyond that they bulk up on grain for a number of months at a feedlot before getting killed for human consumption. So by eating a cow, you're just higher up on the energy pyramid and have caused a larger number of plants to have been killed in the long run.

[PerpetualBurn]

Well, if it isn't an emergent property, it has to be a fundamental.

If you were to read the article, you may gain some insight into this specific issue a bit more. Not only does it put it better than I probably ever could, but it goes into much more detail than I could ever invest the time into posting.

There've been many arguments on this site about evolution, in absolutely everyone scientists have been expected to offer a better argument than "Origin of the Species say it better than me"

If you look at the authors credentials, I think you will find he is qualified to talk about consciousness.

If you need more, look at some of Karl Pribrams work or David Bohm's. Pribram is one of the most respected neuroscientists out there and he and Bohm both have many of the same opinions I have presented.

Well quote him, don't expect that name-dropping will suffice.

You are the only one who can observe the content of your consciousness. I can't exactly show you mine, so you will have to look at your own.

This is the stupidest and least scientific thing ever said.

Yeah I know, you aren't even going to read it.

Sure I have, but you're going to have to provide a specific excerpt for discussion because it's a long and crappy article.

And I'm sure you won't read them and just call them crappy.

You know what? Just did.

Look, I have presented several upon several things in this thread and various other ones. You have made it very clear that you have made up your mind that I am wrong and no matter what I present, you are just going to call it wrong and claim it isn't science or isn't logical. Instead of viewing it with an open mind and perhaps reading a few little articles (which would probably do wonders for your understanding of the subject), you just sit there and claim it is stupid or illogical or not science. You go ahead and dance around with your head up your ***, while some of the most brilliant men in these fields present many of the same opinions on the issue that I have. I am sorry that I cannot invest hours upon hours of my time in typing up long detailed arguments over this stuff (and I don't really see the point in that as you are just going to say it is all bull anyway), so I link some pages that might give you some insight into this stuff and present, more or less, the opinions I have stated in these threads. When you refuse to read them, then there is no point discussing these things as you have already refused to discuss them. Be it out of fear of being wrong or out of smug arrogance or some combination of both, I do not know, but so far you have done nothing but say I am wrong, act smug, and show yourself to be close minded.

You don't need to spend hours. You need to give me some specific evidence to suggest that you're right, and we'll move from there.

[Iskandar]

any nutritionist worth their macronutrients says you should eat protein with every meal
Yeah but it a) doesn't have to be from meat b) shouldn't be too much protein form too much meat.

Meat's just a better source than most. You could get your protein from handfulls of nuts if you wanted.

The only thing that's really hard to get without meat is B12.

[siva_chair]

There've been many arguments on this site about evolution, in absolutely everyone scientists have been expected to offer a better argument than "Origin of the Species say it better than me"

You were the one speaking about practicality earlier. It is much more practical for me to direct you to sources of information than it is for me to sit here and spend countless hours typing something up that you are just going to call unscientific and wrong. I am not about to invest that much time into an argument with a close-minded individual such as yourself.

Well quote him, don't expect that name-dropping will suffice.

I was giving you references and their credentials. It doesn't matter, as you aren't going to put forth any effort to read any of it.

This is the stupidest and least scientific thing ever said.

How in the hell is that the stupidest and least scientific thing ever said? I cannot show you the content of my consciousness. You have to look at your own as it is the only way for you to observe the content of consciousness for yourself. You can only observe consciousness in yourself. If you disagree with that, then perhaps you would like to show how you can observe the content of someone/something else's consciousness.

Sure I have, but you're going to have to provide a specific excerpt for discussion because it's a long and crappy article.

Oh no it's long! It isn't as though this subject can be neatly condensed into a couple of sentences.

It is nice that you can determine whether or not an article is crappy without completely reading it first. That would be like me saying the Origin of Species is crap after reading the first paragraph.

You know what? Just did.

Called it crappy without reading it? I know you did that.

And if you read it, perhaps you would like to tell me what was wrong or logically incorrect with it?

You don't need to spend hours. You need to give me some specific evidence to suggest that you're right, and we'll move from there.

*sigh* Ok, for the last time now:

Contemporary neuroscience rests on the idea that a physical system is made of independent parts which interact only with their immediate neighbords and whose behavior over time is deterministic. This is the principle behind all computational models of the brain. There is no way that our sensations can be explained in terms of unconscious particles. No matter how detailed an account is provided of the neural processes that led to an action, that account will never explain where the feeling associated to that action came from. No computational model of the brain can explain why and how consciousness happens if it assumes that the totality of consciousness is somehow created by some neural entity which is completely different in structure, function, and behavior from our feelings/experiences. From a logical standpoint, the only way out of this dead-end is to accept that consciousness must be a physical property. Just like the only way we could explain electricity was by assuming the existence of the electrical charge (as I have mentioned countless times). Any paradigm that tries to manufacture consciousness out of something else is doomed to failure. Things don't just happen in an ex nihilo nihil fit sort of manner. Consciousness doesn't come simply from the act of putting neurons together, and then, poof, appear like magic. The reductionist approach to consciousness simply does not work. This is a fact.

[PerpetualBurn]

Lol @ plagiarism.

[siva_chair]

Lol @ plagiarism.

Lol at you pissing and moaning one minute about me not quoting excerpts and then bitching about plagiarism the next.

Which is it? Do you want me to post excerpts or not, as I have already told you I am not going to sit here and type out hours worth of information for you to not even bother with it other than the occasional "that's not science" or "that is the stupidest thing I have ever hear" bullshit comment. So make up your mind on what it's going to be and stop being such a smug prick about it.

[PerpetualBurn]

Erm how about you cite them instead of trying to pass them off as your own ridiculous pseudo-science?

And that quote simply stated "It's a fundamental property". Now, I'm going to post this in nice big, shiny font for you, just so it might hit home:

YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THIS CLAIM LOGICALLY.

[siva_chair]

Erm how about you cite them instead of trying to pass them off as your own ridiculous pseudo-science?

Except I never have tried to pass it off as my own. You asked me for excerpts and I gave you one. Then you bitch about it.

And that quote simply stated "It's a fundamental property". Now, I'm going to post this in nice big, shiny font for you, just so it might hit home:

YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THIS CLAIM LOGICALLY.

If life ultimately evolved from chemical compounds that have no consciousness, when and how did these compounds and their descendants evolve into thinking matter? The question is, how does a series of (unconscious) particles interacting together create the phenomenon known as conscious, which is something wholly and completely different than the unconscious experience? How does the totality of consciousness emerge from a series of unconscious particles of matter, and how do the governing laws of these unconscious particles yeild subjective conscious views? You are saying it is through the interaction current fundamental properties of matter (electrical charge, gravitation, ect.). All other fundamental properties of matter are assumed to be unconscious (i.e. the electrical charge is not assumed to be conscious, nor is gravity), so how can unconscious propeties emerge into conscious properties? We have observed non-locality in the brain, so saying that the wholeness and totality of consciousness is simply independent parts which interact only with their immediate neighbords and whose behavior over time is deterministic (which is what contemporary models propose) is silly as it isn't what we observe at all.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

that's what you think.
but then again, Einstein is smarter than you.

I think the implication that you're not allowed to disagree with anyone smarter than you is not a healthy one.

I really don't think Einstein meant that literally. Honestly how much of other things he said have you read?

Not nearly enough; thinking about it. However, I certaintly don't think he was an atheist; another quote i seem to recall is (to paraphrase) that the way he found his theories was to use the premise "If i was god, what would I do?"

Yes, and the laws of physics apply to everyone (the theory of special relativity). Besides, there is no manifestations that vegetarians lead shorter lives, it is very doubtful. Also, there is no doubt that we consume excessive quantities of meat, and I would be very skeptical of a nutritionist whom thinks otherwise..

relevance?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

If life ultimately evolved from chemical compounds that have no consciousness, when and how did these compounds and their descendants evolve into thinking matter? The question is, how does a series of (unconscious) particles interacting together create the phenomenon known as conscious, which is something wholly and completely different than the unconscious experience? How does the totality of consciousness emerge from a series of unconscious particles of matter, and how do the governing laws of these unconscious particles yeild subjective conscious views? You are saying it is through the interaction current fundamental properties of matter (electrical charge, gravitation, ect.). All other fundamental properties of matter are assumed to be unconscious (i.e. the electrical charge is not assumed to be conscious, nor is gravity), so how can unconscious propeties emerge into conscious properties? We have observed non-locality in the brain, so saying that the wholeness and totality of consciousness is simply independent parts which interact only with their immediate neighbords and whose behavior over time is deterministic (which is what contemporary models propose) is silly as it isn't what we observe at all.

Could you expand on that please? The brain demonstrates locality in my knowledge.

Or maybe when we turn off all our conditioning and see god, the whole of the brain scanner lights up? ;)

[siva_chair]

Could you expand on that please? The brain demonstrates locality in my knowledge.

Or maybe when we turn off all our conditioning and see god, the whole of the brain scanner lights up? ;)

Long term memories are not stored locally in the brain, various (supposedly unconscious) neural networks work independently of one another (yet we still retain the wholeness and totality of the conscious experience), cognition itself is a non-local entity, ect.

The brain most certainly does not demonstrate locality as a whole, as research on visual perception suggests that our knowledge of the world is built out of complementary movements. What we see is the result of a complicated collection of processes involving eye movements and the relevation of different aspects of a visual scene (colors, moving planes,etc.) which are then processed independently in different parts of the brain.

[PerpetualBurn]

Except I never have tried to pass it off as my own. You asked me for excerpts and I gave you one. Then you bitch about it.

Well how about you use quotation marks and cite the source rather than just paste it in the middle of your own work?

If life ultimately evolved from chemical compounds that have no consciousness, when and how did these compounds and their descendants evolve into thinking matter?

Begging the question is a fallacy.

The question is, how does a series of (unconscious) particles interacting together create the phenomenon known as conscious, which is something wholly and completely different than the unconscious experience?

Yes, that is the point. Now answer it.

How does the totality of consciousness emerge from a series of unconscious particles of matter, and how do the governing laws of these unconscious particles yeild subjective conscious views?

Begging the question is a fallacy.

You are saying it is through the interaction current fundamental properties of matter (electrical charge, gravitation, ect.). All other fundamental properties of matter are assumed to be unconscious (i.e. the electrical charge is not assumed to be conscious, nor is gravity), so how can unconscious propeties emerge into conscious properties?

Begging the question is a fallacy.

We have observed non-locality in the brain, so saying that the wholeness and totality of consciousness is simply independent parts which interact only with their immediate neighbords and whose behavior over time is deterministic (which is what contemporary models propose) is silly as it isn't what we observe at all.

How does non-locality make consciousness quantum?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Long term memories are not stored locally in the brain, various (supposedly unconscious) neural networks work independently of one another (yet we still retain the wholeness and totality of the conscious experience), cognition itself is a non-local entity, ect.

The brain most certainly does not demonstrate locality as a whole, as research on visual perception suggests that our knowledge of the world is built out of complementary movements. What we see is the result of a complicated collection of processes involving eye movements and the relevation of different aspects of a visual scene (colors, moving planes,etc.) which are then processed independently in different parts of the brain.

Does one part of the brain not 'activate' when we are looking at something, and another when listening to something? Does another not act to combine these things to awareness? And another to interpret this awareness? And another to respond?

[siva_chair]

Well how about you use quotation marks and cite the source rather than just paste it in the middle of your own work?

"<insert text here>"

http://www.thymos.com/science/qc.html

Happy? I figured you knew where it came from, as I have posted it several times before.

Begging the question is a fallacy.

I didn't realize asking questions was a bad thing.


Yes, that is the point. Now answer it.

The answer is they cannot, as consciousness cannot logically be reduced to that. Unconscious particles cannot logically bring about consciousness as the totality and content of consciousness is wholly and completely different from the electrochemical processes in the brain. The only way that consciousness could emerge from unconscious particles is if the particles themselves had a property of consciousness. Reducing consciousness to electrochemical processes in the brain is exactly like trying to explain conductivity and electricity with gravity.

Begging the question is a fallacy.

Not answering questions is a sign of ignorance or cowardice. If you do not know the answers to these questions, than just say so. I have asked questions and you have failed to answer them. I haven't said anything illogical and have simply asked you a few questions, which you are either unwilling or unable to answer.

Begging the question is a fallacy.

Repeating that adds nothing to the discussion. I am asking you questions. I am asking you how contemporary neuroscience answers these questions. If they are unable to logically answer them, than they are worthless at explaining consciousness.

How does non-locality make consciousness quantum?

Because if consciousness is a whole (which it is, you can see this yourself), then non-local parts in the brain cannot logically account for the oneness of the conscious experience, as the physics behind contemporary neuroscience state that a physical system is made of independent parts which interact only with their immediate neighbords and whose behavior over time is deterministic. It simply isn't compatable with what we have observed in the brain and the totality and wholeness of the conscious experience.

Quantum physics lends itself nicely to the question of the brain/mind as non-locality is a very common feature in quantum mechanics. It was found that under certain circumstances subatomic particles, such as electrons, are able to instantaneously communicate with one another, regardless of the distance separting them. It did not matter whether they were 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. This could explain the wholeness of the conscious experience.

Does one part of the brain not 'activate' when we are looking at something, and another when listening to something? Does another not act to combine these things to awareness? And another to interpret this awareness? And another to respond?

You see, we have all these independent entities within the brain working, yet creating a single conscious experience. When you recall a memory, which is stored non-locally, you remember a conscious experience. The problem comes in the fact that if independent parts of the brain (which are assumed to be unconscious in themselves) have specific functions, and memories are stored non-locally, how can we excercise free will in recalling specific memories. We can consciously reach back and remember specific memories. This is a fact. If you use a computational model of the brain, than some thing/particle/ect. must be the source of consciousness, the source of this direction/freedom of will. This is why the physics contemporary neuroscience is inadequate for explaining the conscious experience. It is inconsistent with what we observe in the brain in terms of non-locality, as parts must interact only with their immediate neighbors. Does this make sense?

[RockAndRoll]

Not nearly enough; thinking about it. However, I certaintly don't think he was an atheist; another quote i seem to recall is (to paraphrase) that the way he found his theories was to use the premise "If i was god, what would I do?"

He certainly did talk about god but as I said before it was more to do with love of his work and a sense of awe and wonder at the universe that drove his 'religious' conceptions. He was by no means a devout jew that let his religion get in the way of his work.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

You see, we have all these independent entities within the brain working, yet creating a single conscious experience. When you recall a memory, which is stored non-locally, you remember a conscious experience. The problem comes in the fact that if independent parts of the brain (which are assumed to be unconscious in themselves) have specific functions, and memories are stored non-locally, how can we excercise free will in recalling specific memories. We can consciously reach back and remember specific memories. This is a fact. If you use a computational model of the brain, than some thing/particle/ect. must be the source of consciousness, the source of this direction/freedom of will. This is why the physics contemporary neuroscience is inadequate for explaining the conscious experience. It is inconsistent with what we observe in the brain in terms of non-locality, as parts must interact only with their immediate neighbors. Does this make sense?

ish. I'll read it again later. I have to read everything you say twice with a break in the middle ;)

[PerpetualBurn]

"<insert text here>"

http://www.thymos.com/science/qc.html

Happy? I figured you knew where it came from, as I have posted it several times before.

Sure, but you could at least have corrected the numerous spelling and grammar mistakes.

I didn't realize asking questions was a bad thing.

Asking me questions does not support your argument.

The answer is they cannot, as consciousness cannot logically be reduced to that. Unconscious particles cannot logically bring about consciousness as the totality and content of consciousness is wholly and completely different from the electrochemical processes in the brain. The only way that consciousness could emerge from unconscious particles is if the particles themselves had a property of consciousness. Reducing consciousness to electrochemical processes in the brain is exactly like trying to explain conductivity and electricity with gravity.

You keep repeating this without any evidence to back it up.

Not answering questions is a sign of ignorance or cowardice. If you do not know the answers to these questions, than just say so. I have asked questions and you have failed to answer them. I haven't said anything illogical and have simply asked you a few questions, which you are either unwilling or unable to answer.

Nope. Begging the question is a fallacy.

Repeating that adds nothing to the discussion. I am asking you questions. I am asking you how contemporary neuroscience answers these questions. If they are unable to logically answer them, than they are worthless at explaining consciousness.

If you base arguments on fallacies, then I will tear them down in monotonous sentences. Especially when it's so obviously begging the question.

Because if consciousness is a whole (which it is, you can see this yourself), then non-local parts in the brain cannot logically account for the oneness of the conscious experience, as the physics behind contemporary neuroscience state that a physical system is made of independent parts which interact only with their immediate neighbords and whose behavior over time is deterministic. It simply isn't compatable with what we have observed in the brain and the totality and wholeness of the conscious experience.

If you're going to plagiarise, at least correct the spelling of "neighbords". And once again, picking holes in current explanations in no way validates your own theory (hence begging the question being a fallacy)

Quantum physics lends itself nicely to the question of the brain/mind as non-locality is a very common feature in quantum mechanics. It was found that under certain circumstances subatomic particles, such as electrons, are able to instantaneously communicate with one another, regardless of the distance separting them. It did not matter whether they were 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. This could explain the wholeness of the conscious experience.

Non-locality of memory storage does not support this as the areas of the brain clearly access and bring them together in a very computational way.

[siva_chair]

Sure, but you could at least have corrected the numerous spelling and grammar mistakes.

So instead of showing what is wrong with the content of the article, you choose to attack spelling and grammar mistakes. Seems to me you are trying to get away from the subject. Do you smell that? I think it's a red herring.

Asking me questions does not support your argument.

No, but it is the only way you are going to think about the subject enough to see.


You keep repeating this without any evidence to back it up.

The evidence is right in front of your face. You can see all this yourself. You are the only one who can see this as it is you experiencing your own consciousness. That is the only content of consciousness you can observe, as I cannot really show you mine. You can't look through my eyes, or hear through my ears, or experience what I am experiencing, but you can observe what you are experiencing. Why do you think I have been asking you these questions? It has been an attempt to get you to observe this totality of consciousness in yourself and think of the logical implications that very observable fact has on computational models of the brain.

Nope. Begging the question is a fallacy.

Is observing something for yourself a fallacy?

If you base arguments on fallacies, then I will tear them down in monotonous sentences. Especially when it's so obviously begging the question.

Except they aren't based on fallacies, they are based on observable things. Observe this in yourself. Once again, I cannot show you the content of my consciousness, so you have to observe your own. This is why I am asking these questions, as they relevate certain points for you to observe yourself. I ask a question and you can then observe yourself whether it is true or not, as only you can observe your consciousness.

If you're going to plagiarise, at least correct the spelling of "neighbords". And once again, picking holes in current explanations in no way validates your own theory (hence begging the question being a fallacy)

Never said it did validate it, just that contemporary explanations are doomed to fail at explaining the conscious experience, as the set of assumptions the physics used in contemporary explanations cannot yeild what we observe. If this is the case, it is never going to be a complete theory, and there is no use for it to explain the conscious experience. I have proposed alternate theories because that is what scientists do when a theory sucks at explaining an observation.

Non-locality of memory storage does not support this as the areas of the brain clearly access and bring them together in a very computational way.

It still cannot account for the oneness of the conscious experience as memories are recalled. This is the problem, not that they are stored non-locally. Unconscious matter would have to direct the non-local memories to bring them together. It would have to know what memory is stored where and bring them together as a singular experience. You should read more about the holonomic brain model.

[RockAndRoll]

The answer is they cannot, as consciousness cannot logically be reduced to that. Unconscious particles cannot logically bring about consciousness as the totality and content of consciousness is wholly and completely different from the electrochemical processes in the brain. The only way that consciousness could emerge from unconscious particles is if the particles themselves had a property of consciousness. Reducing consciousness to electrochemical processes in the brain is exactly like trying to explain conductivity and electricity with gravity.
You were talking about the fallacy of composition earlier, well welcome to the fallacy of division.

[PerpetualBurn]

So instead of showing what is wrong with the content of the article, you choose to attack spelling and grammar mistakes. Seems to me you are trying to get away from the subject. Do you smell that? I think it's a red herring.

No. It was almost certainly plagiarism of incredibly poorly written crap. Do you have a reputable source? You know, anything that might be considered valid in the field of neuroscience?

No, but it is the only way you are going to think about the subject enough to see.

Begging the question is a fallacy.

The evidence is right in front of your face. You can see all this yourself. You are the only one who can see this as it is you experiencing your own consciousness. That is the only content of consciousness you can observe, as I cannot really show you mine. You can't look through my eyes, or hear through my ears, or experience what I am experiencing, but you can observe what you are experiencing. Why do you think I have been asking you these questions? It has been an attempt to get you to observe this totality of consciousness in yourself and think of the logical implications that very observable fact has on computational models of the brain.

You're asking me questions because you want to attack my knowledge. Presumably you do this because either you don't understand how science works or because you want to detract from the weakness of your own argument.

Here's how science works:

You present empirical data and theoretical analysis.

I ask questions and pick holes.

Here's how science doesn't work:

You ask me questions in the hopes that the inadequacies you think are in current theories will somehow strengthen your own.


Is observing something for yourself a fallacy?

This looks a lot like question begging to me.

Except they aren't based on fallacies, they are based on observable things. Observe this in yourself. Once again, I cannot show you the content of my consciousness, so you have to observe your own. This is why I am asking these questions, as they relevate certain points for you to observe yourself. I ask a question and you can then observe yourself whether it is true or not, as only you can observe your consciousness.

Observable things? Show me how recorded brain patterns demonstrate a quantum brain.

Never said it did validate it, just that contemporary explanations are doomed to fail at explaining the conscious experience, as the set of assumptions the physics used in contemporary explanations cannot yeild what we observe. If this is the case, it is never going to be a complete theory, and there is no use for it to explain the conscious experience. I have proposed alternate theories because that is what scientists do when a theory sucks at explaining an observation.

Scientists don't just jump onto the next radical idea - you have to demonstrate logically, using empirical data, that the brain is quantum in nature. And, furthermore, that consciousness is a fundamental property.

It still cannot account for the oneness of the conscious experience as memories are recalled. This is the problem, not that they are stored non-locally. Unconscious matter would have to direct the non-local memories to bring them together. It would have to know what memory is stored where and bring them together as a singular experience. You should read more about the holonomic brain model.

Recorded brain patterns show how each section of the brain responds to specific types of stimulus.

[TheRevenant]

So. I'm a vegetarian. I mainly did it for animal rights, but then it comes with added benefits such as a healther diet and lifestyle. However, it gets a lot of criticism from outsiders. The main argument against vegetarianism is people who are vegetarians don't get enough protein. This argument is so retarded because it's so untrue. Protein is also available in nuts, tofu, eggs, dairy, and a lot of vegetables. All of which I eat.. I love tofu. Anyway, my parents are really pissed as of late, literally telling me, "NO! You can't be a vegetarian. You'll get sick and your hair will lose its shine because of lack of protein." I feel like punching them.

What are your views on it?

Vegetarian Artist will eat a whole cow for charity

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/6/prweb399930.htm

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Vegetarian Artist will eat a whole cow for charity

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/6/prweb399930.htm

vegan chocolate?


EWWW

[sr800bkBassist]

vegan chocolate?


EWWW
there's a lot of vegan chocolate that you wouldn't expect. all dark chocolate is vegan, and i've heard hershey's chocolate syrup is vegan, but i haven't confirmed it. meh. i still prefer milk chocolate though.

[bhp_factor]

So. I'm a vegetarian. I mainly did it for animal rights, but then it comes with added benefits such as a healther diet and lifestyle. However, it gets a lot of criticism from outsiders. The main argument against vegetarianism is people who are vegetarians don't get enough protein. This argument is so retarded because it's so untrue. Protein is also available in nuts, tofu, eggs, dairy, and a lot of vegetables. All of which I eat.. I love tofu. Anyway, my parents are really pissed as of late, literally telling me, "NO! You can't be a vegetarian. You'll get sick and your hair will lose its shine because of lack of protein." I feel like punching them.

What are your views on it?

i have been a vegetarian for almost 18 years and i dont find anythign wrong with myself except that my hair has lost it shine. haha i dunno if it because of me being vegetarian or not. anyway **** shiny hair.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

there's a lot of vegan chocolate that you wouldn't expect. all dark chocolate is vegan, and i've heard hershey's chocolate syrup is vegan, but i haven't confirmed it. meh. i still prefer milk chocolate though.

Surely even Lindt 97% is 3% butter/milk?

I'm pretty sure there must be milk and/or butter in even 60-70% chocolate, which is good dark chocolate.

[motoden]

How about you do what it takes to survive. I'm doesn't matter what you eat as long as your well right?

[Der Übermensch]

There is no milk in dark chocolate...

[samariah]

some dark chocos have milk in them, some don't. some are flavored purely by the fat of cacao butter.

i only eat mostly all raw vegan foods. i personally think i have very nice hair. its quite shiny. :)

[PerpetualBurn]

Don't bump 5 month old threads.

[StrawberryFieldsForever]

Vegetarianism is another stupid emo trend.

[Electronic Wolf]

Vegetarianism is another stupid emo trend.

And judging from this post, I'm guessing that stupidity is also a trend.

[lunchforthesky]

Great another PNWI gimmick.

[samariah]

why cant i bump this thread if i wanna talk about vegetarianism? and "vegetarianism" is just another stupid emo trend is probably the most laughable, stupid thing i've heard in a long while.

[samariah]

why does pb think he/she is in charge????

[lunchforthesky]

Vegetarianism is another stupid emo trend.

God your american.

You do realise that Hindus and Buddhists have been vegetarians for 1000's of years?

[DBoons Ghost]

PB is a veteran. Necro'ing threads is usually frowned upon, especially if someone is quoted and responded to, and who can tell how much time has passed for that person to respond? You offered information relative to a four month old post. I see nothing really wrong, and I doubt a mod would either.

PB has always had a sandy vagina though, so you should try to forgive him. He's ornery.

[PerpetualBurn]

I'm all about being cantankerous.

[samariah]

hey, i just wanna talk about vegetables. :thumb:

no hard feelings

[DBoons Ghost]

God your american.

You do realise that Hindus and Buddhists have been vegetarians for 1000's of years?

I think the poster's ignorance would have been somewhat quelled if he elaborated upon his truly ignorant ranting.

Veganism and Vegetarianism in general has become more popular with youths as a result of it's prevelance in punk music. It's not too far off the mark for him to think that, but we all know that's not the truth. I know many vegans and vegetarians who hate punk or emo or any music, but care more for a healthy body and all that. Most if not all true vegetarians are just so for health reasons and could care less about the slaughter of innocent animals. However, none of us can ignore the fact that lyrical content of certain bands of protest have brought this subject more to bear then others. It's become synonymous with punk mythology at this point.

[peeted]

I don't think its fair to say that most if not all "real" vegetarians do it for health reasons, there are plenty of very good moral arguments for vegetarianism and many vegetarians have never been part of any radical youth culture movement like punks or hippies.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

why does pb think he/she is in charge????

why not

he's got more right to be in charge than you do

if you don't like what he says

argue with him properly

[lunchforthesky]

Considering that 500 million or somehting Indians are vegies it doesnt exactly have that big an effect but i understand your point.

Although Emo really doesnt have much to do with vegetarianism whether it be Circle Takes the Square, Dashboard Confessional or Sunny Day Real Estate depending on what you call emo.

Punk music does though or at least some it i will concede that.

[DBoons Ghost]

I don't think its fair to say that most if not all "real" vegetarians do it for health reasons, there are plenty of very good moral arguments for vegetarianism and many vegetarians have never been part of any radical youth culture movement like punks or hippies.

You're right, but again, I probably shouldn't have generelized in the same breath as scolding that ignorant poster for doing the same thing.

Maybe I should say I have a lot more respect for those who do it for health reasons, since they respect my choice of diet. Radical thinking vegans are usually just in their cause, as long as they keep it to themselves. Many arguements can be (and have been) presented as to the moral subjectivity of raising animals for slaughter to benefit mankind.

[DBoons Ghost]

Considering that 500 million or somehting Indians are vegies it doesnt exactly have that big an effect but i understand your point.

Although Emo really doesnt have much to do with vegetarianism whether it be Circle Takes the Square, Dashboard Confessional or Sunny Day Real Estate depending on what you call emo.

Punk music does though or at least some it i will concede that.

Yeah it was obviously a blatently ignorant statement. I don't agree with it.

I am merely trying to offer some insight as to why he/she/it would make such a retarded statement. The real question is why I would do that. Boredom mayhaps?

[lunchforthesky]

yeah sounds about right :p

[samariah]

some people are vegetarians for reasons outside of animal rights, religion, health, etc too. one is that some feel it is a response to world hunger.

[Volumnius Flush]

If we look into Genesis, it would seem to imply God is vegan. The fruit, the Garden, the bountiful life, and undergrowth. It's really beautiful. The way the plants bring us our natural vitamins, extend our lives, in Jared's case to 962 years, it is what He intended. In old Mosaic law, most fowl was forbidden. Now it is customary to have a slice of turkey with every meal. We no longer live under the old law, and I've decided to make meat a substantial part of my diet. Although I will probably die young of clogged arteries and heart failure, I'm sure it's what He wanted in His most gracious wisdom.

If you decide to go vegan and are an atheist, you are unwittingly doing God's will.

[DBoons Ghost]

some people are vegetarians for reasons outside of animal rights, religion, health, etc too. one is that some feel it is a response to world hunger.

I understand respecting animal rights. I understand religious reasons, and health.. What does it have to do with world hunger? Are you sending Sally Struthers your ground beef?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

If we look into Genesis, it would seem to imply God is vegan. The fruit, the Garden, the bountiful life, and undergrowth. It's really beautiful. The way the plants bring us our natural vitamins, extend our lives, in Jared's case to 962 years, it is what He intended. In old Mosaic law, most fowl was forbidden. Now it is customary to have a slice of turkey with every meal. We no longer live under the old law, and I've decided to make meat a substantial part of my diet. Although I will probably die young of clogged arteries and heart failure, I'm sure it's what He wanted in His most gracious wisdom.

If you decide to go vegan and are an atheist, you are unwittingly doing God's will.

Atheists don't care if they're accidentally doing god's will or not, by and large. They have their own morals and ethics to deal with.



Also: what the hell kind of place do you live where it's custom to eat a slice of turkey with every meal?

[MAthiAS]

I understand respecting animal rights. I understand religious reasons, and health.. What does it have to do with world hunger? Are you sending Sally Struthers your ground beef?
I think he's talking about how much more land/resources it takes to produce meat.

[DBoons Ghost]

I think he's talking about how much more land/resources it takes to produce meat.

Ok.

What does this have to do with world hunger? Is the land being mis-used? Fields for grazing cattle should be used to grow vegetables?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Ok.

What does this have to do with world hunger? Is the land being mis-used? Fields for grazing cattle should be used to grow vegetables?

Animals eat food and obviously do not have a 100% efficiency, so animals grown only for meat are technically a waste of resources. But this is irrelevant since there's already plenty of food on earth for everybody to eat well, and the reason they don't is politics, not energy shortages.

[DBoons Ghost]

Animals eat food and obviously do not have a 100% efficiency, so animals grown only for meat are technically a waste of resources. But this is irrelevant since there's already plenty of food on earth for everybody to eat well, and the reason they don't is politics, not energy shortages.

Well said, and thank you for clarifying. I just wanted the OP to make his point clear. But you and MAthiAS will do.

[Electronic Wolf]

Why do people make fun of vegetarians?

[Light Fantastic]

The only acceptable reason to be a vegetarian would be if your doctor told you to.

Any other reason is just stupid, and therefore being a vegetarian is stupid.

[MAthiAS]

Anyone have thoughts on this?

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956



Dec. 7, 2006 – The typical American diet adds significantly to pollution, water scarcity, land degradation and climate change, according to a United Nations report released last week.

Written by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),the report is the latest research linking meat-eating with environmental destruction. According to the FAO, the arm of the UN that works on worldwide hunger-defeating initiatives, animal farming presents a "major threat to the environment" with such "deep and wide-ranging" impacts that it should rank as a leading focus for environmental policy.

The report calls the livestock sector a "major player" in affecting climate change through greenhouse-gas production. The FAO found that the ranching and slaughter of cows and other animals generates an estimated 18 percent of total human-induced greenhouse-gas emissions globally.

Greenhouse gases – such as methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide – are linked to global warming.

Livestock emit methane and other greenhouse gasses through excrement and belching. The FAO estimates that cow manure and flatulence generate 30 to 40 percent of total methane emissions from human-influenced activities.

As demand for meat grows, the report explains, so does the need for pasture and cropland, making deforestation an additional concern; currently, according to the report, the livestock sector occupies 30 percent of ice-free land on the planet. Extensive grazing also takes a toll on arable land.
The report calls the livestock sector a “major player” in affecting climate change through greenhouse-gas production.

The livestock sector also contributes to water depletion; currently, the livestock sector accounts for 8 percent of human water use globally. Animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, as well as chemicals from tanneries and pesticides from feed crops, also contaminate water supplies.

Henning Steinfeld, an author of the report, said in a press statement that "urgent action is required to remedy the situation."

While the report gives a global picture of meat production, sustainable-food advocates say the US is leading the world in harmful meat-eating habits and industry practices.

From 2000 to 2002, consumers in the United States ate on average approximately 38.5 million tons of meat per year, second only to China, according to the FAO analysis. In those same years, the United Kingdom consumed nearly 5 million tons of meat each year, Brazil nearly 15.5 million tons and Uganda 308,647 tons.

North America had one of the highest methane emissions from livestock manure management in the world in 2004, according to the report. Methane is more readily produced when manure is managed in a liquid form, such as in holding tanks or lagoons commonly used in North America.

Additionally, the US is a leader in CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels in the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizer used to grow food for livestock.
Researchers found that the difference between the greenhouse gases emitted by a person consuming a red-meat diet over a plant diet equaled the difference between driving a sedan and a sport-utility vehicle.

But the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, a beef-producer trade group, told The NewStandard in a written statement that "animal agriculture in the United States contributes minimally to the production of total greenhouse gases."

The Association pointed to an Inventory on Greenhouse Gas Emissions reported by the US Environmental Protection Agency. It shows agriculture, including non-livestock activities, accounted for 6 percent of national greenhouse-gas emissions in 2004. By comparison, the EPA reports that the transportation sector accounted for approximately 27 percent of total US greenhouse gas emissions.

But Dawn Moncrief, director of the Farm Animal Reform Movement, a national food-education organization, said that not only are US consumers harming the environment through their appetite for meat, but American food choices are being exported to other countries.

"[The US sets] the example, which a lot of the world is trying to follow," Moncrief told TNS. "[Meat consumption is] partly being exported by our corporate interests who are pushing it as a lifestyle because they’re making money in it."

Often serving as a status symbol, meat is becoming a staple in diets of countries that, prior to industrialization and Western cultural influence, ate far fewer animal products.

According to FAO, world meat production is expected to double by 2050.

In March 2006, the Department of Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago released a study that compared the differences in greenhouse-gas emissions caused by various plant- and meat-based diets. Researchers found that the difference between a red-meat diet and a vegan diet – in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions – equaled the difference between driving a sedan and driving a sport-utility vehicle.
“It is probably not a bad idea to suggest unambiguously that if more people used less animal products in their diet than they do today, we [would] be able to sustain a larger number of people on earth for an indefinite period of time, or afford those who are here a better lifestyle.”

"These results clearly demonstrate the primary effect of one’s dietary choices on one’s planetary footprint, an effect comparable in magnitude to the car one chooses to drive," the report concluded.

Despite such alarming findings, the FAO report stopped short of suggesting more people adopt plant-based diets; instead it advocated for technological solutions and changes in farming policies.

"It’s not like [the UN is] going to advocate a vegan diet, but they could say, ‘A plant-based diet would get you [closer to sustainability]," Moncreif said.

Among the remedies, the UN suggested investing technology that already exists, including soil-conservation methods, feeding methods that reduce livestock’s gas emissions, and improved irrigation and manure management systems.

Adopting these changes "with a sense of urgency," wrote the FAO, can "make a very significant contribution to reducing and reversing environmental damage."

The report also noted the economic importance of the livestock sector to global populations; work with livestock contributes 40 percent of global agriculture Gross Domestic Product and employs 1.3 billion people worldwide.

But Moncrief said simply altering agriculture practices without changing consumers’ food consciousness and habits will not lead to true sustainability, in terms of either environmental health or feeding the growing population.

"They talk about the problems, but then they refuse to advocate a reduction of meat as part of the solution," Moncrief said. "We just think we’re going to be able to outsmart our way out of this."

Moncrief said educating consumers about their food choices is essential.

"We need to get organizations who are working on food-policy issues, like the UN and the USDA, to at least come out and say, ‘Here are the health benefits, here are the environmental benefits'" to reducing meat consumption, Moncrief said. "If we could get these governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to come out and say it, that would be a good first step."

Gidon Eshel, assistant professor of physical oceanography and climate and co-author of the University of Chicago report, echoed Moncrief’s concern.

Eshel told TNS: "It is probably not a bad idea to suggest unambiguously that if more people used less animal products in their diet than they do today, we [would] be able to sustain a larger number of people on earth for an indefinite period of time, or afford those who are here a better lifestyle."

[White Riot!]

Why do people make fun of vegetarians?

because most of them are either militant or trendies.......

[samariah]

yea its also more environmentally friendly to eat less meat (or give it up altogether). most americans do eat a very unnecessary amount of animal. so much water and other resources are used raising food animals that could be saved with plants.

[samariah]

here is an article. i think it makes some valid points.

Famine can only be avoided if the rich give up meat, fish and dairy

George Monbiot
Tuesday December 24, 2002
The Guardian


The Christians stole the winter solstice from the pagans, and capitalism stole it from the Christians. But one feature of the celebrations has remained unchanged: the consumption of vast quantities of meat. The practice used to make sense. Livestock slaughtered in the autumn, before the grass ran out, would be about to decay, and fat-starved people would have to survive a further three months. Today we face the opposite problem: we spend the next three months trying to work it off.

Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our seasonal excesses would be perfectly sustainable, if we weren't doing the same thing every other week of the year. But, because of the rich world's disproportionate purchasing power, many of us can feast every day. And this would also be fine, if we did not live in a finite world.
By comparison to most of the animals we eat, turkeys are relatively efficient converters: they produce about three times as much meat per pound of grain as feedlot cattle. But there are still plenty of reasons to feel uncomfortable about eating them. Most are reared in darkness, so tightly packed that they can scarcely move. Their beaks are removed with a hot knife to prevent them from hurting each other. As Christmas approaches, they become so heavy that their hips buckle. When you see the inside of a turkey broilerhouse, you begin to entertain grave doubts about European civilisation.

This is one of the reasons why many people have returned to eating red meat at Christmas. Beef cattle appear to be happier animals. But the improvement in animal welfare is offset by the loss in human welfare. The world produces enough food for its people and its livestock, though (largely because they are so poor) some 800 million are malnourished. But as the population rises, structural global famine will be avoided only if the rich start to eat less meat. The number of farm animals on earth has risen fivefold since 1950: humans are now outnumbered three to one. Livestock already consume half the world's grain, and their numbers are still growing almost exponentially.

This is why biotechnology - whose promoters claim that it will feed the world - has been deployed to produce not food but feed: it allows farmers to switch from grains which keep people alive to the production of more lucrative crops for livestock. Within as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world's animals or it continues to feed the world's people. It cannot do both.

The impending crisis will be accelerated by the depletion of both phosphate fertiliser and the water used to grow crops. Every kilogram of beef we consume, according to research by the agronomists David Pimental and Robert Goodland, requires around 100,000 litres of water. Aquifers are beginning the run dry all over the world, largely because of abstraction by farmers.

Many of those who have begun to understand the finity of global grain production have responded by becoming vegetarians. But vegetarians who continue to consume milk and eggs scarcely reduce their impact on the ecosystem. The conversion efficiency of dairy and egg production is generally better than meat rearing, but even if everyone who now eats beef were to eat cheese instead, this would merely delay the global famine. As both dairy cattle and poultry are often fed with fishmeal (which means that no one can claim to eat cheese but not fish), it might, in one respect, even accelerate it. The shift would be accompanied too by a massive deterioration in animal welfare: with the possible exception of intensively reared broilers and pigs, battery chickens and dairy cows are the farm animals which appear to suffer most.

We could eat pheasants, many of which are dumped in landfill after they've been shot, and whose price, at this time of the year, falls to around £2 a bird, but most people would feel uncomfortable about subsidising the bloodlust of brandy-soaked hoorays. Eating pheasants, which are also fed on grain, is sustainable only up to the point at which demand meets supply. We can eat fish, but only if we are prepared to contribute to the collapse of marine ecosystems and - as the European fleet plunders the seas off West Africa - the starvation of some of the hungriest people on earth. It's impossible to avoid the conclusion that the only sustainable and socially just option is for the inhabitants of the rich world to become, like most of the earth's people, broadly vegan, eating meat only on special occasions like Christmas.

As a meat-eater, I've long found it convenient to categorise veganism as a response to animal suffering or a health fad. But, faced with these figures, it now seems plain that it's the only ethical response to what is arguably the world's most urgent social justice issue. We stuff ourselves, and the poor get stuffed.

[Blackichan]

I was talking to my friends mom about vegetarianism and she's one of those people who is set in her ways and doesn't give evidence in arguements. I pulled out the animals eat other animals and we are animals arguement so what's the problem and she said humans aren't animals. Also she is religious. So I said what are we then. Animal? Plant? Mineral? She just replied well we aren't animals. WTF I HATE WHEN PEOPLE CAN'T BACK **** UP THEY SAY.

[Scuba_Steve]

Im not veggie. I dont have a problem with veggies. I just distance myself from the stupid Militant ones, but I distance myself from most militant people.



^ my stance.

[samariah]

i dont like it when people label vegetarians so much. i do not eat animal products. i am a not a vegetarian in the sense that that is my identity. i dont like it that when i chose to stop eating meat i was all of a sudden "the vegetarian." im a human like everyone else. i don't seperate myself from "the meat eaters."

i dont know, just felt like saying that. :)

[MAthiAS]

I was talking to my friends mom about vegetarianism and she's one of those people who is set in her ways and doesn't give evidence in arguements. I pulled out the animals eat other animals and we are animals arguement so what's the problem and she said humans aren't animals. Also she is religious. So I said what are we then. Animal? Plant? Mineral? She just replied well we aren't animals. WTF I HATE WHEN PEOPLE CAN'T BACK **** UP THEY SAY.
To be fair your argument is pretty bad in its own right.