QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 16 2010, 02:31 PM)
you have not been able to make that clear in 9 years. I think the fault lies with you not anyone else.
Earlier you acted like you knew who I was referring to. Now you act like you don't. You want me to believe that you did know, but then you somehow unlearned. How exactly do you want me to think you happened to unlearn, do you know? Do you want me to think you had a brain inury? Or maybe that the understanding just fell out of your head somehow? Or was it somehow taken from you? Or...???
How exactly do you want the people we're discussing to be referred, and why?
Earlier you acted like you knew who I was referring to. Now you act like you don't. You want me to believe that you did know, but then you somehow unlearned. How exactly do you want me to think you happened to unlearn, do you know? Do you want me to think you had a brain inury? Or maybe that the understanding just fell out of your head somehow? Or was it somehow taken from you? Or...???
How exactly do you want the people we're discussing to be referred, and why?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 02:00 PM)
You know who I'm referring to as misnomer advocates, and from there should be able to figure out why they should be vegans. Duh.
So you are saying, animal rights activists (et al) should all be vegans.
I suppose it all depends on what animal rights they are promoting. I believe chickens should be farmed as humanly as possible, but I still eat chicken. I suppose it is because I have guilt about taking another animals life that I feel this way, but chicken just taste so damn good.....not as good as duck though, now there is a tasty food. (sorry to all my vegan friends)
Does my concern about the welfare of the chicken make me an animal rights activist or just a guilt ridden carnivore?
If an animal rights activist promoted that we should not eat chickens because they have feelings and emotions just as we do, then I am amost positive those animal rights activists would be vegan.
You seem to be lumping all animal rights activists together, but these different organisations all promote different aspects of animal rights.
I stongly believe, that a dog has the right not to be forced to fight with other dogs for human enjoyment. I am strong in that belief, but I am not vegan. Is that bad?
So you are saying, animal rights activists (et al) should all be vegans.
I suppose it all depends on what animal rights they are promoting. I believe chickens should be farmed as humanly as possible, but I still eat chicken. I suppose it is because I have guilt about taking another animals life that I feel this way, but chicken just taste so damn good.....not as good as duck though, now there is a tasty food. (sorry to all my vegan friends)
Does my concern about the welfare of the chicken make me an animal rights activist or just a guilt ridden carnivore?
If an animal rights activist promoted that we should not eat chickens because they have feelings and emotions just as we do, then I am amost positive those animal rights activists would be vegan.
You seem to be lumping all animal rights activists together, but these different organisations all promote different aspects of animal rights.
I stongly believe, that a dog has the right not to be forced to fight with other dogs for human enjoyment. I am strong in that belief, but I am not vegan. Is that bad?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 06:41 PM)
Apparently nothing I say will persuade you to believe there's any reason not to raise humans for food, so I guess you can just enjoy thinking it would be as good or better than raising livestock. Then again you might be one of those people who want to pretend you think of humans and animals in the same way, and I've never known anyone who was afflicted with it to get over that one. Some of them would even suggest that they would feel as bad about hitting a rat with their car as they would about hitting a human child. From my pov that doesn't mean they have any more consideration for a rat than I do, but just a whole lot less for a human child.
blah..blah...blah.
Coming back to the question - Why not domesticate humans? We could keep them heavily drugged so they won't feel a thing, what do you say?
blah..blah...blah.
Coming back to the question - Why not domesticate humans? We could keep them heavily drugged so they won't feel a thing, what do you say?
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 16 2010, 02:39 PM)
Considering that PETA is VERY UPFRONT about making the distinction between themselves, an Animal Rights group, and what they refer to as Animal Welfare groups (and which I've posted several times now) it does not follow that they would LOVE to be refered to as an AW organization.
As to your contention that the term Animal Rights group is a misnomer, your support for that position is remarkably thin
If you can't figure out from what I already explained about why eliminationists like to be confused with AW organizations, then you're brain just can't comprehend. I'm beginning to form an opinion as to why you might not be mentally able to comprehend, but I'm waiting to see if you admit to it freely or not in case I'm wrong.
You indicate that you're aware of the difference between eliminationists and AW organizations, but that I'm wrong for pointing out the misnomer associated with the elimination objective. Try explaining how you want people to believe I'm wrong, and what you want people to believe instead.
As to your contention that the term Animal Rights group is a misnomer, your support for that position is remarkably thin
If you can't figure out from what I already explained about why eliminationists like to be confused with AW organizations, then you're brain just can't comprehend. I'm beginning to form an opinion as to why you might not be mentally able to comprehend, but I'm waiting to see if you admit to it freely or not in case I'm wrong.
You indicate that you're aware of the difference between eliminationists and AW organizations, but that I'm wrong for pointing out the misnomer associated with the elimination objective. Try explaining how you want people to believe I'm wrong, and what you want people to believe instead.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 09:49 AM)
Earlier you acted like you knew who I was referring to. Now you act like you don't. You want me to believe that you did know, but then you somehow unlearned. How exactly do you want me to think you happened to unlearn, do you know? Do you want me to think you had a brain inury? Or maybe that the understanding just fell out of your head somehow? Or was it somehow taken from you? Or...???
How exactly do you want the people we're discussing to be referred, and why?
The problem is you don't explain what the misnomer is.
How exactly do you want the people we're discussing to be referred, and why?
The problem is you don't explain what the misnomer is.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
There's a huge difference between AW and the misnomer. AW wants to provide decent lives for billions of domestic animals, while the misnomer wants to prevent them from happening at all. Not everyone is aware of that because of the misnomer which eliminationists use to refer to their objective, and also the fact that eliminationists exploit AW issues in order to create the appearance that they are AW advocates and of course in order to obtain more contritions to use in their elimination objective.
Can you not see that from your explanation no one would be clear on WHAT the misnomer you are talking about is?
From your previous writings (off this board) I happen to know that you are referring to Animal Rights groups like PETA, but YOU have not made that clear on THIS forum.
Can you also not see that you introduce the term "eliminationists" without any definition of what you mean by it or by giving an example of who they might be?
Can you not see that when you don't bother to lay the groundwork and then leap to the use of your "misnomer advocates" that without an adequate definition it is just an illogical phrase?
Arthur
Can you not see that from your explanation no one would be clear on WHAT the misnomer you are talking about is?
From your previous writings (off this board) I happen to know that you are referring to Animal Rights groups like PETA, but YOU have not made that clear on THIS forum.
Can you also not see that you introduce the term "eliminationists" without any definition of what you mean by it or by giving an example of who they might be?
Can you not see that when you don't bother to lay the groundwork and then leap to the use of your "misnomer advocates" that without an adequate definition it is just an illogical phrase?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 16 2010, 02:49 PM)
David, this isn't an unmoderated newsgroup.
You should use the edit function to tone the language down in that previous attempt at humor.
Since I try not to misquote things I can't agree. It's not like I didn't think about that, but instead I did not alter it deliberately.
You should use the edit function to tone the language down in that previous attempt at humor.
Since I try not to misquote things I can't agree. It's not like I didn't think about that, but instead I did not alter it deliberately.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 02:49 PM)
How exactly do you want the people we're discussing to be referred, and why?
Why? So it makes sense to people who do not know what you are talking about. Call a spade a spade, not "that which shovels dirt"
Why don't you just call them animal rights advocates. Clearly you want to immedietly cast them in a bad light before you even begin a debate. Clearly you are here to preach, not to learn.
I have found it a waste of time talking to those that want to preach, as they are the worst teachers. Those that want to learn, make the best teachers. See if you can figure that one out?
Why? So it makes sense to people who do not know what you are talking about. Call a spade a spade, not "that which shovels dirt"
Why don't you just call them animal rights advocates. Clearly you want to immedietly cast them in a bad light before you even begin a debate. Clearly you are here to preach, not to learn.
I have found it a waste of time talking to those that want to preach, as they are the worst teachers. Those that want to learn, make the best teachers. See if you can figure that one out?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 02:20 PM)
AW is not a misnomer in regards to domestic animals, but "animal rights" is. That particular misnomer has been deliberately and dishonestly used to represent the objective to eliminate domestic animals for years, and of course still is today. In contrast to that AW is honestly used to represent the objective to provide decent lives for billions of domestic animals.
One thing I believe you should factor in in your diagnosis of the misnomer addict brain is the fact that many/most/all of them just don't like to eat meat for whatever reason. That's what it comes down to in the long run. Even the ones who pretend to like meat don't really imo, but they are pretending they do because it seems more normal. Take if from there and see if it still works with your original evaluation, possibly supporting or explaining part(s) of it.
Is it just me, or is anyone else getting the humour in this reply to my reply?
One thing I believe you should factor in in your diagnosis of the misnomer addict brain is the fact that many/most/all of them just don't like to eat meat for whatever reason. That's what it comes down to in the long run. Even the ones who pretend to like meat don't really imo, but they are pretending they do because it seems more normal. Take if from there and see if it still works with your original evaluation, possibly supporting or explaining part(s) of it.
Is it just me, or is anyone else getting the humour in this reply to my reply?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 16 2010, 09:55 AM)
So you are saying, animal rights activists (et al) should all be vegans.
I suppose it all depends on what animal rights they are promoting. I believe chickens should be farmed as humanly as possible, but I still eat chicken. I suppose it is because I have guilt about taking another animals life that I feel this way, but chicken just taste so damn good.....not as good as duck though, now there is a tasty food. (sorry to all my vegan friends)
Does my concern about the welfare of the chicken make me an animal rights activist or just a guilt ridden carnivore?
If an animal rights activist promoted that we should not eat chickens because they have feelings and emotions just as we do, then I am amost positive those animal rights activists would be vegan.
You seem to be lumping all animal rights activists together, but these different organisations all promote different aspects of animal rights.
I stongly believe, that a dog has the right not to be forced to fight with other dogs for human enjoyment. I am strong in that belief, but I am not vegan. Is that bad?
I think PETA states the difference between the various groups pretty well:
So by their definition, Animal Rights supporters are Vegans and more than that, they don't use leather or wear fur etc.
On the other hand, the much larger Animal Welfare groups like the Humane Societies, believe that we can eat animals and wear leather, but that in raising the animals we should treat them humanely. Thus the AHS will certify a cattle ranch as raising cattle using humane methods.
Now if you read the humane societies literature you will find that they most definitely support a more vegetarian diet. But a vegetarian diet is not the same as a vegan diet and includes milk and eggs (donation vs sacrifice).
I think the issue that nopEda gets hung up on is that when the media reports on any of these groups activities they tend to get LUMPED under one name, which is not accurate (there is no one name that I'm aware of that fits)
I'd point out that the reality is that most often (as in your post) it's organizations like HSUS and AHS that get lumped under the "Animal Rights" moniker, when in fact they are for Animal Welfare.
Arthur
I suppose it all depends on what animal rights they are promoting. I believe chickens should be farmed as humanly as possible, but I still eat chicken. I suppose it is because I have guilt about taking another animals life that I feel this way, but chicken just taste so damn good.....not as good as duck though, now there is a tasty food. (sorry to all my vegan friends)
Does my concern about the welfare of the chicken make me an animal rights activist or just a guilt ridden carnivore?
If an animal rights activist promoted that we should not eat chickens because they have feelings and emotions just as we do, then I am amost positive those animal rights activists would be vegan.
You seem to be lumping all animal rights activists together, but these different organisations all promote different aspects of animal rights.
I stongly believe, that a dog has the right not to be forced to fight with other dogs for human enjoyment. I am strong in that belief, but I am not vegan. Is that bad?
I think PETA states the difference between the various groups pretty well:
QUOTE
Supporters of the animal rights movement believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation, while supporters of the animal welfare movement believe that animals can be used for those purposes as long as “humane” guidelines are followed.
So by their definition, Animal Rights supporters are Vegans and more than that, they don't use leather or wear fur etc.
On the other hand, the much larger Animal Welfare groups like the Humane Societies, believe that we can eat animals and wear leather, but that in raising the animals we should treat them humanely. Thus the AHS will certify a cattle ranch as raising cattle using humane methods.
Now if you read the humane societies literature you will find that they most definitely support a more vegetarian diet. But a vegetarian diet is not the same as a vegan diet and includes milk and eggs (donation vs sacrifice).
I think the issue that nopEda gets hung up on is that when the media reports on any of these groups activities they tend to get LUMPED under one name, which is not accurate (there is no one name that I'm aware of that fits)
I'd point out that the reality is that most often (as in your post) it's organizations like HSUS and AHS that get lumped under the "Animal Rights" moniker, when in fact they are for Animal Welfare.
Arthur
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 16 2010, 02:55 PM)
So you are saying, animal rights activists (et al) should all be vegans.
I suppose it all depends on what animal rights they are promoting. I believe chickens should be farmed as humanly as possible, but I still eat chicken. I suppose it is because I have guilt about taking another animals life that I feel this way
I'm not going to stoop to referring to them as you do. It's contemptible imo. Which rights for which animals? NONE for domestic animals. See if you can get that far. That's very much a basic, but if you can't get that far with it then there's no point trying to go into any more detail.
You don't avoid eating chicken to avoid the deaths of chickens. You avoid eating chicken to avoid contributing to life and death for future chickens. That's another basic. If you can't get that far--and you obviously have not gotten there yet--then again you are in no position to try to move on and consider that aspect in more detail. Eliminationists never get that far, but AW people do get that far and then move on. So far it appears that you are neither yet so you SHOULD have more flexibility of thought than elimiationists who will never get this far, and AW people who have long since gotten here and moved on to considering it in more detail.
I suppose it all depends on what animal rights they are promoting. I believe chickens should be farmed as humanly as possible, but I still eat chicken. I suppose it is because I have guilt about taking another animals life that I feel this way
I'm not going to stoop to referring to them as you do. It's contemptible imo. Which rights for which animals? NONE for domestic animals. See if you can get that far. That's very much a basic, but if you can't get that far with it then there's no point trying to go into any more detail.
You don't avoid eating chicken to avoid the deaths of chickens. You avoid eating chicken to avoid contributing to life and death for future chickens. That's another basic. If you can't get that far--and you obviously have not gotten there yet--then again you are in no position to try to move on and consider that aspect in more detail. Eliminationists never get that far, but AW people do get that far and then move on. So far it appears that you are neither yet so you SHOULD have more flexibility of thought than elimiationists who will never get this far, and AW people who have long since gotten here and moved on to considering it in more detail.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 10:04 AM)
Since I try not to misquote things I can't agree. It's not like I didn't think about that, but instead I did not alter it deliberately.
That joke is older than the hills and has been told in many different variations, not all as crude as the one you chose.
Making the language appropriate for this forum does not alter the joke.
If you don't change it, I'll report it with the hope that it results in a permenant ban.
Arthur
That joke is older than the hills and has been told in many different variations, not all as crude as the one you chose.
Making the language appropriate for this forum does not alter the joke.
If you don't change it, I'll report it with the hope that it results in a permenant ban.
Arthur
QUOTE (nopEda+)
You don't avoid eating chicken to avoid the deaths of chickens. You avoid eating chicken to avoid contributing to life and death for future chickens. That's another basic.
You don't avoid eating humans to avoid the deaths of humans. You avoid eating humans to avoid contributing to life and death for future humans. Right?
This is so much fun.
You don't avoid eating humans to avoid the deaths of humans. You avoid eating humans to avoid contributing to life and death for future humans. Right?
This is so much fun.
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 16 2010, 03:13 PM)
So by their definition, Animal Rights supporters are Vegans and more than that, they don't use leather or wear fur etc.
. . .
a vegetarian diet is not the same as a vegan diet and includes milk and eggs (donation vs sacrifice).
I think the issue that nopEda gets hung up on is that when the media reports on any of these groups activities they tend to get LUMPED under one name
My main objective is to draw attention to the distinction between the two ideas, so people have a better understanding of the big picture before making their choices.
Veganism means attempting to use no animal products, so it can't be said that people become vegans simply for health reasons though I've encountered some who dishonestly pretend that they did. A true vegetarian only eats vegetable product which does not include eggs or milk. Your thing about donation vs sacrifice is only a joke in reality, and not based on realistic ideas. In the long run the laying hens and the dairy cows also end up being slaughtered. There are people who call themselve lacto vegetarians, or lacto ovo vegetarians, or pico vegetarians, or whatever else, but true vegetarianism means no animal products consumed. That is different from veganism in that it's diet only, where veganism includes all items that a person uses.
. . .
a vegetarian diet is not the same as a vegan diet and includes milk and eggs (donation vs sacrifice).
I think the issue that nopEda gets hung up on is that when the media reports on any of these groups activities they tend to get LUMPED under one name
My main objective is to draw attention to the distinction between the two ideas, so people have a better understanding of the big picture before making their choices.
Veganism means attempting to use no animal products, so it can't be said that people become vegans simply for health reasons though I've encountered some who dishonestly pretend that they did. A true vegetarian only eats vegetable product which does not include eggs or milk. Your thing about donation vs sacrifice is only a joke in reality, and not based on realistic ideas. In the long run the laying hens and the dairy cows also end up being slaughtered. There are people who call themselve lacto vegetarians, or lacto ovo vegetarians, or pico vegetarians, or whatever else, but true vegetarianism means no animal products consumed. That is different from veganism in that it's diet only, where veganism includes all items that a person uses.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 16 2010, 10:05 AM)
Why don't you just call them animal rights advocates. Clearly you want to immedietly cast them in a bad light before you even begin a debate. Clearly you are here to preach, not to learn.
I have found it a waste of time talking to those that want to preach, as they are the worst teachers. Those that want to learn, make the best teachers. See if you can figure that one out?
Thanks for that insight.
nopEda's writing is so poor that I missed the fact that he really is just a poor excuse for a Preacher.
Typical noPeda condescension:
I have found it a waste of time talking to those that want to preach, as they are the worst teachers. Those that want to learn, make the best teachers. See if you can figure that one out?
Thanks for that insight.
nopEda's writing is so poor that I missed the fact that he really is just a poor excuse for a Preacher.
Typical noPeda condescension:
QUOTE (The "TRUTH" according to nopEda+)
You don't avoid eating chicken to avoid the deaths of chickens. You avoid eating chicken to avoid contributing to life and death for future chickens. That's another basic. If you can't get that far--and you obviously have not gotten there yet--then again you are in no position to try to move on and consider that aspect in more detail. Eliminationists never get that far, but AW people do get that far and then move on. So far it appears that you are neither yet so you SHOULD have more flexibility of thought than elimiationists who will never get this far, and AW people who have long since gotten here and moved on to considering it in more detail.
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 16 2010, 03:19 PM)
That joke is older than the hills
So is the one you posted. The fact that the one you posted is old is what reminded me of the one I posted, so I looked it up and posted an old joke like you did.
So is the one you posted. The fact that the one you posted is old is what reminded me of the one I posted, so I looked it up and posted an old joke like you did.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 10:31 AM)
So is the one you posted. The fact that the one you posted is old is what reminded me of the one I posted, so I looked it up and posted an old joke like you did.
I cleaned mine up.
Arthur
I cleaned mine up.
Arthur
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 16 2010, 03:20 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
You don't avoid eating chicken to avoid the deaths of chickens. You avoid eating chicken to avoid contributing to life and death for future chickens. That's another basic.
You don't avoid eating humans to avoid the deaths of humans. You avoid eating humans to avoid contributing to life and death for future humans. Right?
If humans were being raised and slaughtered for food, the reason to deliberately avoid contributing to it would be to avoid contributing to future humans being raised and slaughtered for food. If you can't comprehend why then that's your own mental limitation, just like whatever other limitations you have regarding this subject. Can you get over any of your limitations
? The experience I've had with others in similar positions says: No, you can and will not be able to overcome them.
You don't avoid eating humans to avoid the deaths of humans. You avoid eating humans to avoid contributing to life and death for future humans. Right?
If humans were being raised and slaughtered for food, the reason to deliberately avoid contributing to it would be to avoid contributing to future humans being raised and slaughtered for food. If you can't comprehend why then that's your own mental limitation, just like whatever other limitations you have regarding this subject. Can you get over any of your limitations
? The experience I've had with others in similar positions says: No, you can and will not be able to overcome them.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 10:26 AM)
My main objective is to draw attention to the distinction between the two ideas, so people have a better understanding of the big picture before making their choices.
You mean you've spent 10 years trying to come up with this simple distinction that PETA features prominately in it's FAQs?
I am challenging you to give some indication that you're capable of considering the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way.
Thinking of something in a realistic way then rejecting it not not considering it in a realistic way.
And changing the definition of what you are considering is not considering it in a realistic way.
Here is how broiler chickens, which are the majority of the ones we eat, are raised:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...icken_house.jpg
I have been in such houses and believe the vast majority of the birds have decent lives of positive value. So I have no reason to feel guilt for contributing to future such lives. If you do then that's between you and you, but if you want to explain why you still feel guilty even after seeing how they're raised then go ahead and explain. Of course if you can learn to appreciate that most of them do get to experience a decent life because humans raise them for food I'd rather read about that, but certainly can't expect to see it happen.
You mean you've spent 10 years trying to come up with this simple distinction that PETA features prominately in it's FAQs?
QUOTE (PETA+)
Supporters of the animal rights movement believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation, while supporters of the animal welfare movement believe that animals can be used for those purposes as long as “humane” guidelines are followed.
Way to go, Ace.
Actually the Vegetarian community came up with these DIETARY distinctions that I referenced:
http://www.vegsoc.org/info/definitions.html
Types of Vegetarian:
Lacto-ovo-vegetarian. Eats both dairy products and eggs. This is the most common type of vegetarian diet.
Lacto-vegetarian. Eats dairy products but not eggs.
Vegan. Does not eat dairy products, eggs, or any other animal product.
But this is based on DIET alone.
One may choose to not use leather, fur etc (which many if not most Vegetarians probably ascribe to), but your use of animal products doesn't affect your classification based on diet.
From the Vegetarian Society History page:
The growth of the vegetarian movement has led to the development of other organisations which, although not part of the Society, are nevertheless directly associated with our work. The Vegan Society, with its aim of excluding all animal products from the diet, goes further than the Vegetarian Society, which accepts the use of eggs and dairy produce
Arthur
Way to go, Ace.
QUOTE
Veganism means attempting to use no animal products, so it can't be said that people become vegans simply for health reasons though I've encountered some who dishonestly pretend that they did. A true vegetarian only eats vegetable product which does not include eggs or milk. Your thing about donation vs sacrifice is only a joke in reality, and not based on realistic ideas. In the long run the laying hens and the dairy cows also end up being slaughtered. There are people who call themselve lacto vegetarians, or lacto ovo vegetarians, or pico vegetarians, or whatever else, but true vegetarianism means no animal products consumed. That is different from veganism in that it's diet only, where veganism includes all items that a person uses.
Actually the Vegetarian community came up with these DIETARY distinctions that I referenced:
http://www.vegsoc.org/info/definitions.html
Types of Vegetarian:
Lacto-ovo-vegetarian. Eats both dairy products and eggs. This is the most common type of vegetarian diet.
Lacto-vegetarian. Eats dairy products but not eggs.
Vegan. Does not eat dairy products, eggs, or any other animal product.
But this is based on DIET alone.
One may choose to not use leather, fur etc (which many if not most Vegetarians probably ascribe to), but your use of animal products doesn't affect your classification based on diet.
From the Vegetarian Society History page:
The growth of the vegetarian movement has led to the development of other organisations which, although not part of the Society, are nevertheless directly associated with our work. The Vegan Society, with its aim of excluding all animal products from the diet, goes further than the Vegetarian Society, which accepts the use of eggs and dairy produce
Arthur
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 01:51 PM)
I am challenging you to give some indication that you're capable of considering the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way.
Thinking of something in a realistic way then rejecting it not not considering it in a realistic way.
And changing the definition of what you are considering is not considering it in a realistic way.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 03:14 PM)
You don't avoid eating chicken to avoid the deaths of chickens.
I don't avoid eating chicken.....fullstop. Where did I say I avoid eating chicken. I kinda feel bad if I know the chicken suffered, but even then, if I have no choice on what chicken to eat (humanely raised or mass farmed) I eat mass farmed chicken, becuase I like chicken. I still feel bad , I wish I did not like chicken and then I would not have guilt about eating them.
I don't avoid eating chicken.....fullstop. Where did I say I avoid eating chicken. I kinda feel bad if I know the chicken suffered, but even then, if I have no choice on what chicken to eat (humanely raised or mass farmed) I eat mass farmed chicken, becuase I like chicken. I still feel bad , I wish I did not like chicken and then I would not have guilt about eating them.
QUOTE
You avoid eating chicken to avoid contributing to life and death for future chickens.
This makes no sense, kinda like you.
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 16 2010, 03:32 PM)
I cleaned mine up.
I am not opposed to using profanity so I don't admire you for cleaning yours up. I am opposed to other people opposing the use of profanity. It's not people who use profanity who cause problems with profanity, but the people who oppose it that cause problems with profanity. If everyone ceased to have mental problems with certain words then there would be NO MORE problems with any words. I believe it's worse for you to refer to eliminationists as "animal righs advocates", than it is for me to post a joke about a bear who fucks hunters in the a*s.
BUT! If you think you can explain exactly which rights for which animals then maybe I will agree that they should be called rights advocates. So you explain what they never have been able to (another basic) and explain exactly which rights for which animals. We can move on to WHY later, but for now just try explaining which rights for which beasts.
I am not opposed to using profanity so I don't admire you for cleaning yours up. I am opposed to other people opposing the use of profanity. It's not people who use profanity who cause problems with profanity, but the people who oppose it that cause problems with profanity. If everyone ceased to have mental problems with certain words then there would be NO MORE problems with any words. I believe it's worse for you to refer to eliminationists as "animal righs advocates", than it is for me to post a joke about a bear who fucks hunters in the a*s.
BUT! If you think you can explain exactly which rights for which animals then maybe I will agree that they should be called rights advocates. So you explain what they never have been able to (another basic) and explain exactly which rights for which animals. We can move on to WHY later, but for now just try explaining which rights for which beasts.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 09:11 PM)
If humans were being raised and slaughtered for food, the reason to deliberately avoid contributing to it would be to avoid contributing to future humans being raised and slaughtered for food.
If chickens were being raised and slaughtered for food, the reason to deliberately avoid contributing to it would be to avoid contributing to future chickens being raised and slaughtered for food.
If chickens were being raised and slaughtered for food, the reason to deliberately avoid contributing to it would be to avoid contributing to future chickens being raised and slaughtered for food.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 03:14 PM)
I'm not going to stoop to referring to them as you do. It's contemptible imo. Which rights for which animals? NONE for domestic animals. See if you can get that far. That's very much a basic, but if you can't get that far with it then there's no point trying to go into any more detail.
Stoop.....stoop. How can calling something by its correct name be stooping. Just because you seem to be the only individual on this crusade, does not make me seem to be stooping to anything. On the contrary, you are stooping.....you stooper....you stoopererer person.
You are however right, I cannot partake in the debate you propose. It is beyond my logic.
Stoop.....stoop. How can calling something by its correct name be stooping. Just because you seem to be the only individual on this crusade, does not make me seem to be stooping to anything. On the contrary, you are stooping.....you stooper....you stoopererer person.
You are however right, I cannot partake in the debate you propose. It is beyond my logic.
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 16 2010, 03:46 PM)
You mean you've spent 10 years trying to come up with this simple distinction that PETA features prominately in it's FAQs?
Nope. I've spent that time drawing attention to it. What it means or doesn't mean to a person after they begin thinking about it is another thing, if they ever get that far. You still appear to be in some sort of denial, but that's possibly more because of your resentments towards me than the distinctions between the misnomer and AW. Then again I'm still not convinced that you aren't a misnomer hugger yourself.
Nope. I've spent that time drawing attention to it. What it means or doesn't mean to a person after they begin thinking about it is another thing, if they ever get that far. You still appear to be in some sort of denial, but that's possibly more because of your resentments towards me than the distinctions between the misnomer and AW. Then again I'm still not convinced that you aren't a misnomer hugger yourself.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 04:02 PM)
Nope. I've spent that time drawing attention to it. What it means or doesn't mean to a person after they begin thinking about it is another thing, if they ever get that far. You still appear to be in some sort of denial, but that's possibly more because of your resentments towards me than the distinctions between the misnomer and AW. Then again I'm still not convinced that you aren't a misnomer hugger yourself.
Misnomer hugger? What is that?
Which medication are you on, and are you taking a strong enough dose. Does your therapist know you are back on the internet? Does your neighbour know YOU live next door to him? I find it scary you exist, I wonder what those you come into physical contact must think.
Misnomer hugger? What is that?
Which medication are you on, and are you taking a strong enough dose. Does your therapist know you are back on the internet? Does your neighbour know YOU live next door to him? I find it scary you exist, I wonder what those you come into physical contact must think.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 16 2010, 04:01 PM)
Stoop.....stoop. How can calling something by its correct name be stooping. Just because you seem to be the only individual on this crusade, does not make me seem to be stooping to anything. On the contrary, you are stooping.....you stooper....you stoopererer person.
You are however right, I cannot partake in the debate you propose. It is beyond my logic.
I couldn't help but notice that. Try explaining which rights for which animals, or I will be forced to continue considering "animal rights" to be a misnomer when we're really referring to the objective to eliminate domestic animals. And EVEN IF you can explain which rights for which animals, unless you can go on to explain how it applies to domestic animals then I will of course STILL have to consider it a misnomer in regards to them.
Here is how broiler chickens, which are the majority of the ones we eat, are raised:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...icken_house.jpg
I have been in such houses and believe the vast majority of the birds have decent lives of positive value. So I have no reason to feel guilt for contributing to future such lives. If you do then that's between you and you, but if you want to explain why you still feel guilty even after seeing how they're raised then go ahead and explain. Of course if you can learn to appreciate that most of them do get to experience a decent life because humans raise them for food I'd rather read about that, but certainly can't expect to see it happen.
You are however right, I cannot partake in the debate you propose. It is beyond my logic.
I couldn't help but notice that. Try explaining which rights for which animals, or I will be forced to continue considering "animal rights" to be a misnomer when we're really referring to the objective to eliminate domestic animals. And EVEN IF you can explain which rights for which animals, unless you can go on to explain how it applies to domestic animals then I will of course STILL have to consider it a misnomer in regards to them.
Here is how broiler chickens, which are the majority of the ones we eat, are raised:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...icken_house.jpg
I have been in such houses and believe the vast majority of the birds have decent lives of positive value. So I have no reason to feel guilt for contributing to future such lives. If you do then that's between you and you, but if you want to explain why you still feel guilty even after seeing how they're raised then go ahead and explain. Of course if you can learn to appreciate that most of them do get to experience a decent life because humans raise them for food I'd rather read about that, but certainly can't expect to see it happen.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 03:41 PM)
You don't avoid eating humans to avoid the deaths of humans. You avoid eating humans to avoid contributing to life and death for future humans. Right? [/QUOTE]
If humans were being raised and slaughtered for food, the reason to deliberately avoid contributing to it would be to avoid contributing to future humans being raised and slaughtered for food. If you can't comprehend why then that's your own mental limitation, just like whatever other limitations you have regarding this subject. Can you get over any of your limitations ? The experience I've had with others in similar positions says: No, you can and will not be able to overcome them.
Vkamath, don't stress (not) I am also not able to change...what was the question again?
Oh yeah limitations, ????? was that about chickens or ducks? I am lost, I know there were chickens involved somewhere....then there was PETA and ....not PITA , I think that is beef...or is that schwarma? Anywhoo.
Yes to the question....I think....but I am not sure....but maybe, or maybe not, but I am not sure.
If humans were being raised and slaughtered for food, the reason to deliberately avoid contributing to it would be to avoid contributing to future humans being raised and slaughtered for food. If you can't comprehend why then that's your own mental limitation, just like whatever other limitations you have regarding this subject. Can you get over any of your limitations
? The experience I've had with others in similar positions says: No, you can and will not be able to overcome them. Vkamath, don't stress (not) I am also not able to change...what was the question again?
Oh yeah limitations, ????? was that about chickens or ducks? I am lost, I know there were chickens involved somewhere....then there was PETA and ....not PITA , I think that is beef...or is that schwarma? Anywhoo.
Yes to the question....I think....but I am not sure....but maybe, or maybe not, but I am not sure.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 09:50 PM)
I couldn't help but notice that. Try explaining which rights for which animals, or I will be forced to continue considering "animal rights" to be a misnomer when we're really referring to the objective to eliminate domestic animals. And EVEN IF you can explain which rights for which animals, unless you can go on to explain how it applies to domestic animals then I will of course STILL have to consider it a misnomer in regards to them.
Here is how broiler chickens, which are the majority of the ones we eat, are raised:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...icken_house.jpg
I have been in such houses and believe the vast majority of the birds have decent lives of positive value. So I have no reason to feel guilt for contributing to future such lives. If you do then that's between you and you, but if you want to explain why you still feel guilty even after seeing how they're raised then go ahead and explain. Of course if you can learn to appreciate that most of them do get to experience a decent life because humans raise them for food I'd rather read about that, but certainly can't expect to see it happen.
How would you like to live in that chicken house and get slaughtered for food at some point? Of course we will keep you drugged, so you won't feel a thing.
Here is how broiler chickens, which are the majority of the ones we eat, are raised:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...icken_house.jpg
I have been in such houses and believe the vast majority of the birds have decent lives of positive value. So I have no reason to feel guilt for contributing to future such lives. If you do then that's between you and you, but if you want to explain why you still feel guilty even after seeing how they're raised then go ahead and explain. Of course if you can learn to appreciate that most of them do get to experience a decent life because humans raise them for food I'd rather read about that, but certainly can't expect to see it happen.
How would you like to live in that chicken house and get slaughtered for food at some point? Of course we will keep you drugged, so you won't feel a thing.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 04:20 PM)
Here is how broiler chickens, which are the majority of the ones we eat, are raised:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...icken_house.jpg
I have been in such houses and believe the vast majority of the birds have decent lives of positive value. So I have no reason to feel guilt for contributing to future such lives. If you do then that's between you and you, but if you want to explain why you still feel guilty even after seeing how they're raised then go ahead and explain. Of course if you can learn to appreciate that most of them do get to experience a decent life because humans raise them for food I'd rather read about that, but certainly can't expect to see it happen.
QUOTE
I couldn't help but notice that. Try explaining which rights for which animals, or I will be forced to continue considering "animal rights" to be a misnomer when we're really referring to the objective to eliminate domestic animals.
Oooooohhh I am soooo scared. Forced to keep calling them misnomer advocates....ooooh . Dude, I don't give a flying fluck what you call shite, to me it is still shite. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I couldn't help but notice that. Try explaining which rights for which animals, or I will be forced to continue considering "animal rights" to be a misnomer when we're really referring to the objective to eliminate domestic animals. |
Oooooohhh I am soooo scared. Forced to keep calling them misnomer advocates....ooooh . Dude, I don't give a flying fluck what you call shite, to me it is still shite.
And EVEN IF you can explain which rights for which animals, unless you can go on to explain how it applies to domestic animals then I will of course STILL have to consider it a misnomer in regards to them.
And EVEN IF you can explain which rights for which animals, unless you can go on to explain how it applies to domestic animals then I will of course STILL have to consider it a misnomer in regards to them.
I'm lost, please use smaller english words, that actually mean something when placed one after the other. I have not learn't gibberish yet? We are a bit slow in the ME.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 16 2010, 04:18 PM)
Misnomer hugger? What is that?
"It is beyond my logic." - fredinjedda
You acted like you knew at one time. How do you want me think you unlearned?
"It is beyond my logic." - fredinjedda
You acted like you knew at one time. How do you want me think you unlearned?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 16 2010, 04:24 PM)
limitations, ????? was that about chickens or ducks? I am lost, I know there were chickens involved somewhere....
Wow, this really is too much for you. There are all domestic animals including chickens and ducks, dogs and cats, sheep and goats, horses and pigs, etc... If you can't even consider one example then again you can't get to the basics. I guess as simple as it is, it really is too much for some people's minds. But maybe you just need more time, and these things which I've been thinking about all my life are new to you, and maybe in time you'll be able to too. Or not. The limitations are in your own brain, and how limited your ability is to think about human influence on animals. Well, some of the limits are external in the form of details you are not aware of, but that's not anything you are in a position to care about yet. You would need to get over the ones inside your head before you could learn to appreciate those outside of it.
Wow, this really is too much for you. There are all domestic animals including chickens and ducks, dogs and cats, sheep and goats, horses and pigs, etc... If you can't even consider one example then again you can't get to the basics. I guess as simple as it is, it really is too much for some people's minds. But maybe you just need more time, and these things which I've been thinking about all my life are new to you, and maybe in time you'll be able to too. Or not. The limitations are in your own brain, and how limited your ability is to think about human influence on animals. Well, some of the limits are external in the form of details you are not aware of, but that's not anything you are in a position to care about yet. You would need to get over the ones inside your head before you could learn to appreciate those outside of it.
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 16 2010, 04:28 PM)
How would you like to live in that chicken house and get slaughtered for food at some point? Of course we will keep you drugged, so you won't feel a thing.
Those places provide a decent habitat for the birds, regardless of your inability to appreciate it. I have no reason to believe broiler chickens are kept drugged so they don't feel anything, but if they are that's fine with me.
If you think broiler chickens or any other animals raised for food suffer from knowing that they will be slaughtered, then try explaining how you think they could possibly find out.
Those places provide a decent habitat for the birds, regardless of your inability to appreciate it. I have no reason to believe broiler chickens are kept drugged so they don't feel anything, but if they are that's fine with me.
If you think broiler chickens or any other animals raised for food suffer from knowing that they will be slaughtered, then try explaining how you think they could possibly find out.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 16 2010, 03:47 PM)
Thinking of something in a realistic way then rejecting it not not considering it in a realistic way.
Not it's not. It's the opposite of that. AFAIK I'm the only one in this forum who even makes an attempt.
Not it's not. It's the opposite of that. AFAIK I'm the only one in this forum who even makes an attempt.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 10:53 AM)
If you think you can explain exactly which rights for which animals then maybe I will agree that they should be called rights advocates. So you explain what they never have been able to (another basic) and explain exactly which rights for which animals. We can move on to WHY later, but for now just try explaining which rights for which beasts.
I'm not a member of PETA.
I'm not a vegetarian.
If you disagree with PETA's claims you need to be debating PETA members.
Know any on this forum?
As to what rights the Animal Rights groups claim:
According to PETA animals have the right to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation.
http://www.peta.org/about/WhyAnimalRights.asp
Arthur
I'm not a member of PETA.
I'm not a vegetarian.
If you disagree with PETA's claims you need to be debating PETA members.
Know any on this forum?
As to what rights the Animal Rights groups claim:
According to PETA animals have the right to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation.
http://www.peta.org/about/WhyAnimalRights.asp
Arthur
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 04:20 PM)
Here is how broiler chickens, which are the majority of the ones we eat, are raised:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...icken_house.jpg
Oh wow, thanks for the link, I did not realise all the worlds chickens came from this farm. How cool that chicken 114455668844 is friends with the chicken I am gonna eat next week.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...icken_house.jpg
Oh wow, thanks for the link, I did not realise all the worlds chickens came from this farm. How cool that chicken 114455668844 is friends with the chicken I am gonna eat next week.
QUOTE
I have been in such houses and believe the vast majority of the birds have decent lives of positive value.
Well you talk to ducks, so I am sure you would know, and they definately have positive lives..........for us that is, I mean yum.......roast chicken, you cannot get more positive than that, AND we eat roast chickens on a sunday, so its almost like its gods will or something.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have been in such houses and believe the vast majority of the birds have decent lives of positive value. |
Well you talk to ducks, so I am sure you would know, and they definately have positive lives..........for us that is, I mean yum.......roast chicken, you cannot get more positive than that, AND we eat roast chickens on a sunday, so its almost like its gods will or something.
So I have no reason to feel guilt for contributing the future such lives.
So I have no reason to feel guilt for contributing the future such lives.
Why should you? I mean look at the photo you provided, its like a beach holiday in the bahamas, I mean come on, what are advocating misnomer representative people carrying on about?
QUOTE
If you do then that's between you and you, but if you want to explain why you still feel guilty even after seeing how they're raised then go ahead and explain.
I suppose because they had no say in the matter, and I was the cause. Is that so hard to comprehend?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you do then that's between you and you, but if you want to explain why you still feel guilty even after seeing how they're raised then go ahead and explain. |
I suppose because they had no say in the matter, and I was the cause. Is that so hard to comprehend?
Of course if you can learn to appreciate that most of them do get to experience a decent life because humans raise them for food I'd rather read about that, but certainly can't expect to see it happen.
Of course if you can learn to appreciate that most of them do get to experience a decent life because humans raise them for food I'd rather read about that, but certainly can't expect to see it happen.
Yeah man, why would we think chickens living in the wild, free range would have a better life than the chickens in the photo is beyond me. I mean the chickens in the photos, don't have to even hunt for their own food.....I mean come on, anyone would prefer sitting on their fat asses, rather than going out to find a job, right?
Those chickens must be happy, its not like they are forming labor unions and complaining like. They just patiently hang out with their new friends until the day of death comes, which comes for all, and then they stroll over to the big machines, stick their heads in and ....chop chop. Whats not to like about that. Okay so we humans don't quite get treated like that. We don't get killed at 12 when we know we can live till 90, but life is so tough (like alfie, last weeks chicken) so we are kinda doin the chickens a favour actually.
And you are right in your argument, that if it weren't for us, those chickens wouldn't even have life. They should be grateful that we eat them, a little like the North American Indians.....or South American Indians should have been more grateful that enlightened Europeans came over to their country to educate and enlighten them.......well those that wanted to be educated and enlightened, the rest were just rabble rousers who deserved what they got right?
Chickens owe us a debt of gratitude.
So now that I answered your question, maybe you can do me the courtesy of answering my questions. Do you ever feel bad about having to eat another living animal, regardless of the conditions it was raised in?
Have you ever considered what it must be like to be a chicken , even in your photo link paradise, waiting everyday, knowing one day soon you were going to die, even though you were at your prime and in good health? and for no other reason, than to be food for another species?
Those chickens must be happy, its not like they are forming labor unions and complaining like. They just patiently hang out with their new friends until the day of death comes, which comes for all, and then they stroll over to the big machines, stick their heads in and ....chop chop. Whats not to like about that. Okay so we humans don't quite get treated like that. We don't get killed at 12 when we know we can live till 90, but life is so tough (like alfie, last weeks chicken) so we are kinda doin the chickens a favour actually.
And you are right in your argument, that if it weren't for us, those chickens wouldn't even have life. They should be grateful that we eat them, a little like the North American Indians.....or South American Indians should have been more grateful that enlightened Europeans came over to their country to educate and enlighten them.......well those that wanted to be educated and enlightened, the rest were just rabble rousers who deserved what they got right?
Chickens owe us a debt of gratitude.
So now that I answered your question, maybe you can do me the courtesy of answering my questions. Do you ever feel bad about having to eat another living animal, regardless of the conditions it was raised in?
Have you ever considered what it must be like to be a chicken , even in your photo link paradise, waiting everyday, knowing one day soon you were going to die, even though you were at your prime and in good health? and for no other reason, than to be food for another species?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 04:54 PM)
Not it's not. It's the opposite of that. AFAIK I'm the only one in this forum who even makes an attempt.
You are not considering the existence of God unless you are willing to consider the non-existence of God.
What you are doing is insisting on the existence of God.
You are not considering the existence of God unless you are willing to consider the non-existence of God.
What you are doing is insisting on the existence of God.
What he's doing is insisting on using his own definition of God, one which no one else agrees with.
He makes up his meanings as he goes along.
He makes up his meanings as he goes along.
All this chicken talk reminds me of the line from Fiddler on the Roof.
As the Good Books says, 'When a poor man eats a chicken, one of them must be sick.'
Arthur
As the Good Books says, 'When a poor man eats a chicken, one of them must be sick.'
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 16 2010, 04:55 PM)
I'm not a member of PETA.
So you say.
So you say.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
I'm not a vegetarian.
So you say.
So you say.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
If you disagree with PETA's claims you need to be debating PETA members.
So you say.
So you say.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Know any on this forum?
Not yet.
Not yet.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
As to what rights the Animal Rights groups claim:
According to PETA animals have the right to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation.
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
So far it doesn't appear that they're observing any animals' rights, so the question remains.
According to PETA animals have the right to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation.
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
So far it doesn't appear that they're observing any animals' rights, so the question remains.
Why would I lie about that?
Here's a recipe I posted on another forum:
http://saposjoint.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?...&sd=a&start=120
Clearly I'm not a vegetarian.
Here's a recipe I posted on another forum:
http://saposjoint.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?...&sd=a&start=120
Clearly I'm not a vegetarian.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
Again, you are arguing with the wrong people.
I'm not a member of PETA and so I'm not really qualified to argue their position.
BUT
When you give this list of products as containing animal by-products you need to provide MUCH more evidence than just this list.
For instance you claim insulin require animal by products, but does it?
I know it USED to, but when my wife was using it, it was made using recombinant DNA, and so no animals were killed or harmed in making it.
For instance you say tires, but what is the animal by-product that is used and is it used in ALL makes of tires?
Or wallpaper, what animal by-product is used?
Or Steel ball bearings, what animal by-product is used?
Or Fertilizer, what animal by product is used in making Ammonia Nitrate or KNO3? Sure there are fertilizers like bone meal and such, but one can come up with other non-animal sources of phosphorus.
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
Again, you are arguing with the wrong people.
I'm not a member of PETA and so I'm not really qualified to argue their position.
BUT
When you give this list of products as containing animal by-products you need to provide MUCH more evidence than just this list.
For instance you claim insulin require animal by products, but does it?
I know it USED to, but when my wife was using it, it was made using recombinant DNA, and so no animals were killed or harmed in making it.
For instance you say tires, but what is the animal by-product that is used and is it used in ALL makes of tires?
Or wallpaper, what animal by-product is used?
Or Steel ball bearings, what animal by-product is used?
Or Fertilizer, what animal by product is used in making Ammonia Nitrate or KNO3? Sure there are fertilizers like bone meal and such, but one can come up with other non-animal sources of phosphorus.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
So far it doesn't appear that they're observing any animals' rights, so the question remains.
Actually from their site it would appear that PETA members are pretty serious about living a life where as much as is possible animals have the right to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. They do say on their web site that it is IMPOSSIBLE to live a life causing no harm, but what they stress is that one can minimize the harm.
To turn that rather noble attempt to do as little as harm to animals as possible to the claim that they are not observing ANY animal rights is dishonest.
Oh, and I am roasting a chicken for dinner tonight.
Arthur
Actually from their site it would appear that PETA members are pretty serious about living a life where as much as is possible animals have the right to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. They do say on their web site that it is IMPOSSIBLE to live a life causing no harm, but what they stress is that one can minimize the harm.
To turn that rather noble attempt to do as little as harm to animals as possible to the claim that they are not observing ANY animal rights is dishonest.
Oh, and I am roasting a chicken for dinner tonight.
Arthur
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 16 2010, 05:09 PM)
Oh wow, thanks for the link, I did not realise all the worlds chickens came from this farm.
I feel sure you also don't realise or care that the companies who pay the farmers to raise their chicks have standards the farmers have to meet with their chicken houses. The farmers can get black balled so that they still have a chicken house or two, but no companies will trust them enough to put chicks in their houses.
I feel sure you also don't realise or care that the companies who pay the farmers to raise their chicks have standards the farmers have to meet with their chicken houses. The farmers can get black balled so that they still have a chicken house or two, but no companies will trust them enough to put chicks in their houses.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
why would we think chickens living in the wild, free range would have a better life than the chickens in the photo is beyond me.
It appears to all be beyond you. Regardless of what happens to entirely different chickens, or hamsters, or hogs, for broiler chickens it's that life or nothing, not that life or one as a wild chicken, or hamster, or hog.... Hopefully you'll finally be able to at least get that far with all this.
It appears to all be beyond you. Regardless of what happens to entirely different chickens, or hamsters, or hogs, for broiler chickens it's that life or nothing, not that life or one as a wild chicken, or hamster, or hog.... Hopefully you'll finally be able to at least get that far with all this.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
Have you ever considered what it must be like to be a chicken , even in your photo link paradise, waiting everyday, knowing one day soon you were going to die, even though you were at your prime and in good health? and for no other reason, than to be food for another species?
If the possibility that they know their position has somehow actually entered your poor confused brain as a realistic consideration, how in tf do you think baby chickens could possibly learn that humans are raising them to kill and eat???
If the possibility that they know their position has somehow actually entered your poor confused brain as a realistic consideration, how in tf do you think baby chickens could possibly learn that humans are raising them to kill and eat???
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 16 2010, 05:27 PM)
You are not considering the existence of God unless you are willing to consider the non-existence of God.
What you are doing is insisting on the existence of God.
No I'm not. I've had people dishonestly say I'm insisting that God does exist, and I've had people dishonestly say I'm insisting that God does not exist, and much more rarely I've had people be honest and acknowledge that I consider both possibilities. Not you, but more honest people than yourself.
What you are doing is insisting on the existence of God.
No I'm not. I've had people dishonestly say I'm insisting that God does exist, and I've had people dishonestly say I'm insisting that God does not exist, and much more rarely I've had people be honest and acknowledge that I consider both possibilities. Not you, but more honest people than yourself.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 16 2010, 06:10 PM)
What he's doing is insisting on using his own definition of God, one which no one else agrees with.
It may be that I disbelieve in your favorite definition for God. What is it, do you have any idea?
It may be that I disbelieve in your favorite definition for God. What is it, do you have any idea?
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 16 2010, 09:24 PM)
I'm not a vegetarian.
So you say
.
So you say
.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 04:41 PM)
So you say .
Yeah, so I say.
And I post some of my favorite recipes on "What's for dinner" on Sapo's Joint and they all contain meat.
http://saposjoint.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?...&sd=a&start=140
And I did that BEFORE these discussions.
So yeah, like I said, I'm not a vegetarian.
Arthur
. Yeah, so I say.
And I post some of my favorite recipes on "What's for dinner" on Sapo's Joint and they all contain meat.
http://saposjoint.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?...&sd=a&start=140
And I did that BEFORE these discussions.
So yeah, like I said, I'm not a vegetarian.
Arthur
Why do we keep arguing with Fuckwit?
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 16 2010, 10:17 PM)
Why do we keep arguing with Fuckwit?
I'm hoping he'll say something to get himself banned. It shouldn't be long now.
I'm hoping he'll say something to get himself banned. It shouldn't be long now.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 09:33 PM)
No I'm not. I've had people dishonestly say I'm insisting that God does exist, and I've had people dishonestly say I'm insisting that God does not exist, and much more rarely I've had people be honest and acknowledge that I consider both possibilities. Not you, but more honest people than yourself.
Maybe I could consider your position more seriously, if you answer the following questions.
1. Which "god" are you referring to?
2. Do you believe this "god" may exist?
3. Do you believe this "god" may not exist?
These are very simple questions, and should only need very simple answers. Bear in mind, if you are referring to The Abrahamic God, you have to accept everything attributed to that "god". You cannot make up your own version of that "god".
If you make up your own version of the Abrahamic God, for example you believe some of his attributes but not all, then he is not The Abrahamic God, but the "god" you have chosen to believe in (which is fine, but then do not call him the Abrahamic God.)
You know my logic is limited, so please use short simple sentences to answer the question.
Maybe I could consider your position more seriously, if you answer the following questions.
1. Which "god" are you referring to?
2. Do you believe this "god" may exist?
3. Do you believe this "god" may not exist?
These are very simple questions, and should only need very simple answers. Bear in mind, if you are referring to The Abrahamic God, you have to accept everything attributed to that "god". You cannot make up your own version of that "god".
If you make up your own version of the Abrahamic God, for example you believe some of his attributes but not all, then he is not The Abrahamic God, but the "god" you have chosen to believe in (which is fine, but then do not call him the Abrahamic God.)
You know my logic is limited, so please use short simple sentences to answer the question.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 09:29 PM)
If the possibility that they know their position has somehow actually entered your poor confused brain as a realistic consideration, how in tf do you think baby chickens could possibly learn that humans are raising them to kill and eat???
And I am sure the commercial companies who are usually large corporations have men in suits who are all concerned about the welfare of the chicks and chickens, ahead of corporate profit and customer satisfaction. I mean, thats why companies go into the food business, to make sure domestic animals are well looked after, and have a nice life for as long as it lasts, and then they consider profit thereafter.
There are however some companies who do do this (sadly not all) who inspect farms to guage quality control and animal treatment. These companies are usually selling more expensive free range chickens, organic products etc. They follow an ethical philosophy, mainly because their customers are demanding it, not because they neccesarily have a moral conscience .
However, the mass majority of the worlds population, are fed by chicken farms, whose job it is, to push out as many chickens as possible as quickly as possible and as cheaply as possible. Just because you have one photo of a "nice" farm, does not mean this is how the majority of the worlds chickens are farmed.
Chicken is still regarded as a less expensive meat source, as long as they are farmed en masse regardless of the conditions they live under. Don't be so naive just because you want to win your argument.
QUOTE
I feel sure you also don't realise or care that the companies who pay the farmers to raise their chicks have standards the farmers have to meet with their chicken houses. The farmers can get black balled so that they still have a chicken house or two, but no companies will trust them enough to put chicks in their houses.
Which companies are paying farmers to raise their chicks? I thought the farmers owned the chicks. I thought companies just bought the chickens, I didn't realise they were like a foster home or something looking after a companies chicks.And I am sure the commercial companies who are usually large corporations have men in suits who are all concerned about the welfare of the chicks and chickens, ahead of corporate profit and customer satisfaction. I mean, thats why companies go into the food business, to make sure domestic animals are well looked after, and have a nice life for as long as it lasts, and then they consider profit thereafter.
There are however some companies who do do this (sadly not all) who inspect farms to guage quality control and animal treatment. These companies are usually selling more expensive free range chickens, organic products etc. They follow an ethical philosophy, mainly because their customers are demanding it, not because they neccesarily have a moral conscience .
However, the mass majority of the worlds population, are fed by chicken farms, whose job it is, to push out as many chickens as possible as quickly as possible and as cheaply as possible. Just because you have one photo of a "nice" farm, does not mean this is how the majority of the worlds chickens are farmed.
Chicken is still regarded as a less expensive meat source, as long as they are farmed en masse regardless of the conditions they live under. Don't be so naive just because you want to win your argument.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I feel sure you also don't realise or care that the companies who pay the farmers to raise their chicks have standards the farmers have to meet with their chicken houses. The farmers can get black balled so that they still have a chicken house or two, but no companies will trust them enough to put chicks in their houses. |
Which companies are paying farmers to raise their chicks? I thought the farmers owned the chicks. I thought companies just bought the chickens, I didn't realise they were like a foster home or something looking after a companies chicks.
And I am sure the commercial companies who are usually large corporations have men in suits who are all concerned about the welfare of the chicks and chickens, ahead of corporate profit and customer satisfaction. I mean, thats why companies go into the food business, to make sure domestic animals are well looked after, and have a nice life for as long as it lasts, and then they consider profit thereafter.
There are however some companies who do do this (sadly not all) who inspect farms to guage quality control and animal treatment. These companies are usually selling more expensive free range chickens, organic products etc. They follow an ethical philosophy, mainly because their customers are demanding it, not because they neccesarily have a moral conscience .
However, the mass majority of the worlds population, are fed by chicken farms, whose job it is, to push out as many chickens as possible as quickly as possible and as cheaply as possible. Just because you have one photo of a "nice" farm, does not mean this is how the majority of the worlds chickens are farmed.
Chicken is still regarded as a less expensive meat source, as long as they are farmed en masse regardless of the conditions they live under. Don't be so naive just because you want to win your argument.
If the possibility that they know their position has somehow actually entered your poor confused brain as a realistic consideration, how in tf do you think baby chickens could possibly learn that humans are raising them to kill and eat???
And I am sure the commercial companies who are usually large corporations have men in suits who are all concerned about the welfare of the chicks and chickens, ahead of corporate profit and customer satisfaction. I mean, thats why companies go into the food business, to make sure domestic animals are well looked after, and have a nice life for as long as it lasts, and then they consider profit thereafter.
There are however some companies who do do this (sadly not all) who inspect farms to guage quality control and animal treatment. These companies are usually selling more expensive free range chickens, organic products etc. They follow an ethical philosophy, mainly because their customers are demanding it, not because they neccesarily have a moral conscience .
However, the mass majority of the worlds population, are fed by chicken farms, whose job it is, to push out as many chickens as possible as quickly as possible and as cheaply as possible. Just because you have one photo of a "nice" farm, does not mean this is how the majority of the worlds chickens are farmed.
Chicken is still regarded as a less expensive meat source, as long as they are farmed en masse regardless of the conditions they live under. Don't be so naive just because you want to win your argument.
If the possibility that they know their position has somehow actually entered your poor confused brain as a realistic consideration, how in tf do you think baby chickens could possibly learn that humans are raising them to kill and eat???
I have no idea what a chicken thinks, and I suspect neither does anyone else (unless some kinda tests have been done). They may not know, and they may very well know they are going to die.
My concern and guilt is not whether they know or don't know, my concern is that I just want to make sure they have the best life possible while they are alive. I would prefer all chickens to roam free range and live a normal life until chop chop day. I know it makes for a better tasting chicken (albeit more expensive), but it also makes me feel a little less guilty knowing they had a relatively normal life before they are killed.
I am not morally offended by killing a chicken and eating it, I am morally offended by the way in which most mass commercial chicken farms are run. For you to show one photo of a "nice" chicken farm and say this is how most chickens are raised, is naive (but I would't expect less from you). You are not even considering any other country other than the one you live in, no doubt.
You live in the US, but if you assume every chicken you eat in the US originates from the US and not some un-ethical country (in terms of chicken breeding) outside the US. See this link, which is not from an animal rights group, but an economics web site : Chicken imports from China
Clearly these chickens are not being ethically farmed. AND I am not saying there are not farmers all over the world who do not farm ethically, there are, and they are to be commended, but for you to insinuate that most chicken farms are ethical, is naive and indicitive of your style of "debating"/forcing dopinion without fact down peoples throats.
My concern and guilt is not whether they know or don't know, my concern is that I just want to make sure they have the best life possible while they are alive. I would prefer all chickens to roam free range and live a normal life until chop chop day. I know it makes for a better tasting chicken (albeit more expensive), but it also makes me feel a little less guilty knowing they had a relatively normal life before they are killed.
I am not morally offended by killing a chicken and eating it, I am morally offended by the way in which most mass commercial chicken farms are run. For you to show one photo of a "nice" chicken farm and say this is how most chickens are raised, is naive (but I would't expect less from you). You are not even considering any other country other than the one you live in, no doubt.
You live in the US, but if you assume every chicken you eat in the US originates from the US and not some un-ethical country (in terms of chicken breeding) outside the US. See this link, which is not from an animal rights group, but an economics web site : Chicken imports from China
Clearly these chickens are not being ethically farmed. AND I am not saying there are not farmers all over the world who do not farm ethically, there are, and they are to be commended, but for you to insinuate that most chicken farms are ethical, is naive and indicitive of your style of "debating"/forcing dopinion without fact down peoples throats.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 17 2010, 02:18 AM)
I'm hoping he'll say something to get himself banned. It shouldn't be long now.
He is already on an 80% warning (still not sure how that all works), if everyone voted him a negative, would that ban him? Not saying I am gonna do it (I don't do the voting thing) but if you want him gone, isn't that what the voting thing is for?
He is already on an 80% warning (still not sure how that all works), if everyone voted him a negative, would that ban him? Not saying I am gonna do it (I don't do the voting thing) but if you want him gone, isn't that what the voting thing is for?
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 16 2010, 09:47 PM)
Yeah, so I say.
And I post some of my favorite recipes on "What's for dinner" on Sapo's Joint and they all contain meat.
http://saposjoint.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?...&sd=a&start=140
And I did that BEFORE these discussions.
So yeah, like I said, I'm not a vegetarian.
Arthur
Yummmm a cholestoral thickening hot pot of yummyness.
Anyone who cooks and eats this dish, aint no vegetarian, thats for sure.
And I post some of my favorite recipes on "What's for dinner" on Sapo's Joint and they all contain meat.
http://saposjoint.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?...&sd=a&start=140
And I did that BEFORE these discussions.
So yeah, like I said, I'm not a vegetarian.
Arthur
Yummmm a cholestoral thickening hot pot of yummyness.
Anyone who cooks and eats this dish, aint no vegetarian, thats for sure.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 17 2010, 06:57 AM)
He is already on an 80% warning (still not sure how that all works), if everyone voted him a negative, would that ban him? Not saying I am gonna do it (I don't do the voting thing) but if you want him gone, isn't that what the voting thing is for?
Only a moderator can suspend or ban. The feedback level does not play into that at all.
As you can see by the warn level, nopEda has been suspended four times already.
Only a moderator can suspend or ban. The feedback level does not play into that at all.
As you can see by the warn level, nopEda has been suspended four times already.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 17 2010, 06:56 AM)
Only a moderator can suspend or ban. The feedback level does not play into that at all.
As you can see by the warn level, nopEda has been suspended four times already.
There is only one moderator.
Redpenner.
Banning is completely at his discretion and from what I can tell, apparently totally random.
From what I can tell if you post something in a thread that Redpenner actually cares about and he thinks it's a waste of his time to read and it's that time of the month, then suspension is a possibility.
For instance see this example of a RedPenner boot:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=461551
Clearly nopEda has far fewer redeeming values than this poster but still nopEda persists on the board.
As to the # of warnings, they are not equal to times being suspended as I've been warned 3 times, but never suspended, but that was in a long ago Physorg with quite different moderation.
All the warnings came from my activities in the 9/11 threads (I got M0R0N added to the list of words you couldn't use), but NONE of what I said back then would have any impact today.
I know, because I reported nopEda for his recent vulgarity and Redpenner obviously could care less about the language used on the board.
Arthur
As you can see by the warn level, nopEda has been suspended four times already.
There is only one moderator.
Redpenner.
Banning is completely at his discretion and from what I can tell, apparently totally random.
From what I can tell if you post something in a thread that Redpenner actually cares about and he thinks it's a waste of his time to read and it's that time of the month, then suspension is a possibility.
For instance see this example of a RedPenner boot:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=461551
Clearly nopEda has far fewer redeeming values than this poster but still nopEda persists on the board.
As to the # of warnings, they are not equal to times being suspended as I've been warned 3 times, but never suspended, but that was in a long ago Physorg with quite different moderation.
All the warnings came from my activities in the 9/11 threads (I got M0R0N added to the list of words you couldn't use), but NONE of what I said back then would have any impact today.
I know, because I reported nopEda for his recent vulgarity and Redpenner obviously could care less about the language used on the board.
Arthur
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
Which companies are paying farmers to raise their chicks? I thought the farmers owned the chicks. I thought companies just bought the chickens, I didn't realise they were like a foster home or something looking after a companies chicks.
I feel sure you still think you know way more than I do about this, when from my pov you still don't understand that basics. But sometimes trying to think things through for yourself helps you to understand, or at least get some clue. And what will you gain if I help you do that with anything? It will help you get a more realistic interpetation of reality. And what will I "gain" if I help you? You will insult my intelligence, ridicule me in various other ways, say that I'm being dishonest, and probably try to get me banned.
Try to think about the fact that if a farmer has two chickens houses full of broiler chickens, the birds had to have come from someplace. He didn't make all the eggs in another barn, and didn't order them and incubate them himself. He doesn't have thousands of roosters and hens laying eggs and the hens setting or any other thing like that. Companies like Tyson have places where they have a number of chicken houses where roostes and hens are kept together in open houses. They appear to be pretty nice places for chickens to live in so of course if I took the time to find you a photo (those types are harder to find than those of basic broiler barns) you would just call me dishonest, so I won't waste our time on it. Anyway, at the place I went to a few times and probably most similar places the incubation building is right there on the same site. Hundreds of thousands of eggs being laid and incubated every day. There is much science to it, and timing and preparation. They pay the farmers so much per pound to raise their chicks for them, in houses which have to be up to the companys' standards like the one I showed you. But no doubt you think I'm lying about all this, so:
How do YOU think the farmers get chicks in their houses? Also, show me some pics of how YOU think commercial broilers are actually raised.
I feel sure you still think you know way more than I do about this, when from my pov you still don't understand that basics. But sometimes trying to think things through for yourself helps you to understand, or at least get some clue. And what will you gain if I help you do that with anything? It will help you get a more realistic interpetation of reality. And what will I "gain" if I help you? You will insult my intelligence, ridicule me in various other ways, say that I'm being dishonest, and probably try to get me banned.
Try to think about the fact that if a farmer has two chickens houses full of broiler chickens, the birds had to have come from someplace. He didn't make all the eggs in another barn, and didn't order them and incubate them himself. He doesn't have thousands of roosters and hens laying eggs and the hens setting or any other thing like that. Companies like Tyson have places where they have a number of chicken houses where roostes and hens are kept together in open houses. They appear to be pretty nice places for chickens to live in so of course if I took the time to find you a photo (those types are harder to find than those of basic broiler barns) you would just call me dishonest, so I won't waste our time on it. Anyway, at the place I went to a few times and probably most similar places the incubation building is right there on the same site. Hundreds of thousands of eggs being laid and incubated every day. There is much science to it, and timing and preparation. They pay the farmers so much per pound to raise their chicks for them, in houses which have to be up to the companys' standards like the one I showed you. But no doubt you think I'm lying about all this, so:
How do YOU think the farmers get chicks in their houses? Also, show me some pics of how YOU think commercial broilers are actually raised.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
There are however some companies who do do this (sadly not all) who inspect farms to guage quality control
To me you appear the naive ignoramous to even consider the idea that the companies do NOT inspect chicken houses. But then I guess you were born with more knowledge about how chickens are raised than I have learned from being around it. I guess it's my cognitive dissonance that won't allow me to comprehend your superiority of knowledge about all things, including those about which you appear clueless from my position.
To me you appear the naive ignoramous to even consider the idea that the companies do NOT inspect chicken houses. But then I guess you were born with more knowledge about how chickens are raised than I have learned from being around it. I guess it's my cognitive dissonance that won't allow me to comprehend your superiority of knowledge about all things, including those about which you appear clueless from my position.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
I am not morally offended by killing a chicken and eating it, I am morally offended by the way in which most mass commercial chicken farms are run. For you to show one photo of a "nice" chicken farm and say this is how most chickens are raised, is naive (but I would't expect less from you).
Since you think my example is naive, YOU show me how you want me to think most commercial broilers actually are raised.
Since you think my example is naive, YOU show me how you want me to think most commercial broilers actually are raised.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
You are not even considering any other country other than the one you live in, no doubt.
I am now. Show me how broiler chickens are raised commercially in China. Oh and btw, they are NOT raised upside down on bicycles and peddled around town for their entire lives but if you think that's how they're raised, I really would like you to let me know that for sure so I get a better understanding of how your brain works.
Also, explain why we should feel guilty about contributing to chickens raised in the US, because of any poor conditions for chickens in China.
I am now. Show me how broiler chickens are raised commercially in China. Oh and btw, they are NOT raised upside down on bicycles and peddled around town for their entire lives but if you think that's how they're raised, I really would like you to let me know that for sure so I get a better understanding of how your brain works.
Also, explain why we should feel guilty about contributing to chickens raised in the US, because of any poor conditions for chickens in China.
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 17 2010, 09:23 AM)
For instance see this example of a RedPenner boot:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=461551
Clearly nopEda has far fewer redeeming values than this poster but still nopEda persists on the board.
I wouldn't say that preearth didn't deserve the suspension, since he refused to converse with any other members and would only post gifs as his argument.
But I agree that the moderation has been pretty inconsistent. Not that I'm complaining. I'm sure rpenner has other responsibilities.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=461551
Clearly nopEda has far fewer redeeming values than this poster but still nopEda persists on the board.
I wouldn't say that preearth didn't deserve the suspension, since he refused to converse with any other members and would only post gifs as his argument.
But I agree that the moderation has been pretty inconsistent. Not that I'm complaining. I'm sure rpenner has other responsibilities.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 17 2010, 11:56 AM)
Only a moderator can suspend or ban. The feedback level does not play into that at all.
As you can see by the warn level, nopEda has been suspended four times already.
Suspended 15 days for copyright infringement.
For quoting the Bible in a discussion about what humans are "allowed" to eat.
Suspended 30 days for being unable in years to say something useful about space and time.
That's untrue for more than one reason. For one thing I still have not yet been posting for years and at that time I don't believe I'd yet been posting for one. For another thing by that time I had already pointed out the significance of velocities being relative to other things, which according to Einstein is something "usefull" to take into consideration. Also by then I believe I'd also mentioned blue and red shifting of light, which is significant even though so far no one else here appears able to appreciate it in any way or even acknowledge it.
Suspended 20 days for failure to demonstrate subject matter exists before analysis of its properties.
I'm guessing that was because I did some speculating about the possibility of God's existence, but I never found out for sure.
Suspended 20 days for making up crap.
I had good enough reason to believe what I said, including whatever I was wrong about. One thing I was wrong about was I had thought this forum was supposedly associated with Ga Tech faculty, and I'm very glad to find I was wrong about that.
As you can see by the warn level, nopEda has been suspended four times already.
Suspended 15 days for copyright infringement.
For quoting the Bible in a discussion about what humans are "allowed" to eat.Suspended 30 days for being unable in years to say something useful about space and time.
That's untrue for more than one reason. For one thing I still have not yet been posting for years and at that time I don't believe I'd yet been posting for one. For another thing by that time I had already pointed out the significance of velocities being relative to other things, which according to Einstein is something "usefull" to take into consideration. Also by then I believe I'd also mentioned blue and red shifting of light, which is significant even though so far no one else here appears able to appreciate it in any way or even acknowledge it.
Suspended 20 days for failure to demonstrate subject matter exists before analysis of its properties.
I'm guessing that was because I did some speculating about the possibility of God's existence, but I never found out for sure.
Suspended 20 days for making up crap.
I had good enough reason to believe what I said, including whatever I was wrong about. One thing I was wrong about was I had thought this forum was supposedly associated with Ga Tech faculty, and I'm very glad to find I was wrong about that.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 17 2010, 10:08 AM)
For another thing by that time I had already pointed out the significance of velocities being relative to other things, which according to Einstein is something "usefull" to take into consideration. Also by then I believe I'd also mentioned blue and red shifting of light, which is significant even though so far no one else here appears able to appreciate it in any way or even acknowledge it.
You ignored everyone's repeated statements about the nature of light.
What makes light "weird" is that it is always measured at the same speed regardless of source. The speed of light is constant to ALL observers. You seem to think that you can reject this fact because it doesn't make sense to you. Note that the constancy of the speed of light was discovered BEFORE Einstein's relativity. Relativity explained WHY light is constant.
Red and blue shifting are a well-understood phenomenon. In cases where the light source is moving away or toward the observer, light does not slow down or speed up, instead, the frequency of light either increases or decreases, resulting in a spectrum shift.
You think that your insights are new and novel, but they aren't. They were explained over a hundred years ago. You just haven't bothered to learn.
You ignored everyone's repeated statements about the nature of light.
What makes light "weird" is that it is always measured at the same speed regardless of source. The speed of light is constant to ALL observers. You seem to think that you can reject this fact because it doesn't make sense to you. Note that the constancy of the speed of light was discovered BEFORE Einstein's relativity. Relativity explained WHY light is constant.
Red and blue shifting are a well-understood phenomenon. In cases where the light source is moving away or toward the observer, light does not slow down or speed up, instead, the frequency of light either increases or decreases, resulting in a spectrum shift.
You think that your insights are new and novel, but they aren't. They were explained over a hundred years ago. You just haven't bothered to learn.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 17 2010, 08:47 AM)
I wouldn't say that preearth didn't deserve the suspension, since he refused to converse with any other members and would only post gifs as his argument.
But I agree that the moderation has been pretty inconsistent. Not that I'm complaining. I'm sure rpenner has other responsibilities.
Not sure that is an accurate assessement.
Here is the responses that preearth got to his initial post:
He points out that "some distortion is inevitable..." in the map projections
He's told:
Like that between your ears?
The next poster muses:
I wonder what the ratio of cranks to intelligent posters is here?
Then we get this:
It's as stupid an idea as any I've seen. I wonder why anyone would come up with it?
Then this:
BFD, nutcase.
To which he replies: That's not very nice.
Then this:
Seriously. If I gave a fat rat's ***, I might attempt a counter argument to your coalescence hypothesis, but I guess I'll pass on the BS.
FINALLY we get a tiny bit of actual discussion:
P: Aside from your naive exposition, the idea of the collided worlds has been around for some time now ... it's the leading candidate for formation of the moon, I believe.
So, nothing new to see here ... move along.
To which he replies with an answer to the issue raised, including a summary of one key issue with the moon impact hypothesis and a link to a Lunar and Planetary Society paper on the issue:
Which I thought was a pretty good reply, and then a few days later he posts a link to another animation he created and....
the response from the moderator?
BAM
Red penned.
Pointless reasons given by moderator for clearly undeserved ban:
Suspended 10 days for spamming forum with own website.
Suspended 20 days for stealing "expanding Earth" pseudoscience.
Suspended 30 days for substituting animated gifs for fact-based reasoning.
Suspensions to run consecutively.
Arthur
But I agree that the moderation has been pretty inconsistent. Not that I'm complaining. I'm sure rpenner has other responsibilities.
Not sure that is an accurate assessement.
Here is the responses that preearth got to his initial post:
He points out that "some distortion is inevitable..." in the map projections
He's told:
Like that between your ears?
The next poster muses:
I wonder what the ratio of cranks to intelligent posters is here?
Then we get this:
It's as stupid an idea as any I've seen. I wonder why anyone would come up with it?
Then this:
BFD, nutcase.
To which he replies: That's not very nice.
Then this:
Seriously. If I gave a fat rat's ***, I might attempt a counter argument to your coalescence hypothesis, but I guess I'll pass on the BS.
FINALLY we get a tiny bit of actual discussion:
P: Aside from your naive exposition, the idea of the collided worlds has been around for some time now ... it's the leading candidate for formation of the moon, I believe.
So, nothing new to see here ... move along.
To which he replies with an answer to the issue raised, including a summary of one key issue with the moon impact hypothesis and a link to a Lunar and Planetary Society paper on the issue:
QUOTE
It should be pointed out that the accepted hypothesis, i.e., the hypothesized glancing collision between the Earth and a Mars sized object, has its problems.
The oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio of lunar samples is indistinguishable from the terrestrial oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio.
This means that the impactor had to have essentially the same oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio, that is, it had to be a twin (binary) of the Earth.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/2382.pdf
So, the Moon had to be formed from the impact of a former moon,... which is not really satisfactory at all, is it?
The oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio of lunar samples is indistinguishable from the terrestrial oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio.
This means that the impactor had to have essentially the same oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio, that is, it had to be a twin (binary) of the Earth.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/2382.pdf
So, the Moon had to be formed from the impact of a former moon,... which is not really satisfactory at all, is it?
Which I thought was a pretty good reply, and then a few days later he posts a link to another animation he created and....
the response from the moderator?
BAM
Red penned.
Pointless reasons given by moderator for clearly undeserved ban:
Suspended 10 days for spamming forum with own website.
Suspended 20 days for stealing "expanding Earth" pseudoscience.
Suspended 30 days for substituting animated gifs for fact-based reasoning.
Suspensions to run consecutively.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 17 2010, 10:43 AM)
Which I thought was a pretty good reply, and then a few days later he posts a link to another animation he created and....
the response from the moderator?
BAM
Red penned.
Pointless reasons given by moderator for clearly undeserved ban:
Suspended 10 days for spamming forum with own website.
Suspended 20 days for stealing "expanding Earth" pseudoscience.
Suspended 30 days for substituting animated gifs for fact-based reasoning.
Suspensions to run consecutively.
Yeah, he probably should have gotten a "verbal" warning about the use of gifs before the suspension was handed out.
the response from the moderator?
BAM
Red penned.
Pointless reasons given by moderator for clearly undeserved ban:
Suspended 10 days for spamming forum with own website.
Suspended 20 days for stealing "expanding Earth" pseudoscience.
Suspended 30 days for substituting animated gifs for fact-based reasoning.
Suspensions to run consecutively.
Yeah, he probably should have gotten a "verbal" warning about the use of gifs before the suspension was handed out.
QUOTE
You first have to define god. . . . If you believe in the Abrahamic god, you have to believe in all his attributes.....
To be fair to no peda, he did define his god. If I remember correctly, his god had to be an alien. It scares me but of late I've come to like his debating skills. Should I see a psychiatrist?
QUOTE (boit+Aug 17 2010, 12:31 PM)
To be fair to no peda, he did define his god. If I remember correctly, his god had to be an alien. It scares me but of late I've come to like his debating skills. Should I see a psychiatrist?
That's not a skill.
"God is an alien, therefore god is an alien" is just circular logic. That's not a skill.
That's not a skill.
"God is an alien, therefore god is an alien" is just circular logic. That's not a skill.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 17 2010, 01:46 PM)
Also, explain why we should feel guilty about contributing to chickens raised in the US, because of any poor conditions for chickens in China.
QUOTE
To me you appear the naive ignoramous to even consider the idea that the companies do NOT inspect chicken houses.
Where did I say companies DO NOT inspect chicken houses?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To me you appear the naive ignoramous to even consider the idea that the companies do NOT inspect chicken houses. |
Where did I say companies DO NOT inspect chicken houses?
But then I guess you were born with more knowledge about how chickens are raised than I have learned from being around it.
But then I guess you were born with more knowledge about how chickens are raised than I have learned from being around it.
What have you been around? IT . You mean chickens? You mean Broiler chickens? You mean chicken farms?
Hands on experience is always best when it comes to any subject (I believe), but just because you are around "IT" does not give you more knowledge about chicken farms all over the world(unless that is your business)
Hands on experience is always best when it comes to any subject (I believe), but just because you are around "IT" does not give you more knowledge about chicken farms all over the world(unless that is your business)
QUOTE
I guess it's my cognitive dissonance that won't allow me to comprehend your superiority of knowledge about all things, including those about which you appear clueless from my position.
I think some of your views are valid, I just think the way you put them across is flawed, BUT I in no way think my approach is superior, merely more comprehendible to me.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I guess it's my cognitive dissonance that won't allow me to comprehend your superiority of knowledge about all things, including those about which you appear clueless from my position. |
I think some of your views are valid, I just think the way you put them across is flawed, BUT I in no way think my approach is superior, merely more comprehendible to me.
I am now. Show me how broiler chickens are raised commercially in China.
I am now. Show me how broiler chickens are raised commercially in China.
There we go, proves my point, that you were making absolute assertions about broilers in general, without even considering farming practices in other countries. I suggest if you want to make such absolute statements, you should fammiliarise yourself with your subject, or rather say "broiler chicks in the US blah blah blah)
If you are on this quest, which I am not, then educate yourself about what is going on in China and other countries regarding broiler chickens, instead of making assertions that chicken farmers all over the world are ethical.
If there are companies who are raising chicks ethically, then site those companies, but don't try lead people to believe that in general the practice of raising broiler chicks is fine and dandy, and people should not feel bad. That is not the case by a mile.
If you are on this quest, which I am not, then educate yourself about what is going on in China and other countries regarding broiler chickens, instead of making assertions that chicken farmers all over the world are ethical.
If there are companies who are raising chicks ethically, then site those companies, but don't try lead people to believe that in general the practice of raising broiler chicks is fine and dandy, and people should not feel bad. That is not the case by a mile.
QUOTE
Oh and btw, they are NOT raised upside down on bicycles and peddled around town for their entire lives but if you think that's how they're raised, I really would like you to let me know that for sure so I get a better understanding of how your brain works.
Ummmmm how my brain works? You are the one that came up with this bizarre statement not me.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh and btw, they are NOT raised upside down on bicycles and peddled around town for their entire lives but if you think that's how they're raised, I really would like you to let me know that for sure so I get a better understanding of how your brain works. |
Ummmmm how my brain works? You are the one that came up with this bizarre statement not me.
Also, explain why we should feel guilty about contributing to chickens raised in the US, because of any poor conditions for chickens in China.
Also, explain why we should feel guilty about contributing to chickens raised in the US, because of any poor conditions for chickens in China.
The question makes no sense. What are you contributing to chickens raised in the US? You are eating the chickens I assume, not raising them to go live in lovely meadows by the dam.
What is more clear now, is that you don't care for chickens raised in China who may suffer. You are only talking about US chickens. Try be more specific next time.
What is more clear now, is that you don't care for chickens raised in China who may suffer. You are only talking about US chickens. Try be more specific next time.
QUOTE (boit+Aug 17 2010, 04:31 PM)
To be fair to no peda, he did define his god. If I remember correctly, his god had to be an alien. It scares me but of late I've come to like his debating skills. Should I see a psychiatrist?
I think you should.
Stating his god should be an alien, is as definitive as saying my god should be a god.
Let the man himself answer the question. Is it the Abrahamic god or another version.
If being an alien is the only attribute to his god, then that would be interesting to debate. Is it NoPeda? Is the only attribute of your god, that he has to be an alien to earth?
I think you should.
Stating his god should be an alien, is as definitive as saying my god should be a god.
Let the man himself answer the question. Is it the Abrahamic god or another version.
If being an alien is the only attribute to his god, then that would be interesting to debate. Is it NoPeda? Is the only attribute of your god, that he has to be an alien to earth?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 17 2010, 04:36 PM)
"God is an alien, therefore god is an alien" is just circular logic. That's not a skill.
But "God is an alien because he couldn't be native to a planet he created after he had already come into existence" isn't circular whether it's a skill or not. It's more like pointing out the obvious. Now if you can explain how he COULD be native to Earth that might be a type of skill I guess, but you can't.
But "God is an alien because he couldn't be native to a planet he created after he had already come into existence" isn't circular whether it's a skill or not. It's more like pointing out the obvious. Now if you can explain how he COULD be native to Earth that might be a type of skill I guess, but you can't.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 17 2010, 04:36 PM)
That's not a skill.
"God is an alien, therefore god is an alien" is just circular logic. That's not a skill.
No no no. That was then. Together with the mallards thing. When i said recently, it is as in the copyright thing thereabout.
"God is an alien, therefore god is an alien" is just circular logic. That's not a skill.
No no no. That was then. Together with the mallards thing. When i said recently, it is as in the copyright thing thereabout.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 17 2010, 01:03 PM)
But "God is an alien because he couldn't be native to a planet he created after he had already come into existence" isn't circular whether it's a skill or not. It's more like pointing out the obvious.
You have defined god as a biological organism before you even make any assumptions about his planet of origin. Explain why you think god is a biological organism.
You have defined god as a biological organism before you even make any assumptions about his planet of origin. Explain why you think god is a biological organism.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
I in no way think my approach is superior
It depends what you're trying to accomplish. I explain things to you and teach you about things you were clueless about, so as a token of your appreciation you suggest I'm a liar. What have you accomplished by that? You have possibly gained some respect and admiration from other posters in this forum, or maybe they think you are your own chump as I do. From my position I had a fairly high degree of respect for you to begin with, and now after the way you've responded to the things I've taught you I have necessarily lost all respect for you that I had at first. Good job.
It depends what you're trying to accomplish. I explain things to you and teach you about things you were clueless about, so as a token of your appreciation you suggest I'm a liar. What have you accomplished by that? You have possibly gained some respect and admiration from other posters in this forum, or maybe they think you are your own chump as I do. From my position I had a fairly high degree of respect for you to begin with, and now after the way you've responded to the things I've taught you I have necessarily lost all respect for you that I had at first. Good job.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah wussed totally and absolutely+)
QUOTE (nopEda challenged fredinjeddah+)
Show me how broiler chickens are raised commercially in China.
. . . educate yourself about what is going on in China . . . don't try lead people to believe that in general the practice of raising broiler chicks is fine
Try providing reason to believe that it's not, other than your own ignorant obsessive desire that they have horrible lives. Your desire for other creatures to suffer is NOT proof that they do, nor fortunately for them does it cause them to suffer just because you enjoy thinking that they do.
Try providing reason to believe that it's not, other than your own ignorant obsessive desire that they have horrible lives. Your desire for other creatures to suffer is NOT proof that they do, nor fortunately for them does it cause them to suffer just because you enjoy thinking that they do.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
What are you contributing to chickens raised in the US?
By now you've revealed that you are either too stupid to comprehend how consumers contribute to the production of things they consume, or too dishonest to acknowledge that you can comprehend.
You can't do what you can't do, and you won't do what you won't do. Which brings up the question: Why do you ask questions you either can't comprehend the answer to, or won't acknowledge if you can?
By now you've revealed that you are either too stupid to comprehend how consumers contribute to the production of things they consume, or too dishonest to acknowledge that you can comprehend.
You can't do what you can't do, and you won't do what you won't do. Which brings up the question: Why do you ask questions you either can't comprehend the answer to, or won't acknowledge if you can?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
you don't care for chickens raised in China who may suffer.
You need to provide reason to believe that commercially raised broilers in China suffer more than those in the US, then explain what you want people to think you do to make things better for them.
You need to provide reason to believe that commercially raised broilers in China suffer more than those in the US, then explain what you want people to think you do to make things better for them.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 17 2010, 05:05 PM)
You have defined god as a biological organism
Present the definition you're referring to.
Present the definition you're referring to.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
Is it the Abrahamic god or another version.
2. If there is a creator, all who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what they call him or what they think about him.
2. If there is a creator, all who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what they call him or what they think about him.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
Is the only attribute of your god, that he has to be an alien to earth?
No.
No.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 17 2010, 05:03 PM)
But "God is an alien because he couldn't be native to a planet he created after he had already come into existence" isn't circular whether it's a skill or not. It's more like pointing out the obvious. Now if you can explain how he COULD be native to Earth that might be a type of skill I guess, but you can't.
You mean of course, if God exists. So my question is, which god, or is it irrelevant which god, and your argument is, any god you would believe in?
So you would rather be saying " if you believe in a life form called god that created the earth, then that god would have to be an alien to earth"
or to be rather more specific "if you believe in a life form called god that created the earth, then that god would have to be an extraterrestial life form"
Alien in the sense you are talking about, is termed extraterrestial life. Extraterrestial life is defined as life that does not come from earth.
So the important criteria, is it must be a living organism (have life) and it cannot have come from earth.
So for the sake of argument, I say I believe in the Abrahamic God. He created the earth in 6 days and he is therefore alien to earth. He is not from earth. On that theory I agree.
If I believe in "Mother Nature" being god, if I believe that everything around us is God, then of course God is not an alien to earth, but in fact part of earth. So it truly is dependant on which god you are referring to. So I ask again, which god are you reffering to?
You mean of course, if God exists. So my question is, which god, or is it irrelevant which god, and your argument is, any god you would believe in?
So you would rather be saying " if you believe in a life form called god that created the earth, then that god would have to be an alien to earth"
or to be rather more specific "if you believe in a life form called god that created the earth, then that god would have to be an extraterrestial life form"
Alien in the sense you are talking about, is termed extraterrestial life. Extraterrestial life is defined as life that does not come from earth.
So the important criteria, is it must be a living organism (have life) and it cannot have come from earth.
So for the sake of argument, I say I believe in the Abrahamic God. He created the earth in 6 days and he is therefore alien to earth. He is not from earth. On that theory I agree.
If I believe in "Mother Nature" being god, if I believe that everything around us is God, then of course God is not an alien to earth, but in fact part of earth. So it truly is dependant on which god you are referring to. So I ask again, which god are you reffering to?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 17 2010, 05:43 PM)
. . . educate yourself about what is going on in China . . . don't try lead people to believe that in general the practice of raising broiler chicks is fine[/QUOTE]
Try providing reason to believe that it's not, other than your own ignorant obsessive desire that they have horrible lives. Your desire for other creatures to suffer is NOT proof that they do, nor fortunately for them does it cause them to suffer just because you enjoy thinking that they do.
You need to provide reason to believe that commercially raised broilers in China suffer more than those in the US, then explain what you want people to think you do to make things better for them.
You and others have taught me , to use language more clearly while debating. You and other have taught me not to make absolute assertions. It is not because you do not do these things, but because you do do these things that I have learnt not to do them.
What have you taught me, that I was clueless about?
What specifically did I accuse you of lying about?
I have no interest in gaining anyones respect, other than my own.
I was never looking for your respect either.
You and others have taught me , to use language more clearly while debating. You and other have taught me not to make absolute assertions. It is not because you do not do these things, but because you do do these things that I have learnt not to do them.
What have you taught me, that I was clueless about?
What specifically did I accuse you of lying about?
I have no interest in gaining anyones respect, other than my own.
I was never looking for your respect either.
Try providing reason to believe that it's not, other than your own ignorant obsessive desire that they have horrible lives. Your desire for other creatures to suffer is NOT proof that they do, nor fortunately for them does it cause them to suffer just because you enjoy thinking that they do.
Try providing reason to believe that it's not, other than your own ignorant obsessive desire that they have horrible lives. Your desire for other creatures to suffer is NOT proof that they do, nor fortunately for them does it cause them to suffer just because you enjoy thinking that they do.
You need to provide reason to believe that commercially raised broilers in China suffer more than those in the US, then explain what you want people to think you do to make things better for them.
QUOTE
It depends what you're trying to accomplish. I explain things to you and teach you about things you were clueless about, so as a token of your appreciation you suggest I'm a liar. What have you accomplished by that? You have possibly gained some respect and admiration from other posters in this forum, or maybe they think you are your own chump as I do. From my position I had a fairly high degree of respect for you to begin with, and now after the way you've responded to the things I've taught you I have necessarily lost all respect for you that I had at first. Good job.
You and others have taught me , to use language more clearly while debating. You and other have taught me not to make absolute assertions. It is not because you do not do these things, but because you do do these things that I have learnt not to do them.
What have you taught me, that I was clueless about?
What specifically did I accuse you of lying about?
I have no interest in gaining anyones respect, other than my own.
I was never looking for your respect either.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It depends what you're trying to accomplish. I explain things to you and teach you about things you were clueless about, so as a token of your appreciation you suggest I'm a liar. What have you accomplished by that? You have possibly gained some respect and admiration from other posters in this forum, or maybe they think you are your own chump as I do. From my position I had a fairly high degree of respect for you to begin with, and now after the way you've responded to the things I've taught you I have necessarily lost all respect for you that I had at first. Good job. |
You and others have taught me , to use language more clearly while debating. You and other have taught me not to make absolute assertions. It is not because you do not do these things, but because you do do these things that I have learnt not to do them.
What have you taught me, that I was clueless about?
What specifically did I accuse you of lying about?
I have no interest in gaining anyones respect, other than my own.
I was never looking for your respect either.
Try providing reason to believe that it's not, other than your own ignorant obsessive desire that they have horrible lives. Your desire for other creatures to suffer is NOT proof that they do, nor fortunately for them does it cause them to suffer just because you enjoy thinking that they do.
I believe the link I provided earlier was one such link. I don't sit dreaming about how animals suffer, I am well aware of broiler chicken conditions in countries around the world. They are dismal. Some are good, but there are many that are bad. You seem to think they are all good. You seem to think they do not suffer.
QUOTE
By now you've revealed that you are either too stupid to comprehend how consumers contribute to the production of things they consume, or too dishonest to acknowledge that you can comprehend.
Either way I cannot comprehend. Please enlighten me.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By now you've revealed that you are either too stupid to comprehend how consumers contribute to the production of things they consume, or too dishonest to acknowledge that you can comprehend. |
Either way I cannot comprehend. Please enlighten me.
You can't do what you can't do, and you won't do what you won't do. Which brings up the question: Why do you ask questions you either can't comprehend the answer to, or won't acknowledge if you can?
You can't do what you can't do, and you won't do what you won't do. Which brings up the question: Why do you ask questions you either can't comprehend the answer to, or won't acknowledge if you can?
First of all , I ask questions, not knowing what the answer will be, it is only once you give an answer that I can either comprehend it or not. If I do not comprehend an answer, I will tell you, I cannot comprehend. But answering the question is essential to the process.
The question was,
The question was,
QUOTE
QUOTE (fredinjeddah)
What are you contributing to chickens raised in the US?
Can you answer this question or not?What are you contributing to chickens raised in the US?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (fredinjeddah) What are you contributing to chickens raised in the US? |
Can you answer this question or not?
You need to provide reason to believe that commercially raised broilers in China suffer more than those in the US, then explain what you want people to think you do to make things better for them
You need to provide reason to believe that commercially raised broilers in China suffer more than those in the US, then explain what you want people to think you do to make things better for them
So you acknowledge broiler chickens suffer in the US. I think Chinas food and business ethics alone, would lead any reasonable man to assume (even without the evidence that exists), that the conditions are far worse in China.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 17 2010, 01:46 PM)
Present the definition you're referring to.
By "biological organism" I mean a collection of organs that displays intelligence. Your argument starts with the premise that god has a species. Most people I know who believe in god would refuse to believe in a god that could be described as an organism.
As an additional problem, your premise of god being an alien "creator" relies entirely on the theory of panspermia. The big problem here is that an alien probably wouldn't be composed of the exact same elemental ratios that are present here on Earth. An alien can't just drop a box of alien bacteria on a new planet and expect it to thrive. Organisms have to match their environments. Based on our knowledge of DNA, it is extremely unlikely that it was engineered by an alien. The interactions between genes are much too complex, illogical and environment-dependent to be engineered in a practical way.
By "biological organism" I mean a collection of organs that displays intelligence. Your argument starts with the premise that god has a species. Most people I know who believe in god would refuse to believe in a god that could be described as an organism.
As an additional problem, your premise of god being an alien "creator" relies entirely on the theory of panspermia. The big problem here is that an alien probably wouldn't be composed of the exact same elemental ratios that are present here on Earth. An alien can't just drop a box of alien bacteria on a new planet and expect it to thrive. Organisms have to match their environments. Based on our knowledge of DNA, it is extremely unlikely that it was engineered by an alien. The interactions between genes are much too complex, illogical and environment-dependent to be engineered in a practical way.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
I don't sit dreaming about how animals suffer
You obvbiously enjoy thinking that broiler chickens live horrible lives, whether you do it sitting, standing or/and lying down. You probably enjoy thinking that all farmed animals live horrible lives now that you mention it. If not, which ones do you NOT think have horrible lives and why?
You obvbiously enjoy thinking that broiler chickens live horrible lives, whether you do it sitting, standing or/and lying down. You probably enjoy thinking that all farmed animals live horrible lives now that you mention it. If not, which ones do you NOT think have horrible lives and why?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
I am well aware of broiler chicken conditions in countries around the world.
Tell me in detail what things you don't like about them. Not just random claims that the birds suffer, but exactly how and why.
Tell me in detail what things you don't like about them. Not just random claims that the birds suffer, but exactly how and why.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
What are you contributing to chickens raised in the US?
People who buy products are contributing to future similar products, however significantly or insignificantly.
People who buy products are contributing to future similar products, however significantly or insignificantly.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 17 2010, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (fredinjeddah)
Is it the Abrahamic god or another version.
2. If there is a creator, all who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what they call him or what they think about him.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah)
Is the only attribute of your god, that he has to be an alien to earth?
No.
So your claim is, "if there is a creator of earth, then that creator would certainly be an alien to earth"
So the criteria has enlarged somewhat.
So according to you, If God exists, he most certainly would be extraterrestial to earth. He would have to be a living organism, and he would have to be the creator of earth, our solar system and probably the universe.
This living organism had to be capable of creating
So your claim is, "if there is a creator of earth, then that creator would certainly be an alien to earth"
So the criteria has enlarged somewhat.
So according to you, If God exists, he most certainly would be extraterrestial to earth. He would have to be a living organism, and he would have to be the creator of earth, our solar system and probably the universe.
This living organism had to be capable of creating or
Is it the Abrahamic god or another version.
2. If there is a creator, all who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what they call him or what they think about him.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah)
Is the only attribute of your god, that he has to be an alien to earth?
No.
QUOTE
2. If there is a creator, all who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what they call him or what they think about him.
So your claim is, "if there is a creator of earth, then that creator would certainly be an alien to earth"
So the criteria has enlarged somewhat.
So according to you, If God exists, he most certainly would be extraterrestial to earth. He would have to be a living organism, and he would have to be the creator of earth, our solar system and probably the universe.
This living organism had to be capable of creating
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2. If there is a creator, all who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what they call him or what they think about him. |
So your claim is, "if there is a creator of earth, then that creator would certainly be an alien to earth"
So the criteria has enlarged somewhat.
So according to you, If God exists, he most certainly would be extraterrestial to earth. He would have to be a living organism, and he would have to be the creator of earth, our solar system and probably the universe.
This living organism had to be capable of creating or
harnassing enough hydrogen and other gasses and whatever else was needed to create earth and at least our solar system but probably the entire universe. If that living organism could do all that, and did, would he be alien to earth? Yes, that I can buy, he would even be alien to our solar system or universe.
Does that make that living organism a god? Not unless that is all we define god as. That merely defines an alien living organism that created the earth, our solar system and probably the universe.
I know definitions of god vary, but I am pretty sure they are more complex, than just the creator of everything. There are other attributes given by different faiths, so I suppose some would believe that that living organism could be God, but others would argue no.
Your error is as pointed out before. You are trying in your speculation, to force people to accept your version of God, and then say, The god you believe in, is an alien to earth. You are obnoxious enough to say
You are trying to force your audience to accept your very narrow view of what god is. That is your view of god. Even with the other attributes you list, those are your attributes not neccesarily others.
Does that make that living organism a god? Not unless that is all we define god as. That merely defines an alien living organism that created the earth, our solar system and probably the universe.
I know definitions of god vary, but I am pretty sure they are more complex, than just the creator of everything. There are other attributes given by different faiths, so I suppose some would believe that that living organism could be God, but others would argue no.
Your error is as pointed out before. You are trying in your speculation, to force people to accept your version of God, and then say, The god you believe in, is an alien to earth. You are obnoxious enough to say
QUOTE
2. If there is a creator, all who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what they call him or what they think about him.
A creator is not enough for some people. Some people believe their god is more than just a creator of everything, some believe he is kind and compassionate and loving and some think he is vengeful and violent, and all kinds of other contradicitng stuff.You are trying to force your audience to accept your very narrow view of what god is. That is your view of god. Even with the other attributes you list, those are your attributes not neccesarily others.
You appear to have missed this:
Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
I'm not a member of PETA and so I'm not really qualified to argue their position.
BUT
When you give this list of products as containing animal by-products you need to provide MUCH more evidence than just this list.
For instance you claim insulin require animal by products, but does it?
I know it USED to, but when my wife was using it, it was made using recombinant DNA, and so no animals were killed or harmed in making it.
For instance you say tires, but what is the animal by-product that is used and is it used in ALL makes of tires? From what I can tell Stearic acid is used, but Stearic acid can have either animal or plant origin.
Or wallpaper, what animal by-product is used? From what I can tell, Glycerin is sometimes used, but Glycerin doesn't have to come from animals.
Or Steel ball bearings, what animal by-product is used? Couldn't find one, but maybe you know.
Or Fertilizer, what animal by product is used in making Ammonia Nitrate or KNO3? Sure there are fertilizers like bone meal and such, but one can come up with other non-animal sources of phosphorus.
So far it doesn't appear that they're observing any animals' rights, so the question remains.
Actually from their site it would appear that PETA members are pretty serious about living a life where as much as is possible animals have the right to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. They do say on their web site that it is impossible to live a life causing no harm, but what they stress is that one can strive to minimize the harm.
It should also point out, that while a number of materials used in the manufacture of other products are often of animal origin (that the typical consumer would not be aware of) I think it can be shown that in only a relatively few cases are animal products required. They may be used but that's because they are a bi-product of the meat industry and thus they are often just cheaper, but if PETA had its way, the manufacturers and the amount of bi-products dwindled the manufacturers would have to switch to synthetic versions or plant based versions.
In any case, to turn their rather serious attempt to do as little as harm to animals as possible to the claim that they are not observing ANY animal rights is pretty dishonest.
Oh, and I did roast a chicken for dinner last night.
It was quite good.
Arthur
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
I'm not a member of PETA and so I'm not really qualified to argue their position.
BUT
When you give this list of products as containing animal by-products you need to provide MUCH more evidence than just this list.
For instance you claim insulin require animal by products, but does it?
I know it USED to, but when my wife was using it, it was made using recombinant DNA, and so no animals were killed or harmed in making it.
For instance you say tires, but what is the animal by-product that is used and is it used in ALL makes of tires? From what I can tell Stearic acid is used, but Stearic acid can have either animal or plant origin.
Or wallpaper, what animal by-product is used? From what I can tell, Glycerin is sometimes used, but Glycerin doesn't have to come from animals.
Or Steel ball bearings, what animal by-product is used? Couldn't find one, but maybe you know.
Or Fertilizer, what animal by product is used in making Ammonia Nitrate or KNO3? Sure there are fertilizers like bone meal and such, but one can come up with other non-animal sources of phosphorus.
QUOTE ( nopEda+)
So far it doesn't appear that they're observing any animals' rights, so the question remains.
Actually from their site it would appear that PETA members are pretty serious about living a life where as much as is possible animals have the right to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. They do say on their web site that it is impossible to live a life causing no harm, but what they stress is that one can strive to minimize the harm.
It should also point out, that while a number of materials used in the manufacture of other products are often of animal origin (that the typical consumer would not be aware of) I think it can be shown that in only a relatively few cases are animal products required. They may be used but that's because they are a bi-product of the meat industry and thus they are often just cheaper, but if PETA had its way, the manufacturers and the amount of bi-products dwindled the manufacturers would have to switch to synthetic versions or plant based versions.
In any case, to turn their rather serious attempt to do as little as harm to animals as possible to the claim that they are not observing ANY animal rights is pretty dishonest.
Oh, and I did roast a chicken for dinner last night.
It was quite good.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 17 2010, 08:16 PM)
Or Steel ball bearings, what animal by-product is used? Couldn't find one, but maybe you know.
Arthur
I read that at one time swords were quenched in sheep's blood.
Maybe that was the first thing he ever read about metal working and thinks all steel uses sheep's blood to quench the steel.
Arthur
I read that at one time swords were quenched in sheep's blood.
Maybe that was the first thing he ever read about metal working and thinks all steel uses sheep's blood to quench the steel.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 17 2010, 07:56 PM)
You obvbiously enjoy thinking that broiler chickens live horrible lives, whether you do it sitting, standing or/and lying down. You probably enjoy thinking that all farmed animals live horrible lives now that you mention it. If not, which ones do you NOT think have horrible lives and why?
Every time I start to read these posts I get hungry.
Is it your position that chickens suffer horribly but they should be damn grateful that they do because if they didn't they wouldn't' exist?
Every time I start to read these posts I get hungry.
Is it your position that chickens suffer horribly but they should be damn grateful that they do because if they didn't they wouldn't' exist?
QUOTE (adoucette+)
When you give this list of products as containing animal by-products you need to provide MUCH more evidence than just this list.
I'm not even going to try. If you can provide a list of such products which do NOT include animal by-products then YOU should compile it and make it available to people trying to be vegan if you think there's reason for it.
I'm not even going to try. If you can provide a list of such products which do NOT include animal by-products then YOU should compile it and make it available to people trying to be vegan if you think there's reason for it.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
In any case, to turn their rather serious attempt to do as little as harm to animals as possible to the claim that they are not observing ANY animal rights is pretty dishonest.
It's not as dishonest as pretending Malards can dive and chase fish, and it's not as dishonest as pretending that vegans don't make use of things with animal by-products in them, but since you want to defend them explain which rights they observe for which animals.
It's not as dishonest as pretending Malards can dive and chase fish, and it's not as dishonest as pretending that vegans don't make use of things with animal by-products in them, but since you want to defend them explain which rights they observe for which animals.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 17 2010, 11:35 PM)
Is it your position that chickens suffer horribly
No it's not. It is eliminationists' position though, and certainly appears to be fredinjeddah's position as well.
No it's not. It is eliminationists' position though, and certainly appears to be fredinjeddah's position as well.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 17 2010, 07:56 PM)
Your error is as pointed out before. You are trying in your speculation, to force people to accept your version of God
I'm pointing out that if there is a God then all who believe in him believe in the same being regardless of what they believe about him or what they call him. Maybe you think that if there is a God, some people who believe in God still believe in different Gods even if there are none. If so, you probably feel that people who have differing beliefs about the sun are thinking about different suns instead of all having different beliefs about the same one. And you believe people who have differing beliefs about the moon are thinking about different moons...
I'm pointing out that if there is a God then all who believe in him believe in the same being regardless of what they believe about him or what they call him. Maybe you think that if there is a God, some people who believe in God still believe in different Gods even if there are none. If so, you probably feel that people who have differing beliefs about the sun are thinking about different suns instead of all having different beliefs about the same one. And you believe people who have differing beliefs about the moon are thinking about different moons...
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 17 2010, 06:43 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
When you give this list of products as containing animal by-products you need to provide MUCH more evidence than just this list.
I'm not even going to try. If you can provide a list of such products which do NOT include animal by-products then YOU should compile it and make it available to people trying to be vegan if you think there's reason for it.
Actually YOU made the claim so the burden of proof is on you.
You claim that you have been posting on this subject for over 9 years but the funny thing, is when challenged to support the BASIS for your position you respond with the pathetic response:
I'm not even going to try. If you can provide a list of such products which do NOT include animal by-products then YOU should compile it and make it available to people trying to be vegan if you think there's reason for it.
Actually YOU made the claim so the burden of proof is on you.
You claim that you have been posting on this subject for over 9 years but the funny thing, is when challenged to support the BASIS for your position you respond with the pathetic response:
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I'm not even going to try
Which we all know equals I CAN'T SUPPORT MY POSITION.
Big surprise there.
Which we all know equals I CAN'T SUPPORT MY POSITION.
Big surprise there.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
In any case, to turn their rather serious attempt to do as little as harm to animals as possible to the claim that they are not observing ANY animal rights is pretty dishonest.
It's not as dishonest as pretending Malards can dive and chase fish, and it's not as dishonest as pretending that vegans don't make use of things with animal by-products in them, but since you want to defend them explain which rights they observe for which animals.
We proved mallards were capable of both diving, chasing, catching and eating fish.
Your refusal to acknowledge this fact even after being shown MANY pieces of evidence proving those exact abilities just shows how dishonest you are.
Like claiming that I ever said that vegans don't use things with animal byproducts in them. In fact I never said any such thing and I posted what I found on the PETA site: they acknowledge that it is impossible to live a life causing no harm to animals, but what they stress is that one can strive to minimize the harm.
Oh, and PETA does provide several references of the uses of animal by-products and they have a section devoted to products which don't use them, so there is no need for me to compile said list.
How many times do I have to post what rights the Animal Rights groups claim?
According to PETA animals have the right to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. As far as I know this belief applies to all animals. For instance they are opposed to use of insecticides and even have an article in praise of the cockroach on their website.
Arthur
It's not as dishonest as pretending Malards can dive and chase fish, and it's not as dishonest as pretending that vegans don't make use of things with animal by-products in them, but since you want to defend them explain which rights they observe for which animals.
We proved mallards were capable of both diving, chasing, catching and eating fish.
Your refusal to acknowledge this fact even after being shown MANY pieces of evidence proving those exact abilities just shows how dishonest you are.
Like claiming that I ever said that vegans don't use things with animal byproducts in them. In fact I never said any such thing and I posted what I found on the PETA site: they acknowledge that it is impossible to live a life causing no harm to animals, but what they stress is that one can strive to minimize the harm.
Oh, and PETA does provide several references of the uses of animal by-products and they have a section devoted to products which don't use them, so there is no need for me to compile said list.
How many times do I have to post what rights the Animal Rights groups claim?
According to PETA animals have the right to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. As far as I know this belief applies to all animals. For instance they are opposed to use of insecticides and even have an article in praise of the cockroach on their website.
Arthur
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 18 2010, 05:23 AM)
I'm pointing out that if there is a God then all who believe in him believe in the same being regardless of what they believe about him or what they call him. Maybe you think that if there is a God, some people who believe in God still believe in different Gods even if there are none. If so, you probably feel that people who have differing beliefs about the sun are thinking about different suns instead of all having different beliefs about the same one. And you believe people who have differing beliefs about the moon are thinking about different moons...
God is not real, hence anyone can call anything that they can possibly imagine as God. This also explains you calling extraterrestrials as Gods.
God is not real, hence anyone can call anything that they can possibly imagine as God. This also explains you calling extraterrestrials as Gods.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 17 2010, 07:56 PM)
Tell me in detail what things you don't like about them. Not just random claims that the birds suffer, but exactly how and why.
I can't be bothered.
I can't be bothered.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What are you contributing to chickens raised in the US? People who buy products are contributing to future similar products, however significantly or insignificantly. |
Oh that is how you contribute to the chickens raised in the US. You eat them, and that means more have to be raised, so in fact, you are like a god, you are giving life by taking life. So logical, I am suprised I did not figure it out before.
You have to truly be the biggest ***** I have ever encountered in my life. Why don't you flit away onto some other forum and harrass some other people.
I read once, that you entered a fourm, and bombarded the site with your endless drivel, and in the end you chased away most of the regulars. Is that your intention here?
You have to truly be the biggest ***** I have ever encountered in my life. Why don't you flit away onto some other forum and harrass some other people.
I read once, that you entered a fourm, and bombarded the site with your endless drivel, and in the end you chased away most of the regulars. Is that your intention here?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 17 2010, 11:53 PM)
I'm pointing out that if there is a God then all who believe in him believe in the same being regardless of what they believe about him or what they call him. Maybe you think that if there is a God, some people who believe in God still believe in different Gods even if there are none. If so, you probably feel that people who have differing beliefs about the sun are thinking about different suns instead of all having different beliefs about the same one. And you believe people who have differing beliefs about the moon are thinking about different moons...
No you aren't you transparent piece of fluffiness. You are first and foremost saying there is only one version of god. How arrogant. All the dozens of gods that exist around the world in the different faiths that distinctly differ, in your opinion are all the same.
Who gives you the authority to dictate what people believe god is, only to fit into your inane pathetic little drivel list.
I think you should stop having sex with ducks, it is obviously effecting your very limited brain ability, or is it the nightclub smoke machine fog you suck up every night that has burnt the little ........what was I thinking , I was goin to say little intelligence you had, but clearly you never had any.
You are a *****
No you aren't you transparent piece of fluffiness. You are first and foremost saying there is only one version of god. How arrogant. All the dozens of gods that exist around the world in the different faiths that distinctly differ, in your opinion are all the same.
Who gives you the authority to dictate what people believe god is, only to fit into your inane pathetic little drivel list.
QUOTE
Maybe you think that if there is a God, some people who believe in God still believe in different Gods even if there are none.
You know you make no sense. This is an *** backward argument....well its not an argument, its a piece of rotting decaying drivel from your mindless head.I think you should stop having sex with ducks, it is obviously effecting your very limited brain ability, or is it the nightclub smoke machine fog you suck up every night that has burnt the little ........what was I thinking , I was goin to say little intelligence you had, but clearly you never had any.
You are a *****
Let's not put the cart in front of the horse. I think having limited brain ability may drive one to have sex with ducks, not the other way round. When an adult has decide to indulge in mental jerking, let him be.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.