NationStates Jolt Archive

Word Soup again, Falaslonde.

before another word can be said, i'd like to thank filamai for their unparalleled dedication to the depth of this discussion.
somehow naturally, then, very little of what's been said is even worth addressing. perhaps it's because i'm in particularly bad mood (i therefore apologize for trampling), but i have no choice but to call everyone's attention to the absolute uselessness of two posts.
veksar: how revolting that what's right (having been argued, and being entirely yours to decide) should come behind your -economy.-
-drinkers of beer-: i think before you talk about nutrition you ought to see if you can get your carbs straight. fruit and vegetables are not carbs.
finally, somebody deserving some attention, echiteka.
'with all due respect, it isn't at all that i don't know the standard spelling, but that i reject it. let me point out a few implications that convinced me to recolonize my spelling.
in dale spender's 1980 book MAN MADE LANGUAGE, he points out how clearly what's known as sexist language relegates womyn to the background of our perception, making womyn linguistically invisible and even contributing "more male" to our theories and experiences. in deborah cameron's 1985 book FEMINISM AND LINGUISTIC THEORY, she goes on to explain the specific way that language creates reality. "experiments in linguistics reveal that when faced with generic man" even "wom[y]n consciously exclude themselves from the reference." the words make the difference. and finally, that difference is patriarchy. in sylvia bailey-shurbutt's 1998 UNTYING THE TONGUE: GENDER, POWER, AND THE WORD, she articulates the limitations, especially in the world of writing and publishing, where womyn have faced specific limitations based entirely on the language we use.
in short, i choose to alter my spelling because i choose to reject the sexist historical baggage the traditional spelling carries. it's not a random mistake. i mean it.'

thanks.

http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif (http://www.angryflower.com)

The study on this issue has concluded and proven the following.
1: Meat contains necessary nutrition that would other wise be unobtainable and thus is a necessary part of a healthy eating plan.
2: If everyone's eating plan had no meat, all would be eating more carbohydrates, such as in sugar, bread, fruits and vegetables and in doing so developing hyperinsulinism and carbohydrate addiction and thus developing severe obesity and health problems.
Meat is therefore an essential part of a healthy eating plan.

this research done by a team of doctors under Dr. Atkinmeyer of the Drinkers of Beer board of investigation health department

In my experience looking at actual nutrition, actual people, and real food, number one is rather silly. The only nutrient lacking from a strictly vegan diet with no animal products whatsoever is B12, which is also produced by symbiotic bacteria in your digestive tract; a very small amount of animal products, such as eggs or diary, can easily supply enough.

As to the second point, it's my experience that vegetarians tend to ingest similar levels of carbohydrates as nonvegetarians; moreover, the tendancy towards obesity in vegetarians appears significantly lower than that of the general population (at least in the US) which thus lowers risk of diabetes.

Anectodally, I would have to say that most vegetarians would seem to be significantly healthier than nonvegetarians; however, that may not be due to the vegetarianism per se as much as vegetarians tending to be more health, diet, and excersize conscious as nonvegetarians as a population.

vini, vedi, vegi

Vini? Like vinum, wine? Or venii? I'm not sure about "vedi"?

Vegi? I stirred?

For proper brain maintainence, you need a certain amount of fat and cholesterol in your diet. The easiest place to get that is meat. In fact, fat and protien are what ensure large brain development in animals. A significant step in human evolution was the change from herbivorous/insectivorous diets to omnivorous diets.

I for one don't want anyone telling me what I can & cannot eat!!!I come from a free land where choice is up to the individual



THANK YOU!! 8) :lol:

You can't beat meat!

Or rather you can if you're male, but there's nothing better than eating meat.

Well actually I suppose there are some things that are better, but there's nothing better that you enjoy putting in your mouth and which nourishes you than eating meat!

1 a) you didn't come back to respect the right to life for everything. b) if you did, we'd be back to your speaking nonsense, because your interpretation of 'sentient' excludes only nonliving things. c) that interpretation sucks because it's non-exclusive within the world of living things. this brings us back to the advantage of my interpretation: we retain our humyn constitution and the room for respect. this advantage to mine is something you're conceding.
2 a) check back what kant says (man you get excited there =p ) about reason being a defining characteristic of humynity. i don't know if he says ( i thought he did) that polemics are external. you should thrill to this since you're all about the external here. b) on the empirical: it's only good so far as it gives us grounds for expectation. it doesn't set up any laws or causation. keeping that in mind helps to see why though we've been omnivorous in the past, it is possible to be herbivorous (even if unlikely or whatever).
3 luckily the numinal argument has become quite extraneous. maybe once i look in on the prolegomena i'll understand, but as you represent it, i can only make the following notes: a) if the phenomenal is the only thing acceptable as experience and therefore the only things acceptable as evidence, we're all effed: i) time and space, the prerequisite a priori concepts for conscious thought, are unverifiable and therefore ii) nothing we ever thought consciously is verifiable. b) (this is where i mostly doubt my own understanding- please clarify) there is nothing that constitutes the numinal as nonphenomenal, and if there is, nothing that constitutes it as non-experiencial, and as i mention earlier, nothing that constitutes experiencial as phenomenal and only phenomenal. c) it isn't. language proves this true. while our senses do shit when we read or listen, like see and hear, the understanding process is something totally different: it isn't sensational at all. the whole point of language is the words (be they shapes or sounds) are symbols.
4 a) yes, separating the ends from the means, then. not just separating, but severing. oh, wait, considering an animal with subjecthood to be a means! the framework of domination in action. b) your example about introspection isn't viable: the situations are different (but not lesser =) ). it may help, if you know anything about grammar, to conceive of this grammatically (that's what helps me). you're not taking away the subjectivity of yourself by asking 'why did i do that?' although it appears you are admittedly also acknowledging the object. in this case, the two aren't mutually exclusive (a good thing here). c) in the case of animals, as exemplified by absent referents, the referent (object) (meat) comes specifically from the loss of something (subjectivity) (life). meat can only ever get to being meat by way of death, absence. the introspective unity isn't possible. d) i don't see why it's irony. i guess i believe that straight up feminism shouldn't be about dissin' on men, or inverting the power structure. it should be about rejecting the power structure, and reintegrating men and womyn. even so (especially), it doesn't mitigate the truthfulness of adams's work, or my argumentation either. e) here's where i have fun! i) meat eating is the cause of several dilapitating diseases too: unnatural chlorestorol, heart disease, addiction to hormones, breast and colon cancers! some preliminary studies are finding that alzheimers may really just be cjd. they do the same things to a brain. also, we incited cjd by 'recycling' cow bone meal back into cow feed. gross. ii) the analysis you give on why we shouldn't eat each other is exactly right. all you need is the application of it to a broader-than-species picture. luckily, we are not single celled organisms. you have got to stop shallowly isolating things and look at them more broadly.
5 a) i don't believe i am a panda. i don't know exactly how to stress that i am living proof that this doesn't extend to humyns: i am, as is every vegetarian i know.. i write poetry, too. i don't spend every waking minute eating. hank aaron played baseball, susan b anthony helped achieved womyn's suffrage, albert einstein was a physicist, gandhi freaking changed a country or two, philip glass is a composer, dustin hoffman acts, carl lewis was an olympian, your beloved plato =). i think you get the picture. b) you get a little closer to the heart of the matter when you talk about farming.. but gandhi lived on a tidy ashram for a long time and did great. it's true that soy protein alone is probably insufficient for really hard farm work. the cool thing is that proteins and the essential amino acids aren't found only in animals or soy. they're also in every living thing (!), that is, plants, in varying amounts. it isn't as hard as people make it out to be, to get enough protein. if i ate only potatoes (admittedly a bad idea, but a good example), and ate enough potatoes to meet my energy needs, i'd get all the protein i needed. c) 'according to nutrionist and dietician suzanne havala, a slightly-overestimated amount of protein for your body can be found by multiplying your body weight in kilograms by 0.8. for me, i need less than 53 grams of protein daily. a variety of foods will meet your needs for all nine essential amino acids. there are lots of sources of protein: veggie burgers, tempeh, tofu, soymilk, beans (burritos, black bean soup, chili, baked beans, salad garnish), nuts, seeds, peanut (and other nut-) butters, whole wheat bread, bran, whole-grain cereal, oatmeal, bagels, pasta, rice, flour tortillas, and most vegetables (green beans, tomatoes, cabbage, broccoli).. as you can see, vegetarians (even vegans) aren't just stuck with 'beans.' in fact, our diet (when done right) meets the requirements and exceeds the constancy of meat-eaters: that is, we eat more kinds of good stuff.'
6 a) what happened to our ability to socialize globally, hm? suddenly a local media is the absolute key to nonviolence? the world will find out (why suddenly so desparate?) and b) even if they didn't, you give no analysis on why that should be the only method of successful nonviolence. c) it isn't. free press isn't the only method of raising awareness. sometimes people talk to each other. sometimes people write subversively. sometimes people nail shit to the doors of churches. it's neat.
7 even if you don't wanna read it, it doesn't make it less true what i've articulated about it. a) why survival? in your quotation, you grouped my analysis on 'because survival is cool' with try to explain away obligation. what this means is that you're trying just as much as i am to ensure that we all do 'good.' you just like to call it 'do things for survival.' what's so hot about survival? b) again, if you want to say you personally like survival, then hawking it to the rest of us is either dumb or sinister (dumb: why waste your time? sinister: no standard exists, according to you then, that justifies your trying to hawk your own opinion of liking survival over somebody else's destroying it. the game means nothing then). c) maybe if i try to obligate people, they'll do it wrong, or resent me, sometimes sure. but that ain't gonna stop me from doing the right thing on face. perhaps here's another utilitarian deviance? i have no choice but to do what's right and hope for the best, knowing for myself that this screwing up or resentment isn't always the result, and even were it, it's just a chance i have to take. (so?)
8 now. a) who's in power that's making my ethics? especially seeing that vegetarian ethics are about four billion people in the minority. b) if there's reason, the only point in using it is discovering things we hadn't thought of before. i) there's no analysis on why interpretation is objectification ii) it's not: interpretation is the by-product of having subjectivity. that's what perception -is-. iii) no impact: you'd be objectifying objects (precepts, reasons), and that wouldn't make much sense (or harm).
c) the ABOLITION OF MA/N talks specifically to this argument that ethics are mutable (or inherently irrational, or whatever other collection of words you'll apply to discount them). there's a couple of problems with you thinking this. i) the first is that it takes out any sense you might have made earlier, specifically when talking about efficiency or survival. why do you want those things?? ii) the second is that it turns back any chance you had of reaching those ends (survival now?) because there isn't any way to get there. if there are no ethics, nothing is ethical, nothing is unethical, and nothing has value (i don't understand the usefullness of how you called it. i think it's better if we identify it with virtue, or good v bad, because it makes the discussion make sense and have a vocabulary). iii) if nothing has goodness or badness, then we can all only seek the things we want. that's the only remaining thing to act on. the things we want are quickly revealed to be a collection of irrational things: the weather and the state of my digestion define these things almost entirely when we leave out ethics. and so in your haste to destroy ethics as the basis of reason, to remove the goodness or badness from things, you've brought yourself full circle, a slave to the irrational forces that determine the things you want.
9 evidence is better than, er what? i assume you mean warrants, 'cause you quote me saying warrants are good.. but that's nonsense, 'cause they're the same thing, unless you mean something secret by evidence. remember, two parts to an argument: claims, which are helpful, but warrants, which are essential.
10 domination is not cool! the answers you're making here have been tied up earlier in the post: we don't otherize ourselves (see 4). viewing differences isn't bad in itself: it's condemning them that's bad. confusing the argument with a zero-sum example (money) isn't gonna work: you say right next that life isn't zero-sum (i know!). the point is that we apply zero-sum frameworks (i'm better than you) and that = domination (therefore i can beat the crap out of you because it benefits me. or therefore i can enslave you, lynch you, gas you, make your life a living hell.)
this leads back into the 4: absent referents argument. you're conceding my analysis on why the framework for any freaking form of domination identifies perfectly with the first, causal framework we ever make: humyn animals over nonhumyn animals. in fact, you don't even quote it, i assume so that you don't have to answer it. allow me: 'the impact is cross-application of this framework onto humyn people. whether its sexual, gender, socioeconomic, or racial difference, we have a whole lot of practice at recognizing the difference and then passing it off as less. welcome to the world of dehumynization.'

thanks again =)
the Holy Empire of Falaslonde holy crap did u cut and paste or something

1 a) you didn't come back to respect the right to life for everything. b) if you did, we'd be back to your speaking nonsense, because your interpretation of 'sentient' excludes only nonliving things. c) that interpretation sucks because it's non-exclusive within the world of living things. this brings us back to the advantage of my interpretation: we retain our humyn constitution and the room for respect. this advantage to mine is something you're conceding.
2 a) check back what kant says (man you get excited there =p ) about reason being a defining characteristic of humynity. i don't know if he says ( i thought he did) that polemics are external. you should thrill to this since you're all about the external here. b) on the empirical: it's only good so far as it gives us grounds for expectation. it doesn't set up any laws or causation. keeping that in mind helps to see why though we've been omnivorous in the past, it is possible to be herbivorous (even if unlikely or whatever).
3 luckily the numinal argument has become quite extraneous. maybe once i look in on the prolegomena i'll understand, but as you represent it, i can only make the following notes: a) if the phenomenal is the only thing acceptable as experience and therefore the only things acceptable as evidence, we're all effed: i) time and space, the prerequisite a priori concepts for conscious thought, are unverifiable and therefore ii) nothing we ever thought consciously is verifiable. b) (this is where i mostly doubt my own understanding- please clarify) there is nothing that constitutes the numinal as nonphenomenal, and if there is, nothing that constitutes it as non-experiencial, and as i mention earlier, nothing that constitutes experiencial as phenomenal and only phenomenal. c) it isn't. language proves this true. while our senses do shit when we read or listen, like see and hear, the understanding process is something totally different: it isn't sensational at all. the whole point of language is the words (be they shapes or sounds) are symbols.
4 a) yes, separating the ends from the means, then. not just separating, but severing. oh, wait, considering an animal with subjecthood to be a means! the framework of domination in action. b) your example about introspection isn't viable: the situations are different (but not lesser =) ). it may help, if you know anything about grammar, to conceive of this grammatically (that's what helps me). you're not taking away the subjectivity of yourself by asking 'why did i do that?' although it appears you are admittedly also acknowledging the object. in this case, the two aren't mutually exclusive (a good thing here). c) in the case of animals, as exemplified by absent referents, the referent (object) (meat) comes specifically from the loss of something (subjectivity) (life). meat can only ever get to being meat by way of death, absence. the introspective unity isn't possible. d) i don't see why it's irony. i guess i believe that straight up feminism shouldn't be about dissin' on men, or inverting the power structure. it should be about rejecting the power structure, and reintegrating men and womyn. even so (especially), it doesn't mitigate the truthfulness of adams's work, or my argumentation either. e) here's where i have fun! i) meat eating is the cause of several dilapitating diseases too: unnatural chlorestorol, heart disease, addiction to hormones, breast and colon cancers! some preliminary studies are finding that alzheimers may really just be cjd. they do the same things to a brain. also, we incited cjd by 'recycling' cow bone meal back into cow feed. gross. ii) the analysis you give on why we shouldn't eat each other is exactly right. all you need is the application of it to a broader-than-species picture. luckily, we are not single celled organisms. you have got to stop shallowly isolating things and look at them more broadly.
5 a) i don't believe i am a panda. i don't know exactly how to stress that i am living proof that this doesn't extend to humyns: i am, as is every vegetarian i know.. i write poetry, too. i don't spend every waking minute eating. hank aaron played baseball, susan b anthony helped achieved womyn's suffrage, albert einstein was a physicist, gandhi freaking changed a country or two, philip glass is a composer, dustin hoffman acts, carl lewis was an olympian, your beloved plato =). i think you get the picture. b) you get a little closer to the heart of the matter when you talk about farming.. but gandhi lived on a tidy ashram for a long time and did great. it's true that soy protein alone is probably insufficient for really hard farm work. the cool thing is that proteins and the essential amino acids aren't found only in animals or soy. they're also in every living thing (!), that is, plants, in varying amounts. it isn't as hard as people make it out to be, to get enough protein. if i ate only potatoes (admittedly a bad idea, but a good example), and ate enough potatoes to meet my energy needs, i'd get all the protein i needed. c) 'according to nutrionist and dietician suzanne havala, a slightly-overestimated amount of protein for your body can be found by multiplying your body weight in kilograms by 0.8. for me, i need less than 53 grams of protein daily. a variety of foods will meet your needs for all nine essential amino acids. there are lots of sources of protein: veggie burgers, tempeh, tofu, soymilk, beans (burritos, black bean soup, chili, baked beans, salad garnish), nuts, seeds, peanut (and other nut-) butters, whole wheat bread, bran, whole-grain cereal, oatmeal, bagels, pasta, rice, flour tortillas, and most vegetables (green beans, tomatoes, cabbage, broccoli).. as you can see, vegetarians (even vegans) aren't just stuck with 'beans.' in fact, our diet (when done right) meets the requirements and exceeds the constancy of meat-eaters: that is, we eat more kinds of good stuff.'
6 a) what happened to our ability to socialize globally, hm? suddenly a local media is the absolute key to nonviolence? the world will find out (why suddenly so desparate?) and b) even if they didn't, you give no analysis on why that should be the only method of successful nonviolence. c) it isn't. free press isn't the only method of raising awareness. sometimes people talk to each other. sometimes people write subversively. sometimes people nail shit to the doors of churches. it's neat.
7 even if you don't wanna read it, it doesn't make it less true what i've articulated about it. a) why survival? in your quotation, you grouped my analysis on 'because survival is cool' with try to explain away obligation. what this means is that you're trying just as much as i am to ensure that we all do 'good.' you just like to call it 'do things for survival.' what's so hot about survival? b) again, if you want to say you personally like survival, then hawking it to the rest of us is either dumb or sinister (dumb: why waste your time? sinister: no standard exists, according to you then, that justifies your trying to hawk your own opinion of liking survival over somebody else's destroying it. the game means nothing then). c) maybe if i try to obligate people, they'll do it wrong, or resent me, sometimes sure. but that ain't gonna stop me from doing the right thing on face. perhaps here's another utilitarian deviance? i have no choice but to do what's right and hope for the best, knowing for myself that this screwing up or resentment isn't always the result, and even were it, it's just a chance i have to take. (so?)
8 now. a) who's in power that's making my ethics? especially seeing that vegetarian ethics are about four billion people in the minority. b) if there's reason, the only point in using it is discovering things we hadn't thought of before. i) there's no analysis on why interpretation is objectification ii) it's not: interpretation is the by-product of having subjectivity. that's what perception -is-. iii) no impact: you'd be objectifying objects (precepts, reasons), and that wouldn't make much sense (or harm).
c) the ABOLITION OF MA/N talks specifically to this argument that ethics are mutable (or inherently irrational, or whatever other collection of words you'll apply to discount them). there's a couple of problems with you thinking this. i) the first is that it takes out any sense you might have made earlier, specifically when talking about efficiency or survival. why do you want those things?? ii) the second is that it turns back any chance you had of reaching those ends (survival now?) because there isn't any way to get there. if there are no ethics, nothing is ethical, nothing is unethical, and nothing has value (i don't understand the usefullness of how you called it. i think it's better if we identify it with virtue, or good v bad, because it makes the discussion make sense and have a vocabulary). iii) if nothing has goodness or badness, then we can all only seek the things we want. that's the only remaining thing to act on. the things we want are quickly revealed to be a collection of irrational things: the weather and the state of my digestion define these things almost entirely when we leave out ethics. and so in your haste to destroy ethics as the basis of reason, to remove the goodness or badness from things, you've brought yourself full circle, a slave to the irrational forces that determine the things you want.
9 evidence is better than, er what? i assume you mean warrants, 'cause you quote me saying warrants are good.. but that's nonsense, 'cause they're the same thing, unless you mean something secret by evidence. remember, two parts to an argument: claims, which are helpful, but warrants, which are essential.
10 domination is not cool! the answers you're making here have been tied up earlier in the post: we don't otherize ourselves (see 4). viewing differences isn't bad in itself: it's condemning them that's bad. confusing the argument with a zero-sum example (money) isn't gonna work: you say right next that life isn't zero-sum (i know!). the point is that we apply zero-sum frameworks (i'm better than you) and that = domination (therefore i can beat the crap out of you because it benefits me. or therefore i can enslave you, lynch you, gas you, make your life a living hell.)
this leads back into the 4: absent referents argument. you're conceding my analysis on why the framework for any freaking form of domination identifies perfectly with the first, causal framework we ever make: humyn animals over nonhumyn animals. in fact, you don't even quote it, i assume so that you don't have to answer it. allow me: 'the impact is cross-application of this framework onto humyn people. whether its sexual, gender, socioeconomic, or racial difference, we have a whole lot of practice at recognizing the difference and then passing it off as less. welcome to the world of dehumynization.'

thanks again =)
the Holy Empire of Falaslonde holy crap did u cut and paste or something

1 a) you didn't come back to respect the right to life for everything. b) if you did, we'd be back to your speaking nonsense, because your interpretation of 'sentient' excludes only nonliving things. c) that interpretation sucks because it's non-exclusive within the world of living things. this brings us back to the advantage of my interpretation: we retain our humyn constitution and the room for respect. this advantage to mine is something you're conceding.
2 a) check back what kant says (man you get excited there =p ) about reason being a defining characteristic of humynity. i don't know if he says ( i thought he did) that polemics are external. you should thrill to this since you're all about the external here. b) on the empirical: it's only good so far as it gives us grounds for expectation. it doesn't set up any laws or causation. keeping that in mind helps to see why though we've been omnivorous in the past, it is possible to be herbivorous (even if unlikely or whatever).
3 luckily the numinal argument has become quite extraneous. maybe once i look in on the prolegomena i'll understand, but as you represent it, i can only make the following notes: a) if the phenomenal is the only thing acceptable as experience and therefore the only things acceptable as evidence, we're all effed: i) time and space, the prerequisite a priori concepts for conscious thought, are unverifiable and therefore ii) nothing we ever thought consciously is verifiable. b) (this is where i mostly doubt my own understanding- please clarify) there is nothing that constitutes the numinal as nonphenomenal, and if there is, nothing that constitutes it as non-experiencial, and as i mention earlier, nothing that constitutes experiencial as phenomenal and only phenomenal. c) it isn't. language proves this true. while our senses do shit when we read or listen, like see and hear, the understanding process is something totally different: it isn't sensational at all. the whole point of language is the words (be they shapes or sounds) are symbols.
4 a) yes, separating the ends from the means, then. not just separating, but severing. oh, wait, considering an animal with subjecthood to be a means! the framework of domination in action. b) your example about introspection isn't viable: the situations are different (but not lesser =) ). it may help, if you know anything about grammar, to conceive of this grammatically (that's what helps me). you're not taking away the subjectivity of yourself by asking 'why did i do that?' although it appears you are admittedly also acknowledging the object. in this case, the two aren't mutually exclusive (a good thing here). c) in the case of animals, as exemplified by absent referents, the referent (object) (meat) comes specifically from the loss of something (subjectivity) (life). meat can only ever get to being meat by way of death, absence. the introspective unity isn't possible. d) i don't see why it's irony. i guess i believe that straight up feminism shouldn't be about dissin' on men, or inverting the power structure. it should be about rejecting the power structure, and reintegrating men and womyn. even so (especially), it doesn't mitigate the truthfulness of adams's work, or my argumentation either. e) here's where i have fun! i) meat eating is the cause of several dilapitating diseases too: unnatural chlorestorol, heart disease, addiction to hormones, breast and colon cancers! some preliminary studies are finding that alzheimers may really just be cjd. they do the same things to a brain. also, we incited cjd by 'recycling' cow bone meal back into cow feed. gross. ii) the analysis you give on why we shouldn't eat each other is exactly right. all you need is the application of it to a broader-than-species picture. luckily, we are not single celled organisms. you have got to stop shallowly isolating things and look at them more broadly.
5 a) i don't believe i am a panda. i don't know exactly how to stress that i am living proof that this doesn't extend to humyns: i am, as is every vegetarian i know.. i write poetry, too. i don't spend every waking minute eating. hank aaron played baseball, susan b anthony helped achieved womyn's suffrage, albert einstein was a physicist, gandhi freaking changed a country or two, philip glass is a composer, dustin hoffman acts, carl lewis was an olympian, your beloved plato =). i think you get the picture. b) you get a little closer to the heart of the matter when you talk about farming.. but gandhi lived on a tidy ashram for a long time and did great. it's true that soy protein alone is probably insufficient for really hard farm work. the cool thing is that proteins and the essential amino acids aren't found only in animals or soy. they're also in every living thing (!), that is, plants, in varying amounts. it isn't as hard as people make it out to be, to get enough protein. if i ate only potatoes (admittedly a bad idea, but a good example), and ate enough potatoes to meet my energy needs, i'd get all the protein i needed. c) 'according to nutrionist and dietician suzanne havala, a slightly-overestimated amount of protein for your body can be found by multiplying your body weight in kilograms by 0.8. for me, i need less than 53 grams of protein daily. a variety of foods will meet your needs for all nine essential amino acids. there are lots of sources of protein: veggie burgers, tempeh, tofu, soymilk, beans (burritos, black bean soup, chili, baked beans, salad garnish), nuts, seeds, peanut (and other nut-) butters, whole wheat bread, bran, whole-grain cereal, oatmeal, bagels, pasta, rice, flour tortillas, and most vegetables (green beans, tomatoes, cabbage, broccoli).. as you can see, vegetarians (even vegans) aren't just stuck with 'beans.' in fact, our diet (when done right) meets the requirements and exceeds the constancy of meat-eaters: that is, we eat more kinds of good stuff.'
6 a) what happened to our ability to socialize globally, hm? suddenly a local media is the absolute key to nonviolence? the world will find out (why suddenly so desparate?) and b) even if they didn't, you give no analysis on why that should be the only method of successful nonviolence. c) it isn't. free press isn't the only method of raising awareness. sometimes people talk to each other. sometimes people write subversively. sometimes people nail shit to the doors of churches. it's neat.
7 even if you don't wanna read it, it doesn't make it less true what i've articulated about it. a) why survival? in your quotation, you grouped my analysis on 'because survival is cool' with try to explain away obligation. what this means is that you're trying just as much as i am to ensure that we all do 'good.' you just like to call it 'do things for survival.' what's so hot about survival? b) again, if you want to say you personally like survival, then hawking it to the rest of us is either dumb or sinister (dumb: why waste your time? sinister: no standard exists, according to you then, that justifies your trying to hawk your own opinion of liking survival over somebody else's destroying it. the game means nothing then). c) maybe if i try to obligate people, they'll do it wrong, or resent me, sometimes sure. but that ain't gonna stop me from doing the right thing on face. perhaps here's another utilitarian deviance? i have no choice but to do what's right and hope for the best, knowing for myself that this screwing up or resentment isn't always the result, and even were it, it's just a chance i have to take. (so?)
8 now. a) who's in power that's making my ethics? especially seeing that vegetarian ethics are about four billion people in the minority. b) if there's reason, the only point in using it is discovering things we hadn't thought of before. i) there's no analysis on why interpretation is objectification ii) it's not: interpretation is the by-product of having subjectivity. that's what perception -is-. iii) no impact: you'd be objectifying objects (precepts, reasons), and that wouldn't make much sense (or harm).
c) the ABOLITION OF MA/N talks specifically to this argument that ethics are mutable (or inherently irrational, or whatever other collection of words you'll apply to discount them). there's a couple of problems with you thinking this. i) the first is that it takes out any sense you might have made earlier, specifically when talking about efficiency or survival. why do you want those things?? ii) the second is that it turns back any chance you had of reaching those ends (survival now?) because there isn't any way to get there. if there are no ethics, nothing is ethical, nothing is unethical, and nothing has value (i don't understand the usefullness of how you called it. i think it's better if we identify it with virtue, or good v bad, because it makes the discussion make sense and have a vocabulary). iii) if nothing has goodness or badness, then we can all only seek the things we want. that's the only remaining thing to act on. the things we want are quickly revealed to be a collection of irrational things: the weather and the state of my digestion define these things almost entirely when we leave out ethics. and so in your haste to destroy ethics as the basis of reason, to remove the goodness or badness from things, you've brought yourself full circle, a slave to the irrational forces that determine the things you want.
9 evidence is better than, er what? i assume you mean warrants, 'cause you quote me saying warrants are good.. but that's nonsense, 'cause they're the same thing, unless you mean something secret by evidence. remember, two parts to an argument: claims, which are helpful, but warrants, which are essential.
10 domination is not cool! the answers you're making here have been tied up earlier in the post: we don't otherize ourselves (see 4). viewing differences isn't bad in itself: it's condemning them that's bad. confusing the argument with a zero-sum example (money) isn't gonna work: you say right next that life isn't zero-sum (i know!). the point is that we apply zero-sum frameworks (i'm better than you) and that = domination (therefore i can beat the crap out of you because it benefits me. or therefore i can enslave you, lynch you, gas you, make your life a living hell.)
this leads back into the 4: absent referents argument. you're conceding my analysis on why the framework for any freaking form of domination identifies perfectly with the first, causal framework we ever make: humyn animals over nonhumyn animals. in fact, you don't even quote it, i assume so that you don't have to answer it. allow me: 'the impact is cross-application of this framework onto humyn people. whether its sexual, gender, socioeconomic, or racial difference, we have a whole lot of practice at recognizing the difference and then passing it off as less. welcome to the world of dehumynization.'

thanks again =)
the Holy Empire of Falaslonde holy crap did u cut and paste or something

1 a) you didn't come back to respect the right to life for everything. b) if you did, we'd be back to your speaking nonsense, because your interpretation of 'sentient' excludes only nonliving things. c) that interpretation sucks because it's non-exclusive within the world of living things. this brings us back to the advantage of my interpretation: we retain our humyn constitution and the room for respect. this advantage to mine is something you're conceding.
2 a) check back what kant says (man you get excited there =p ) about reason being a defining characteristic of humynity. i don't know if he says ( i thought he did) that polemics are external. you should thrill to this since you're all about the external here. b) on the empirical: it's only good so far as it gives us grounds for expectation. it doesn't set up any laws or causation. keeping that in mind helps to see why though we've been omnivorous in the past, it is possible to be herbivorous (even if unlikely or whatever).
3 luckily the numinal argument has become quite extraneous. maybe once i look in on the prolegomena i'll understand, but as you represent it, i can only make the following notes: a) if the phenomenal is the only thing acceptable as experience and therefore the only things acceptable as evidence, we're all effed: i) time and space, the prerequisite a priori concepts for conscious thought, are unverifiable and therefore ii) nothing we ever thought consciously is verifiable. b) (this is where i mostly doubt my own understanding- please clarify) there is nothing that constitutes the numinal as nonphenomenal, and if there is, nothing that constitutes it as non-experiencial, and as i mention earlier, nothing that constitutes experiencial as phenomenal and only phenomenal. c) it isn't. language proves this true. while our senses do shit when we read or listen, like see and hear, the understanding process is something totally different: it isn't sensational at all. the whole point of language is the words (be they shapes or sounds) are symbols.
4 a) yes, separating the ends from the means, then. not just separating, but severing. oh, wait, considering an animal with subjecthood to be a means! the framework of domination in action. b) your example about introspection isn't viable: the situations are different (but not lesser =) ). it may help, if you know anything about grammar, to conceive of this grammatically (that's what helps me). you're not taking away the subjectivity of yourself by asking 'why did i do that?' although it appears you are admittedly also acknowledging the object. in this case, the two aren't mutually exclusive (a good thing here). c) in the case of animals, as exemplified by absent referents, the referent (object) (meat) comes specifically from the loss of something (subjectivity) (life). meat can only ever get to being meat by way of death, absence. the introspective unity isn't possible. d) i don't see why it's irony. i guess i believe that straight up feminism shouldn't be about dissin' on men, or inverting the power structure. it should be about rejecting the power structure, and reintegrating men and womyn. even so (especially), it doesn't mitigate the truthfulness of adams's work, or my argumentation either. e) here's where i have fun! i) meat eating is the cause of several dilapitating diseases too: unnatural chlorestorol, heart disease, addiction to hormones, breast and colon cancers! some preliminary studies are finding that alzheimers may really just be cjd. they do the same things to a brain. also, we incited cjd by 'recycling' cow bone meal back into cow feed. gross. ii) the analysis you give on why we shouldn't eat each other is exactly right. all you need is the application of it to a broader-than-species picture. luckily, we are not single celled organisms. you have got to stop shallowly isolating things and look at them more broadly.
5 a) i don't believe i am a panda. i don't know exactly how to stress that i am living proof that this doesn't extend to humyns: i am, as is every vegetarian i know.. i write poetry, too. i don't spend every waking minute eating. hank aaron played baseball, susan b anthony helped achieved womyn's suffrage, albert einstein was a physicist, gandhi freaking changed a country or two, philip glass is a composer, dustin hoffman acts, carl lewis was an olympian, your beloved plato =). i think you get the picture. b) you get a little closer to the heart of the matter when you talk about farming.. but gandhi lived on a tidy ashram for a long time and did great. it's true that soy protein alone is probably insufficient for really hard farm work. the cool thing is that proteins and the essential amino acids aren't found only in animals or soy. they're also in every living thing (!), that is, plants, in varying amounts. it isn't as hard as people make it out to be, to get enough protein. if i ate only potatoes (admittedly a bad idea, but a good example), and ate enough potatoes to meet my energy needs, i'd get all the protein i needed. c) 'according to nutrionist and dietician suzanne havala, a slightly-overestimated amount of protein for your body can be found by multiplying your body weight in kilograms by 0.8. for me, i need less than 53 grams of protein daily. a variety of foods will meet your needs for all nine essential amino acids. there are lots of sources of protein: veggie burgers, tempeh, tofu, soymilk, beans (burritos, black bean soup, chili, baked beans, salad garnish), nuts, seeds, peanut (and other nut-) butters, whole wheat bread, bran, whole-grain cereal, oatmeal, bagels, pasta, rice, flour tortillas, and most vegetables (green beans, tomatoes, cabbage, broccoli).. as you can see, vegetarians (even vegans) aren't just stuck with 'beans.' in fact, our diet (when done right) meets the requirements and exceeds the constancy of meat-eaters: that is, we eat more kinds of good stuff.'
6 a) what happened to our ability to socialize globally, hm? suddenly a local media is the absolute key to nonviolence? the world will find out (why suddenly so desparate?) and b) even if they didn't, you give no analysis on why that should be the only method of successful nonviolence. c) it isn't. free press isn't the only method of raising awareness. sometimes people talk to each other. sometimes people write subversively. sometimes people nail shit to the doors of churches. it's neat.
7 even if you don't wanna read it, it doesn't make it less true what i've articulated about it. a) why survival? in your quotation, you grouped my analysis on 'because survival is cool' with try to explain away obligation. what this means is that you're trying just as much as i am to ensure that we all do 'good.' you just like to call it 'do things for survival.' what's so hot about survival? b) again, if you want to say you personally like survival, then hawking it to the rest of us is either dumb or sinister (dumb: why waste your time? sinister: no standard exists, according to you then, that justifies your trying to hawk your own opinion of liking survival over somebody else's destroying it. the game means nothing then). c) maybe if i try to obligate people, they'll do it wrong, or resent me, sometimes sure. but that ain't gonna stop me from doing the right thing on face. perhaps here's another utilitarian deviance? i have no choice but to do what's right and hope for the best, knowing for myself that this screwing up or resentment isn't always the result, and even were it, it's just a chance i have to take. (so?)
8 now. a) who's in power that's making my ethics? especially seeing that vegetarian ethics are about four billion people in the minority. b) if there's reason, the only point in using it is discovering things we hadn't thought of before. i) there's no analysis on why interpretation is objectification ii) it's not: interpretation is the by-product of having subjectivity. that's what perception -is-. iii) no impact: you'd be objectifying objects (precepts, reasons), and that wouldn't make much sense (or harm).
c) the ABOLITION OF MA/N talks specifically to this argument that ethics are mutable (or inherently irrational, or whatever other collection of words you'll apply to discount them). there's a couple of problems with you thinking this. i) the first is that it takes out any sense you might have made earlier, specifically when talking about efficiency or survival. why do you want those things?? ii) the second is that it turns back any chance you had of reaching those ends (survival now?) because there isn't any way to get there. if there are no ethics, nothing is ethical, nothing is unethical, and nothing has value (i don't understand the usefullness of how you called it. i think it's better if we identify it with virtue, or good v bad, because it makes the discussion make sense and have a vocabulary). iii) if nothing has goodness or badness, then we can all only seek the things we want. that's the only remaining thing to act on. the things we want are quickly revealed to be a collection of irrational things: the weather and the state of my digestion define these things almost entirely when we leave out ethics. and so in your haste to destroy ethics as the basis of reason, to remove the goodness or badness from things, you've brought yourself full circle, a slave to the irrational forces that determine the things you want.
9 evidence is better than, er what? i assume you mean warrants, 'cause you quote me saying warrants are good.. but that's nonsense, 'cause they're the same thing, unless you mean something secret by evidence. remember, two parts to an argument: claims, which are helpful, but warrants, which are essential.
10 domination is not cool! the answers you're making here have been tied up earlier in the post: we don't otherize ourselves (see 4). viewing differences isn't bad in itself: it's condemning them that's bad. confusing the argument with a zero-sum example (money) isn't gonna work: you say right next that life isn't zero-sum (i know!). the point is that we apply zero-sum frameworks (i'm better than you) and that = domination (therefore i can beat the crap out of you because it benefits me. or therefore i can enslave you, lynch you, gas you, make your life a living hell.)
this leads back into the 4: absent referents argument. you're conceding my analysis on why the framework for any freaking form of domination identifies perfectly with the first, causal framework we ever make: humyn animals over nonhumyn animals. in fact, you don't even quote it, i assume so that you don't have to answer it. allow me: 'the impact is cross-application of this framework onto humyn people. whether its sexual, gender, socioeconomic, or racial difference, we have a whole lot of practice at recognizing the difference and then passing it off as less. welcome to the world of dehumynization.'

thanks again =)
the Holy Empire of Falaslonde holy crap did u cut and paste or something

1 a) you didn't come back to respect the right to life for everything. b) if you did, we'd be back to your speaking nonsense, because your interpretation of 'sentient' excludes only nonliving things. c) that interpretation sucks because it's non-exclusive within the world of living things. this brings us back to the advantage of my interpretation: we retain our humyn constitution and the room for respect. this advantage to mine is something you're conceding.
2 a) check back what kant says (man you get excited there =p ) about reason being a defining characteristic of humynity. i don't know if he says ( i thought he did) that polemics are external. you should thrill to this since you're all about the external here. b) on the empirical: it's only good so far as it gives us grounds for expectation. it doesn't set up any laws or causation. keeping that in mind helps to see why though we've been omnivorous in the past, it is possible to be herbivorous (even if unlikely or whatever).
3 luckily the numinal argument has become quite extraneous. maybe once i look in on the prolegomena i'll understand, but as you represent it, i can only make the following notes: a) if the phenomenal is the only thing acceptable as experience and therefore the only things acceptable as evidence, we're all effed: i) time and space, the prerequisite a priori concepts for conscious thought, are unverifiable and therefore ii) nothing we ever thought consciously is verifiable. b) (this is where i mostly doubt my own understanding- please clarify) there is nothing that constitutes the numinal as nonphenomenal, and if there is, nothing that constitutes it as non-experiencial, and as i mention earlier, nothing that constitutes experiencial as phenomenal and only phenomenal. c) it isn't. language proves this true. while our senses do shit when we read or listen, like see and hear, the understanding process is something totally different: it isn't sensational at all. the whole point of language is the words (be they shapes or sounds) are symbols.
4 a) yes, separating the ends from the means, then. not just separating, but severing. oh, wait, considering an animal with subjecthood to be a means! the framework of domination in action. b) your example about introspection isn't viable: the situations are different (but not lesser =) ). it may help, if you know anything about grammar, to conceive of this grammatically (that's what helps me). you're not taking away the subjectivity of yourself by asking 'why did i do that?' although it appears you are admittedly also acknowledging the object. in this case, the two aren't mutually exclusive (a good thing here). c) in the case of animals, as exemplified by absent referents, the referent (object) (meat) comes specifically from the loss of something (subjectivity) (life). meat can only ever get to being meat by way of death, absence. the introspective unity isn't possible. d) i don't see why it's irony. i guess i believe that straight up feminism shouldn't be about dissin' on men, or inverting the power structure. it should be about rejecting the power structure, and reintegrating men and womyn. even so (especially), it doesn't mitigate the truthfulness of adams's work, or my argumentation either. e) here's where i have fun! i) meat eating is the cause of several dilapitating diseases too: unnatural chlorestorol, heart disease, addiction to hormones, breast and colon cancers! some preliminary studies are finding that alzheimers may really just be cjd. they do the same things to a brain. also, we incited cjd by 'recycling' cow bone meal back into cow feed. gross. ii) the analysis you give on why we shouldn't eat each other is exactly right. all you need is the application of it to a broader-than-species picture. luckily, we are not single celled organisms. you have got to stop shallowly isolating things and look at them more broadly.
5 a) i don't believe i am a panda. i don't know exactly how to stress that i am living proof that this doesn't extend to humyns: i am, as is every vegetarian i know.. i write poetry, too. i don't spend every waking minute eating. hank aaron played baseball, susan b anthony helped achieved womyn's suffrage, albert einstein was a physicist, gandhi freaking changed a country or two, philip glass is a composer, dustin hoffman acts, carl lewis was an olympian, your beloved plato =). i think you get the picture. b) you get a little closer to the heart of the matter when you talk about farming.. but gandhi lived on a tidy ashram for a long time and did great. it's true that soy protein alone is probably insufficient for really hard farm work. the cool thing is that proteins and the essential amino acids aren't found only in animals or soy. they're also in every living thing (!), that is, plants, in varying amounts. it isn't as hard as people make it out to be, to get enough protein. if i ate only potatoes (admittedly a bad idea, but a good example), and ate enough potatoes to meet my energy needs, i'd get all the protein i needed. c) 'according to nutrionist and dietician suzanne havala, a slightly-overestimated amount of protein for your body can be found by multiplying your body weight in kilograms by 0.8. for me, i need less than 53 grams of protein daily. a variety of foods will meet your needs for all nine essential amino acids. there are lots of sources of protein: veggie burgers, tempeh, tofu, soymilk, beans (burritos, black bean soup, chili, baked beans, salad garnish), nuts, seeds, peanut (and other nut-) butters, whole wheat bread, bran, whole-grain cereal, oatmeal, bagels, pasta, rice, flour tortillas, and most vegetables (green beans, tomatoes, cabbage, broccoli).. as you can see, vegetarians (even vegans) aren't just stuck with 'beans.' in fact, our diet (when done right) meets the requirements and exceeds the constancy of meat-eaters: that is, we eat more kinds of good stuff.'
6 a) what happened to our ability to socialize globally, hm? suddenly a local media is the absolute key to nonviolence? the world will find out (why suddenly so desparate?) and b) even if they didn't, you give no analysis on why that should be the only method of successful nonviolence. c) it isn't. free press isn't the only method of raising awareness. sometimes people talk to each other. sometimes people write subversively. sometimes people nail shit to the doors of churches. it's neat.
7 even if you don't wanna read it, it doesn't make it less true what i've articulated about it. a) why survival? in your quotation, you grouped my analysis on 'because survival is cool' with try to explain away obligation. what this means is that you're trying just as much as i am to ensure that we all do 'good.' you just like to call it 'do things for survival.' what's so hot about survival? b) again, if you want to say you personally like survival, then hawking it to the rest of us is either dumb or sinister (dumb: why waste your time? sinister: no standard exists, according to you then, that justifies your trying to hawk your own opinion of liking survival over somebody else's destroying it. the game means nothing then). c) maybe if i try to obligate people, they'll do it wrong, or resent me, sometimes sure. but that ain't gonna stop me from doing the right thing on face. perhaps here's another utilitarian deviance? i have no choice but to do what's right and hope for the best, knowing for myself that this screwing up or resentment isn't always the result, and even were it, it's just a chance i have to take. (so?)
8 now. a) who's in power that's making my ethics? especially seeing that vegetarian ethics are about four billion people in the minority. b) if there's reason, the only point in using it is discovering things we hadn't thought of before. i) there's no analysis on why interpretation is objectification ii) it's not: interpretation is the by-product of having subjectivity. that's what perception -is-. iii) no impact: you'd be objectifying objects (precepts, reasons), and that wouldn't make much sense (or harm).
c) the ABOLITION OF MA/N talks specifically to this argument that ethics are mutable (or inherently irrational, or whatever other collection of words you'll apply to discount them). there's a couple of problems with you thinking this. i) the first is that it takes out any sense you might have made earlier, specifically when talking about efficiency or survival. why do you want those things?? ii) the second is that it turns back any chance you had of reaching those ends (survival now?) because there isn't any way to get there. if there are no ethics, nothing is ethical, nothing is unethical, and nothing has value (i don't understand the usefullness of how you called it. i think it's better if we identify it with virtue, or good v bad, because it makes the discussion make sense and have a vocabulary). iii) if nothing has goodness or badness, then we can all only seek the things we want. that's the only remaining thing to act on. the things we want are quickly revealed to be a collection of irrational things: the weather and the state of my digestion define these things almost entirely when we leave out ethics. and so in your haste to destroy ethics as the basis of reason, to remove the goodness or badness from things, you've brought yourself full circle, a slave to the irrational forces that determine the things you want.
9 evidence is better than, er what? i assume you mean warrants, 'cause you quote me saying warrants are good.. but that's nonsense, 'cause they're the same thing, unless you mean something secret by evidence. remember, two parts to an argument: claims, which are helpful, but warrants, which are essential.
10 domination is not cool! the answers you're making here have been tied up earlier in the post: we don't otherize ourselves (see 4). viewing differences isn't bad in itself: it's condemning them that's bad. confusing the argument with a zero-sum example (money) isn't gonna work: you say right next that life isn't zero-sum (i know!). the point is that we apply zero-sum frameworks (i'm better than you) and that = domination (therefore i can beat the crap out of you because it benefits me. or therefore i can enslave you, lynch you, gas you, make your life a living hell.)
this leads back into the 4: absent referents argument. you're conceding my analysis on why the framework for any freaking form of domination identifies perfectly with the first, causal framework we ever make: humyn animals over nonhumyn animals. in fact, you don't even quote it, i assume so that you don't have to answer it. allow me: 'the impact is cross-application of this framework onto humyn people. whether its sexual, gender, socioeconomic, or racial difference, we have a whole lot of practice at recognizing the difference and then passing it off as less. welcome to the world of dehumynization.'

thanks again =)
the Holy Empire of Falaslonde holy crap did u cut and paste or something

1 a) you didn't come back to respect the right to life for everything. b) if you did, we'd be back to your speaking nonsense, because your interpretation of 'sentient' excludes only nonliving things. c) that interpretation sucks because it's non-exclusive within the world of living things. this brings us back to the advantage of my interpretation: we retain our humyn constitution and the room for respect. this advantage to mine is something you're conceding.
2 a) check back what kant says (man you get excited there =p ) about reason being a defining characteristic of humynity. i don't know if he says ( i thought he did) that polemics are external. you should thrill to this since you're all about the external here. b) on the empirical: it's only good so far as it gives us grounds for expectation. it doesn't set up any laws or causation. keeping that in mind helps to see why though we've been omnivorous in the past, it is possible to be herbivorous (even if unlikely or whatever).
3 luckily the numinal argument has become quite extraneous. maybe once i look in on the prolegomena i'll understand, but as you represent it, i can only make the following notes: a) if the phenomenal is the only thing acceptable as experience and therefore the only things acceptable as evidence, we're all effed: i) time and space, the prerequisite a priori concepts for conscious thought, are unverifiable and therefore ii) nothing we ever thought consciously is verifiable. b) (this is where i mostly doubt my own understanding- please clarify) there is nothing that constitutes the numinal as nonphenomenal, and if there is, nothing that constitutes it as non-experiencial, and as i mention earlier, nothing that constitutes experiencial as phenomenal and only phenomenal. c) it isn't. language proves this true. while our senses do shit when we read or listen, like see and hear, the understanding process is something totally different: it isn't sensational at all. the whole point of language is the words (be they shapes or sounds) are symbols.
4 a) yes, separating the ends from the means, then. not just separating, but severing. oh, wait, considering an animal with subjecthood to be a means! the framework of domination in action. b) your example about introspection isn't viable: the situations are different (but not lesser =) ). it may help, if you know anything about grammar, to conceive of this grammatically (that's what helps me). you're not taking away the subjectivity of yourself by asking 'why did i do that?' although it appears you are admittedly also acknowledging the object. in this case, the two aren't mutually exclusive (a good thing here). c) in the case of animals, as exemplified by absent referents, the referent (object) (meat) comes specifically from the loss of something (subjectivity) (life). meat can only ever get to being meat by way of death, absence. the introspective unity isn't possible. d) i don't see why it's irony. i guess i believe that straight up feminism shouldn't be about dissin' on men, or inverting the power structure. it should be about rejecting the power structure, and reintegrating men and womyn. even so (especially), it doesn't mitigate the truthfulness of adams's work, or my argumentation either. e) here's where i have fun! i) meat eating is the cause of several dilapitating diseases too: unnatural chlorestorol, heart disease, addiction to hormones, breast and colon cancers! some preliminary studies are finding that alzheimers may really just be cjd. they do the same things to a brain. also, we incited cjd by 'recycling' cow bone meal back into cow feed. gross. ii) the analysis you give on why we shouldn't eat each other is exactly right. all you need is the application of it to a broader-than-species picture. luckily, we are not single celled organisms. you have got to stop shallowly isolating things and look at them more broadly.
5 a) i don't believe i am a panda. i don't know exactly how to stress that i am living proof that this doesn't extend to humyns: i am, as is every vegetarian i know.. i write poetry, too. i don't spend every waking minute eating. hank aaron played baseball, susan b anthony helped achieved womyn's suffrage, albert einstein was a physicist, gandhi freaking changed a country or two, philip glass is a composer, dustin hoffman acts, carl lewis was an olympian, your beloved plato =). i think you get the picture. b) you get a little closer to the heart of the matter when you talk about farming.. but gandhi lived on a tidy ashram for a long time and did great. it's true that soy protein alone is probably insufficient for really hard farm work. the cool thing is that proteins and the essential amino acids aren't found only in animals or soy. they're also in every living thing (!), that is, plants, in varying amounts. it isn't as hard as people make it out to be, to get enough protein. if i ate only potatoes (admittedly a bad idea, but a good example), and ate enough potatoes to meet my energy needs, i'd get all the protein i needed. c) 'according to nutrionist and dietician suzanne havala, a slightly-overestimated amount of protein for your body can be found by multiplying your body weight in kilograms by 0.8. for me, i need less than 53 grams of protein daily. a variety of foods will meet your needs for all nine essential amino acids. there are lots of sources of protein: veggie burgers, tempeh, tofu, soymilk, beans (burritos, black bean soup, chili, baked beans, salad garnish), nuts, seeds, peanut (and other nut-) butters, whole wheat bread, bran, whole-grain cereal, oatmeal, bagels, pasta, rice, flour tortillas, and most vegetables (green beans, tomatoes, cabbage, broccoli).. as you can see, vegetarians (even vegans) aren't just stuck with 'beans.' in fact, our diet (when done right) meets the requirements and exceeds the constancy of meat-eaters: that is, we eat more kinds of good stuff.'
6 a) what happened to our ability to socialize globally, hm? suddenly a local media is the absolute key to nonviolence? the world will find out (why suddenly so desparate?) and b) even if they didn't, you give no analysis on why that should be the only method of successful nonviolence. c) it isn't. free press isn't the only method of raising awareness. sometimes people talk to each other. sometimes people write subversively. sometimes people nail shit to the doors of churches. it's neat.
7 even if you don't wanna read it, it doesn't make it less true what i've articulated about it. a) why survival? in your quotation, you grouped my analysis on 'because survival is cool' with try to explain away obligation. what this means is that you're trying just as much as i am to ensure that we all do 'good.' you just like to call it 'do things for survival.' what's so hot about survival? b) again, if you want to say you personally like survival, then hawking it to the rest of us is either dumb or sinister (dumb: why waste your time? sinister: no standard exists, according to you then, that justifies your trying to hawk your own opinion of liking survival over somebody else's destroying it. the game means nothing then). c) maybe if i try to obligate people, they'll do it wrong, or resent me, sometimes sure. but that ain't gonna stop me from doing the right thing on face. perhaps here's another utilitarian deviance? i have no choice but to do what's right and hope for the best, knowing for myself that this screwing up or resentment isn't always the result, and even were it, it's just a chance i have to take. (so?)
8 now. a) who's in power that's making my ethics? especially seeing that vegetarian ethics are about four billion people in the minority. b) if there's reason, the only point in using it is discovering things we hadn't thought of before. i) there's no analysis on why interpretation is objectification ii) it's not: interpretation is the by-product of having subjectivity. that's what perception -is-. iii) no impact: you'd be objectifying objects (precepts, reasons), and that wouldn't make much sense (or harm).
c) the ABOLITION OF MA/N talks specifically to this argument that ethics are mutable (or inherently irrational, or whatever other collection of words you'll apply to discount them). there's a couple of problems with you thinking this. i) the first is that it takes out any sense you might have made earlier, specifically when talking about efficiency or survival. why do you want those things?? ii) the second is that it turns back any chance you had of reaching those ends (survival now?) because there isn't any way to get there. if there are no ethics, nothing is ethical, nothing is unethical, and nothing has value (i don't understand the usefullness of how you called it. i think it's better if we identify it with virtue, or good v bad, because it makes the discussion make sense and have a vocabulary). iii) if nothing has goodness or badness, then we can all only seek the things we want. that's the only remaining thing to act on. the things we want are quickly revealed to be a collection of irrational things: the weather and the state of my digestion define these things almost entirely when we leave out ethics. and so in your haste to destroy ethics as the basis of reason, to remove the goodness or badness from things, you've brought yourself full circle, a slave to the irrational forces that determine the things you want.
9 evidence is better than, er what? i assume you mean warrants, 'cause you quote me saying warrants are good.. but that's nonsense, 'cause they're the same thing, unless you mean something secret by evidence. remember, two parts to an argument: claims, which are helpful, but warrants, which are essential.
10 domination is not cool! the answers you're making here have been tied up earlier in the post: we don't otherize ourselves (see 4). viewing differences isn't bad in itself: it's condemning them that's bad. confusing the argument with a zero-sum example (money) isn't gonna work: you say right next that life isn't zero-sum (i know!). the point is that we apply zero-sum frameworks (i'm better than you) and that = domination (therefore i can beat the crap out of you because it benefits me. or therefore i can enslave you, lynch you, gas you, make your life a living hell.)
this leads back into the 4: absent referents argument. you're conceding my analysis on why the framework for any freaking form of domination identifies perfectly with the first, causal framework we ever make: humyn animals over nonhumyn animals. in fact, you don't even quote it, i assume so that you don't have to answer it. allow me: 'the impact is cross-application of this framework onto humyn people. whether its sexual, gender, socioeconomic, or racial difference, we have a whole lot of practice at recognizing the difference and then passing it off as less. welcome to the world of dehumynization.'

thanks again =)
the Holy Empire of Falaslonde holy crap did u cut and paste or something

1 a) you didn't come back to respect the right to life for everything. b) if you did, we'd be back to your speaking nonsense, because your interpretation of 'sentient' excludes only nonliving things. c) that interpretation sucks because it's non-exclusive within the world of living things. this brings us back to the advantage of my interpretation: we retain our humyn constitution and the room for respect. this advantage to mine is something you're conceding.
2 a) check back what kant says (man you get excited there =p ) about reason being a defining characteristic of humynity. i don't know if he says ( i thought he did) that polemics are external. you should thrill to this since you're all about the external here. b) on the empirical: it's only good so far as it gives us grounds for expectation. it doesn't set up any laws or causation. keeping that in mind helps to see why though we've been omnivorous in the past, it is possible to be herbivorous (even if unlikely or whatever).
3 luckily the numinal argument has become quite extraneous. maybe once i look in on the prolegomena i'll understand, but as you represent it, i can only make the following notes: a) if the phenomenal is the only thing acceptable as experience and therefore the only things acceptable as evidence, we're all effed: i) time and space, the prerequisite a priori concepts for conscious thought, are unverifiable and therefore ii) nothing we ever thought consciously is verifiable. b) (this is where i mostly doubt my own understanding- please clarify) there is nothing that constitutes the numinal as nonphenomenal, and if there is, nothing that constitutes it as non-experiencial, and as i mention earlier, nothing that constitutes experiencial as phenomenal and only phenomenal. c) it isn't. language proves this true. while our senses do shit when we read or listen, like see and hear, the understanding process is something totally different: it isn't sensational at all. the whole point of language is the words (be they shapes or sounds) are symbols.
4 a) yes, separating the ends from the means, then. not just separating, but severing. oh, wait, considering an animal with subjecthood to be a means! the framework of domination in action. b) your example about introspection isn't viable: the situations are different (but not lesser =) ). it may help, if you know anything about grammar, to conceive of this grammatically (that's what helps me). you're not taking away the subjectivity of yourself by asking 'why did i do that?' although it appears you are admittedly also acknowledging the object. in this case, the two aren't mutually exclusive (a good thing here). c) in the case of animals, as exemplified by absent referents, the referent (object) (meat) comes specifically from the loss of something (subjectivity) (life). meat can only ever get to being meat by way of death, absence. the introspective unity isn't possible. d) i don't see why it's irony. i guess i believe that straight up feminism shouldn't be about dissin' on men, or inverting the power structure. it should be about rejecting the power structure, and reintegrating men and womyn. even so (especially), it doesn't mitigate the truthfulness of adams's work, or my argumentation either. e) here's where i have fun! i) meat eating is the cause of several dilapitating diseases too: unnatural chlorestorol, heart disease, addiction to hormones, breast and colon cancers! some preliminary studies are finding that alzheimers may really just be cjd. they do the same things to a brain. also, we incited cjd by 'recycling' cow bone meal back into cow feed. gross. ii) the analysis you give on why we shouldn't eat each other is exactly right. all you need is the application of it to a broader-than-species picture. luckily, we are not single celled organisms. you have got to stop shallowly isolating things and look at them more broadly.
5 a) i don't believe i am a panda. i don't know exactly how to stress that i am living proof that this doesn't extend to humyns: i am, as is every vegetarian i know.. i write poetry, too. i don't spend every waking minute eating. hank aaron played baseball, susan b anthony helped achieved womyn's suffrage, albert einstein was a physicist, gandhi freaking changed a country or two, philip glass is a composer, dustin hoffman acts, carl lewis was an olympian, your beloved plato =). i think you get the picture. b) you get a little closer to the heart of the matter when you talk about farming.. but gandhi lived on a tidy ashram for a long time and did great. it's true that soy protein alone is probably insufficient for really hard farm work. the cool thing is that proteins and the essential amino acids aren't found only in animals or soy. they're also in every living thing (!), that is, plants, in varying amounts. it isn't as hard as people make it out to be, to get enough protein. if i ate only potatoes (admittedly a bad idea, but a good example), and ate enough potatoes to meet my energy needs, i'd get all the protein i needed. c) 'according to nutrionist and dietician suzanne havala, a slightly-overestimated amount of protein for your body can be found by multiplying your body weight in kilograms by 0.8. for me, i need less than 53 grams of protein daily. a variety of foods will meet your needs for all nine essential amino acids. there are lots of sources of protein: veggie burgers, tempeh, tofu, soymilk, beans (burritos, black bean soup, chili, baked beans, salad garnish), nuts, seeds, peanut (and other nut-) butters, whole wheat bread, bran, whole-grain cereal, oatmeal, bagels, pasta, rice, flour tortillas, and most vegetables (green beans, tomatoes, cabbage, broccoli).. as you can see, vegetarians (even vegans) aren't just stuck with 'beans.' in fact, our diet (when done right) meets the requirements and exceeds the constancy of meat-eaters: that is, we eat more kinds of good stuff.'
6 a) what happened to our ability to socialize globally, hm? suddenly a local media is the absolute key to nonviolence? the world will find out (why suddenly so desparate?) and b) even if they didn't, you give no analysis on why that should be the only method of successful nonviolence. c) it isn't. free press isn't the only method of raising awareness. sometimes people talk to each other. sometimes people write subversively. sometimes people nail shit to the doors of churches. it's neat.
7 even if you don't wanna read it, it doesn't make it less true what i've articulated about it. a) why survival? in your quotation, you grouped my analysis on 'because survival is cool' with try to explain away obligation. what this means is that you're trying just as much as i am to ensure that we all do 'good.' you just like to call it 'do things for survival.' what's so hot about survival? b) again, if you want to say you personally like survival, then hawking it to the rest of us is either dumb or sinister (dumb: why waste your time? sinister: no standard exists, according to you then, that justifies your trying to hawk your own opinion of liking survival over somebody else's destroying it. the game means nothing then). c) maybe if i try to obligate people, they'll do it wrong, or resent me, sometimes sure. but that ain't gonna stop me from doing the right thing on face. perhaps here's another utilitarian deviance? i have no choice but to do what's right and hope for the best, knowing for myself that this screwing up or resentment isn't always the result, and even were it, it's just a chance i have to take. (so?)
8 now. a) who's in power that's making my ethics? especially seeing that vegetarian ethics are about four billion people in the minority. b) if there's reason, the only point in using it is discovering things we hadn't thought of before. i) there's no analysis on why interpretation is objectification ii) it's not: interpretation is the by-product of having subjectivity. that's what perception -is-. iii) no impact: you'd be objectifying objects (precepts, reasons), and that wouldn't make much sense (or harm).
c) the ABOLITION OF MA/N talks specifically to this argument that ethics are mutable (or inherently irrational, or whatever other collection of words you'll apply to discount them). there's a couple of problems with you thinking this. i) the first is that it takes out any sense you might have made earlier, specifically when talking about efficiency or survival. why do you want those things?? ii) the second is that it turns back any chance you had of reaching those ends (survival now?) because there isn't any way to get there. if there are no ethics, nothing is ethical, nothing is unethical, and nothing has value (i don't understand the usefullness of how you called it. i think it's better if we identify it with virtue, or good v bad, because it makes the discussion make sense and have a vocabulary). iii) if nothing has goodness or badness, then we can all only seek the things we want. that's the only remaining thing to act on. the things we want are quickly revealed to be a collection of irrational things: the weather and the state of my digestion define these things almost entirely when we leave out ethics. and so in your haste to destroy ethics as the basis of reason, to remove the goodness or badness from things, you've brought yourself full circle, a slave to the irrational forces that determine the things you want.
9 evidence is better than, er what? i assume you mean warrants, 'cause you quote me saying warrants are good.. but that's nonsense, 'cause they're the same thing, unless you mean something secret by evidence. remember, two parts to an argument: claims, which are helpful, but warrants, which are essential.
10 domination is not cool! the answers you're making here have been tied up earlier in the post: we don't otherize ourselves (see 4). viewing differences isn't bad in itself: it's condemning them that's bad. confusing the argument with a zero-sum example (money) isn't gonna work: you say right next that life isn't zero-sum (i know!). the point is that we apply zero-sum frameworks (i'm better than you) and that = domination (therefore i can beat the crap out of you because it benefits me. or therefore i can enslave you, lynch you, gas you, make your life a living hell.)
this leads back into the 4: absent referents argument. you're conceding my analysis on why the framework for any freaking form of domination identifies perfectly with the first, causal framework we ever make: humyn animals over nonhumyn animals. in fact, you don't even quote it, i assume so that you don't have to answer it. allow me: 'the impact is cross-application of this framework onto humyn people. whether its sexual, gender, socioeconomic, or racial difference, we have a whole lot of practice at recognizing the difference and then passing it off as less. welcome to the world of dehumynization.'

thanks again =)
the Holy Empire of Falaslonde holy crap did u cut and paste or something

1 a) you didn't come back to respect the right to life for everything. b) if you did, we'd be back to your speaking nonsense, because your interpretation of 'sentient' excludes only nonliving things. c) that interpretation sucks because it's non-exclusive within the world of living things. this brings us back to the advantage of my interpretation: we retain our humyn constitution and the room for respect. this advantage to mine is something you're conceding.
2 a) check back what kant says (man you get excited there =p ) about reason being a defining characteristic of humynity. i don't know if he says ( i thought he did) that polemics are external. you should thrill to this since you're all about the external here. b) on the empirical: it's only good so far as it gives us grounds for expectation. it doesn't set up any laws or causation. keeping that in mind helps to see why though we've been omnivorous in the past, it is possible to be herbivorous (even if unlikely or whatever).
3 luckily the numinal argument has become quite extraneous. maybe once i look in on the prolegomena i'll understand, but as you represent it, i can only make the following notes: a) if the phenomenal is the only thing acceptable as experience and therefore the only things acceptable as evidence, we're all effed: i) time and space, the prerequisite a priori concepts for conscious thought, are unverifiable and therefore ii) nothing we ever thought consciously is verifiable. b) (this is where i mostly doubt my own understanding- please clarify) there is nothing that constitutes the numinal as nonphenomenal, and if there is, nothing that constitutes it as non-experiencial, and as i mention earlier, nothing that constitutes experiencial as phenomenal and only phenomenal. c) it isn't. language proves this true. while our senses do shit when we read or listen, like see and hear, the understanding process is something totally different: it isn't sensational at all. the whole point of language is the words (be they shapes or sounds) are symbols.
4 a) yes, separating the ends from the means, then. not just separating, but severing. oh, wait, considering an animal with subjecthood to be a means! the framework of domination in action. b) your example about introspection isn't viable: the situations are different (but not lesser =) ). it may help, if you know anything about grammar, to conceive of this grammatically (that's what helps me). you're not taking away the subjectivity of yourself by asking 'why did i do that?' although it appears you are admittedly also acknowledging the object. in this case, the two aren't mutually exclusive (a good thing here). c) in the case of animals, as exemplified by absent referents, the referent (object) (meat) comes specifically from the loss of something (subjectivity) (life). meat can only ever get to being meat by way of death, absence. the introspective unity isn't possible. d) i don't see why it's irony. i guess i believe that straight up feminism shouldn't be about dissin' on men, or inverting the power structure. it should be about rejecting the power structure, and reintegrating men and womyn. even so (especially), it doesn't mitigate the truthfulness of adams's work, or my argumentation either. e) here's where i have fun! i) meat eating is the cause of several dilapitating diseases too: unnatural chlorestorol, heart disease, addiction to hormones, breast and colon cancers! some preliminary studies are finding that alzheimers may really just be cjd. they do the same things to a brain. also, we incited cjd by 'recycling' cow bone meal back into cow feed. gross. ii) the analysis you give on why we shouldn't eat each other is exactly right. all you need is the application of it to a broader-than-species picture. luckily, we are not single celled organisms. you have got to stop shallowly isolating things and look at them more broadly.
5 a) i don't believe i am a panda. i don't know exactly how to stress that i am living proof that this doesn't extend to humyns: i am, as is every vegetarian i know.. i write poetry, too. i don't spend every waking minute eating. hank aaron played baseball, susan b anthony helped achieved womyn's suffrage, albert einstein was a physicist, gandhi freaking changed a country or two, philip glass is a composer, dustin hoffman acts, carl lewis was an olympian, your beloved plato =). i think you get the picture. b) you get a little closer to the heart of the matter when you talk about farming.. but gandhi lived on a tidy ashram for a long time and did great. it's true that soy protein alone is probably insufficient for really hard farm work. the cool thing is that proteins and the essential amino acids aren't found only in animals or soy. they're also in every living thing (!), that is, plants, in varying amounts. it isn't as hard as people make it out to be, to get enough protein. if i ate only potatoes (admittedly a bad idea, but a good example), and ate enough potatoes to meet my energy needs, i'd get all the protein i needed. c) 'according to nutrionist and dietician suzanne havala, a slightly-overestimated amount of protein for your body can be found by multiplying your body weight in kilograms by 0.8. for me, i need less than 53 grams of protein daily. a variety of foods will meet your needs for all nine essential amino acids. there are lots of sources of protein: veggie burgers, tempeh, tofu, soymilk, beans (burritos, black bean soup, chili, baked beans, salad garnish), nuts, seeds, peanut (and other nut-) butters, whole wheat bread, bran, whole-grain cereal, oatmeal, bagels, pasta, rice, flour tortillas, and most vegetables (green beans, tomatoes, cabbage, broccoli).. as you can see, vegetarians (even vegans) aren't just stuck with 'beans.' in fact, our diet (when done right) meets the requirements and exceeds the constancy of meat-eaters: that is, we eat more kinds of good stuff.'
6 a) what happened to our ability to socialize globally, hm? suddenly a local media is the absolute key to nonviolence? the world will find out (why suddenly so desparate?) and b) even if they didn't, you give no analysis on why that should be the only method of successful nonviolence. c) it isn't. free press isn't the only method of raising awareness. sometimes people talk to each other. sometimes people write subversively. sometimes people nail shit to the doors of churches. it's neat.
7 even if you don't wanna read it, it doesn't make it less true what i've articulated about it. a) why survival? in your quotation, you grouped my analysis on 'because survival is cool' with try to explain away obligation. what this means is that you're trying just as much as i am to ensure that we all do 'good.' you just like to call it 'do things for survival.' what's so hot about survival? b) again, if you want to say you personally like survival, then hawking it to the rest of us is either dumb or sinister (dumb: why waste your time? sinister: no standard exists, according to you then, that justifies your trying to hawk your own opinion of liking survival over somebody else's destroying it. the game means nothing then). c) maybe if i try to obligate people, they'll do it wrong, or resent me, sometimes sure. but that ain't gonna stop me from doing the right thing on face. perhaps here's another utilitarian deviance? i have no choice but to do what's right and hope for the best, knowing for myself that this screwing up or resentment isn't always the result, and even were it, it's just a chance i have to take. (so?)
8 now. a) who's in power that's making my ethics? especially seeing that vegetarian ethics are about four billion people in the minority. b) if there's reason, the only point in using it is discovering things we hadn't thought of before. i) there's no analysis on why interpretation is objectification ii) it's not: interpretation is the by-product of having subjectivity. that's what perception -is-. iii) no impact: you'd be objectifying objects (precepts, reasons), and that wouldn't make much sense (or harm).
c) the ABOLITION OF MA/N talks specifically to this argument that ethics are mutable (or inherently irrational, or whatever other collection of words you'll apply to discount them). there's a couple of problems with you thinking this. i) the first is that it takes out any sense you might have made earlier, specifically when talking about efficiency or survival. why do you want those things?? ii) the second is that it turns back any chance you had of reaching those ends (survival now?) because there isn't any way to get there. if there are no ethics, nothing is ethical, nothing is unethical, and nothing has value (i don't understand the usefullness of how you called it. i think it's better if we identify it with virtue, or good v bad, because it makes the discussion make sense and have a vocabulary). iii) if nothing has goodness or badness, then we can all only seek the things we want. that's the only remaining thing to act on. the things we want are quickly revealed to be a collection of irrational things: the weather and the state of my digestion define these things almost entirely when we leave out ethics. and so in your haste to destroy ethics as the basis of reason, to remove the goodness or badness from things, you've brought yourself full circle, a slave to the irrational forces that determine the things you want.
9 evidence is better than, er what? i assume you mean warrants, 'cause you quote me saying warrants are good.. but that's nonsense, 'cause they're the same thing, unless you mean something secret by evidence. remember, two parts to an argument: claims, which are helpful, but warrants, which are essential.
10 domination is not cool! the answers you're making here have been tied up earlier in the post: we don't otherize ourselves (see 4). viewing differences isn't bad in itself: it's condemning them that's bad. confusing the argument with a zero-sum example (money) isn't gonna work: you say right next that life isn't zero-sum (i know!). the point is that we apply zero-sum frameworks (i'm better than you) and that = domination (therefore i can beat the crap out of you because it benefits me. or therefore i can enslave you, lynch you, gas you, make your life a living hell.)
this leads back into the 4: absent referents argument. you're conceding my analysis on why the framework for any freaking form of domination identifies perfectly with the first, causal framework we ever make: humyn animals over nonhumyn animals. in fact, you don't even quote it, i assume so that you don't have to answer it. allow me: 'the impact is cross-application of this framework onto humyn people. whether its sexual, gender, socioeconomic, or racial difference, we have a whole lot of practice at recognizing the difference and then passing it off as less. welcome to the world of dehumynization.'

thanks again =)
the Holy Empire of Falaslonde holy crap did u cut and paste or something

1 a) you didn't come back to respect the right to life for everything. b) if you did, we'd be back to your speaking nonsense, because your interpretation of 'sentient' excludes only nonliving things. c) that interpretation sucks because it's non-exclusive within the world of living things. this brings us back to the advantage of my interpretation: we retain our humyn constitution and the room for respect. this advantage to mine is something you're conceding.
2 a) check back what kant says (man you get excited there =p ) about reason being a defining characteristic of humynity. i don't know if he says ( i thought he did) that polemics are external. you should thrill to this since you're all about the external here. b) on the empirical: it's only good so far as it gives us grounds for expectation. it doesn't set up any laws or causation. keeping that in mind helps to see why though we've been omnivorous in the past, it is possible to be herbivorous (even if unlikely or whatever).
3 luckily the numinal argument has become quite extraneous. maybe once i look in on the prolegomena i'll understand, but as you represent it, i can only make the following notes: a) if the phenomenal is the only thing acceptable as experience and therefore the only things acceptable as evidence, we're all effed: i) time and space, the prerequisite a priori concepts for conscious thought, are unverifiable and therefore ii) nothing we ever thought consciously is verifiable. b) (this is where i mostly doubt my own understanding- please clarify) there is nothing that constitutes the numinal as nonphenomenal, and if there is, nothing that constitutes it as non-experiencial, and as i mention earlier, nothing that constitutes experiencial as phenomenal and only phenomenal. c) it isn't. language proves this true. while our senses do shit when we read or listen, like see and hear, the understanding process is something totally different: it isn't sensational at all. the whole point of language is the words (be they shapes or sounds) are symbols.
4 a) yes, separating the ends from the means, then. not just separating, but severing. oh, wait, considering an animal with subjecthood to be a means! the framework of domination in action. b) your example about introspection isn't viable: the situations are different (but not lesser =) ). it may help, if you know anything about grammar, to conceive of this grammatically (that's what helps me). you're not taking away the subjectivity of yourself by asking 'why did i do that?' although it appears you are admittedly also acknowledging the object. in this case, the two aren't mutually exclusive (a good thing here). c) in the case of animals, as exemplified by absent referents, the referent (object) (meat) comes specifically from the loss of something (subjectivity) (life). meat can only ever get to being meat by way of death, absence. the introspective unity isn't possible. d) i don't see why it's irony. i guess i believe that straight up feminism shouldn't be about dissin' on men, or inverting the power structure. it should be about rejecting the power structure, and reintegrating men and womyn. even so (especially), it doesn't mitigate the truthfulness of adams's work, or my argumentation either. e) here's where i have fun! i) meat eating is the cause of several dilapitating diseases too: unnatural chlorestorol, heart disease, addiction to hormones, breast and colon cancers! some preliminary studies are finding that alzheimers may really just be cjd. they do the same things to a brain. also, we incited cjd by 'recycling' cow bone meal back into cow feed. gross. ii) the analysis you give on why we shouldn't eat each other is exactly right. all you need is the application of it to a broader-than-species picture. luckily, we are not single celled organisms. you have got to stop shallowly isolating things and look at them more broadly.
5 a) i don't believe i am a panda. i don't know exactly how to stress that i am living proof that this doesn't extend to humyns: i am, as is every vegetarian i know.. i write poetry, too. i don't spend every waking minute eating. hank aaron played baseball, susan b anthony helped achieved womyn's suffrage, albert einstein was a physicist, gandhi freaking changed a country or two, philip glass is a composer, dustin hoffman acts, carl lewis was an olympian, your beloved plato =). i think you get the picture. b) you get a little closer to the heart of the matter when you talk about farming.. but gandhi lived on a tidy ashram for a long time and did great. it's true that soy protein alone is probably insufficient for really hard farm work. the cool thing is that proteins and the essential amino acids aren't found only in animals or soy. they're also in every living thing (!), that is, plants, in varying amounts. it isn't as hard as people make it out to be, to get enough protein. if i ate only potatoes (admittedly a bad idea, but a good example), and ate enough potatoes to meet my energy needs, i'd get all the protein i needed. c) 'according to nutrionist and dietician suzanne havala, a slightly-overestimated amount of protein for your body can be found by multiplying your body weight in kilograms by 0.8. for me, i need less than 53 grams of protein daily. a variety of foods will meet your needs for all nine essential amino acids. there are lots of sources of protein: veggie burgers, tempeh, tofu, soymilk, beans (burritos, black bean soup, chili, baked beans, salad garnish), nuts, seeds, peanut (and other nut-) butters, whole wheat bread, bran, whole-grain cereal, oatmeal, bagels, pasta, rice, flour tortillas, and most vegetables (green beans, tomatoes, cabbage, broccoli).. as you can see, vegetarians (even vegans) aren't just stuck with 'beans.' in fact, our diet (when done right) meets the requirements and exceeds the constancy of meat-eaters: that is, we eat more kinds of good stuff.'
6 a) what happened to our ability to socialize globally, hm? suddenly a local media is the absolute key to nonviolence? the world will find out (why suddenly so desparate?) and b) even if they didn't, you give no analysis on why that should be the only method of successful nonviolence. c) it isn't. free press isn't the only method of raising awareness. sometimes people talk to each other. sometimes people write subversively. sometimes people nail shit to the doors of churches. it's neat.
7 even if you don't wanna read it, it doesn't make it less true what i've articulated about it. a) why survival? in your quotation, you grouped my analysis on 'because survival is cool' with try to explain away obligation. what this means is that you're trying just as much as i am to ensure that we all do 'good.' you just like to call it 'do things for survival.' what's so hot about survival? b) again, if you want to say you personally like survival, then hawking it to the rest of us is either dumb or sinister (dumb: why waste your time? sinister: no standard exists, according to you then, that justifies your trying to hawk your own opinion of liking survival over somebody else's destroying it. the game means nothing then). c) maybe if i try to obligate people, they'll do it wrong, or resent me, sometimes sure. but that ain't gonna stop me from doing the right thing on face. perhaps here's another utilitarian deviance? i have no choice but to do what's right and hope for the best, knowing for myself that this screwing up or resentment isn't always the result, and even were it, it's just a chance i have to take. (so?)
8 now. a) who's in power that's making my ethics? especially seeing that vegetarian ethics are about four billion people in the minority. b) if there's reason, the only point in using it is discovering things we hadn't thought of before. i) there's no analysis on why interpretation is objectification ii) it's not: interpretation is the by-product of having subjectivity. that's what perception -is-. iii) no impact: you'd be objectifying objects (precepts, reasons), and that wouldn't make much sense (or harm).
c) the ABOLITION OF MA/N talks specifically to this argument that ethics are mutable (or inherently irrational, or whatever other collection of words you'll apply to discount them). there's a couple of problems with you thinking this. i) the first is that it takes out any sense you might have made earlier, specifically when talking about efficiency or survival. why do you want those things?? ii) the second is that it turns back any chance you had of reaching those ends (survival now?) because there isn't any way to get there. if there are no ethics, nothing is ethical, nothing is unethical, and nothing has value (i don't understand the usefullness of how you called it. i think it's better if we identify it with virtue, or good v bad, because it makes the discussion make sense and have a vocabulary). iii) if nothing has goodness or badness, then we can all only seek the things we want. that's the only remaining thing to act on. the things we want are quickly revealed to be a collection of irrational things: the weather and the state of my digestion define these things almost entirely when we leave out ethics. and so in your haste to destroy ethics as the basis of reason, to remove the goodness or badness from things, you've brought yourself full circle, a slave to the irrational forces that determine the things you want.
9 evidence is better than, er what? i assume you mean warrants, 'cause you quote me saying warrants are good.. but that's nonsense, 'cause they're the same thing, unless you mean something secret by evidence. remember, two parts to an argument: claims, which are helpful, but warrants, which are essential.
10 domination is not cool! the answers you're making here have been tied up earlier in the post: we don't otherize ourselves (see 4). viewing differences isn't bad in itself: it's condemning them that's bad. confusing the argument with a zero-sum example (money) isn't gonna work: you say right next that life isn't zero-sum (i know!). the point is that we apply zero-sum frameworks (i'm better than you) and that = domination (therefore i can beat the crap out of you because it benefits me. or therefore i can enslave you, lynch you, gas you, make your life a living hell.)
this leads back into the 4: absent referents argument. you're conceding my analysis on why the framework for any freaking form of domination identifies perfectly with the first, causal framework we ever make: humyn animals over nonhumyn animals. in fact, you don't even quote it, i assume so that you don't have to answer it. allow me: 'the impact is cross-application of this framework onto humyn people. whether its sexual, gender, socioeconomic, or racial difference, we have a whole lot of practice at recognizing the difference and then passing it off as less. welcome to the world of dehumynization.'

thanks again =)
the Holy Empire of Falaslonde
holy crap did u cut and paste or something

1 a) you didn't come back to respect the right to life for everything. b) if you did, we'd be back to your speaking nonsense, because your interpretation of 'sentient' excludes only nonliving things. c) that interpretation sucks because it's non-exclusive within the world of living things. this brings us back to the advantage of my interpretation: we retain our humyn constitution and the room for respect. this advantage to mine is something you're conceding.
2 a) check back what kant says (man you get excited there =p ) about reason being a defining characteristic of humynity. i don't know if he says ( i thought he did) that polemics are external. you should thrill to this since you're all about the external here. b) on the empirical: it's only good so far as it gives us grounds for expectation. it doesn't set up any laws or causation. keeping that in mind helps to see why though we've been omnivorous in the past, it is possible to be herbivorous (even if unlikely or whatever).
3 luckily the numinal argument has become quite extraneous. maybe once i look in on the prolegomena i'll understand, but as you represent it, i can only make the following notes: a) if the phenomenal is the only thing acceptable as experience and therefore the only things acceptable as evidence, we're all effed: i) time and space, the prerequisite a priori concepts for conscious thought, are unverifiable and therefore ii) nothing we ever thought consciously is verifiable. b) (this is where i mostly doubt my own understanding- please clarify) there is nothing that constitutes the numinal as nonphenomenal, and if there is, nothing that constitutes it as non-experiencial, and as i mention earlier, nothing that constitutes experiencial as phenomenal and only phenomenal. c) it isn't. language proves this true. while our senses do shit when we read or listen, like see and hear, the understanding process is something totally different: it isn't sensational at all. the whole point of language is the words (be they shapes or sounds) are symbols.
4 a) yes, separating the ends from the means, then. not just separating, but severing. oh, wait, considering an animal with subjecthood to be a means! the framework of domination in action. b) your example about introspection isn't viable: the situations are different (but not lesser =) ). it may help, if you know anything about grammar, to conceive of this grammatically (that's what helps me). you're not taking away the subjectivity of yourself by asking 'why did i do that?' although it appears you are admittedly also acknowledging the object. in this case, the two aren't mutually exclusive (a good thing here). c) in the case of animals, as exemplified by absent referents, the referent (object) (meat) comes specifically from the loss of something (subjectivity) (life). meat can only ever get to being meat by way of death, absence. the introspective unity isn't possible. d) i don't see why it's irony. i guess i believe that straight up feminism shouldn't be about dissin' on men, or inverting the power structure. it should be about rejecting the power structure, and reintegrating men and womyn. even so (especially), it doesn't mitigate the truthfulness of adams's work, or my argumentation either. e) here's where i have fun! i) meat eating is the cause of several dilapitating diseases too: unnatural chlorestorol, heart disease, addiction to hormones, breast and colon cancers! some preliminary studies are finding that alzheimers may really just be cjd. they do the same things to a brain. also, we incited cjd by 'recycling' cow bone meal back into cow feed. gross. ii) the analysis you give on why we shouldn't eat each other is exactly right. all you need is the application of it to a broader-than-species picture. luckily, we are not single celled organisms. you have got to stop shallowly isolating things and look at them more broadly.
5 a) i don't believe i am a panda. i don't know exactly how to stress that i am living proof that this doesn't extend to humyns: i am, as is every vegetarian i know.. i write poetry, too. i don't spend every waking minute eating. hank aaron played baseball, susan b anthony helped achieved womyn's suffrage, albert einstein was a physicist, gandhi freaking changed a country or two, philip glass is a composer, dustin hoffman acts, carl lewis was an olympian, your beloved plato =). i think you get the picture. b) you get a little closer to the heart of the matter when you talk about farming.. but gandhi lived on a tidy ashram for a long time and did great. it's true that soy protein alone is probably insufficient for really hard farm work. the cool thing is that proteins and the essential amino acids aren't found only in animals or soy. they're also in every living thing (!), that is, plants, in varying amounts. it isn't as hard as people make it out to be, to get enough protein. if i ate only potatoes (admittedly a bad idea, but a good example), and ate enough potatoes to meet my energy needs, i'd get all the protein i needed. c) 'according to nutrionist and dietician suzanne havala, a slightly-overestimated amount of protein for your body can be found by multiplying your body weight in kilograms by 0.8. for me, i need less than 53 grams of protein daily. a variety of foods will meet your needs for all nine essential amino acids. there are lots of sources of protein: veggie burgers, tempeh, tofu, soymilk, beans (burritos, black bean soup, chili, baked beans, salad garnish), nuts, seeds, peanut (and other nut-) butters, whole wheat bread, bran, whole-grain cereal, oatmeal, bagels, pasta, rice, flour tortillas, and most vegetables (green beans, tomatoes, cabbage, broccoli).. as you can see, vegetarians (even vegans) aren't just stuck with 'beans.' in fact, our diet (when done right) meets the requirements and exceeds the constancy of meat-eaters: that is, we eat more kinds of good stuff.'
6 a) what happened to our ability to socialize globally, hm? suddenly a local media is the absolute key to nonviolence? the world will find out (why suddenly so desparate?) and b) even if they didn't, you give no analysis on why that should be the only method of successful nonviolence. c) it isn't. free press isn't the only method of raising awareness. sometimes people talk to each other. sometimes people write subversively. sometimes people nail shit to the doors of churches. it's neat.
7 even if you don't wanna read it, it doesn't make it less true what i've articulated about it. a) why survival? in your quotation, you grouped my analysis on 'because survival is cool' with try to explain away obligation. what this means is that you're trying just as much as i am to ensure that we all do 'good.' you just like to call it 'do things for survival.' what's so hot about survival? b) again, if you want to say you personally like survival, then hawking it to the rest of us is either dumb or sinister (dumb: why waste your time? sinister: no standard exists, according to you then, that justifies your trying to hawk your own opinion of liking survival over somebody else's destroying it. the game means nothing then). c) maybe if i try to obligate people, they'll do it wrong, or resent me, sometimes sure. but that ain't gonna stop me from doing the right thing on face. perhaps here's another utilitarian deviance? i have no choice but to do what's right and hope for the best, knowing for myself that this screwing up or resentment isn't always the result, and even were it, it's just a chance i have to take. (so?)
8 now. a) who's in power that's making my ethics? especially seeing that vegetarian ethics are about four billion people in the minority. b) if there's reason, the only point in using it is discovering things we hadn't thought of before. i) there's no analysis on why interpretation is objectification ii) it's not: interpretation is the by-product of having subjectivity. that's what perception -is-. iii) no impact: you'd be objectifying objects (precepts, reasons), and that wouldn't make much sense (or harm).
c) the ABOLITION OF MA/N talks specifically to this argument that ethics are mutable (or inherently irrational, or whatever other collection of words you'll apply to discount them). there's a couple of problems with you thinking this. i) the first is that it takes out any sense you might have made earlier, specifically when talking about efficiency or survival. why do you want those things?? ii) the second is that it turns back any chance you had of reaching those ends (survival now?) because there isn't any way to get there. if there are no ethics, nothing is ethical, nothing is unethical, and nothing has value (i don't understand the usefullness of how you called it. i think it's better if we identify it with virtue, or good v bad, because it makes the discussion make sense and have a vocabulary). iii) if nothing has goodness or badness, then we can all only seek the things we want. that's the only remaining thing to act on. the things we want are quickly revealed to be a collection of irrational things: the weather and the state of my digestion define these things almost entirely when we leave out ethics. and so in your haste to destroy ethics as the basis of reason, to remove the goodness or badness from things, you've brought yourself full circle, a slave to the irrational forces that determine the things you want.
9 evidence is better than, er what? i assume you mean warrants, 'cause you quote me saying warrants are good.. but that's nonsense, 'cause they're the same thing, unless you mean something secret by evidence. remember, two parts to an argument: claims, which are helpful, but warrants, which are essential.
10 domination is not cool! the answers you're making here have been tied up earlier in the post: we don't otherize ourselves (see 4). viewing differences isn't bad in itself: it's condemning them that's bad. confusing the argument with a zero-sum example (money) isn't gonna work: you say right next that life isn't zero-sum (i know!). the point is that we apply zero-sum frameworks (i'm better than you) and that = domination (therefore i can beat the crap out of you because it benefits me. or therefore i can enslave you, lynch you, gas you, make your life a living hell.)
this leads back into the 4: absent referents argument. you're conceding my analysis on why the framework for any freaking form of domination identifies perfectly with the first, causal framework we ever make: humyn animals over nonhumyn animals. in fact, you don't even quote it, i assume so that you don't have to answer it. allow me: 'the impact is cross-application of this framework onto humyn people. whether its sexual, gender, socioeconomic, or racial difference, we have a whole lot of practice at recognizing the difference and then passing it off as less. welcome to the world of dehumynization.'

thanks again =)
the Holy Empire of Falaslonde
holy crap did u cut and paste or something

woopsie lol :oops:

my comp froze :(

To quote Craig Charles in The Log:

"I did not fight my way to the top of the food chain in order to not eat meat."

Amiria's position on the matter is that people can eat what they feel like - there would be nothing stopping you from being vegetarian but when the issue arises "compulsory vegetarianism" will be voted down - probably almost unanimously.

The only restriction on Amirian dining is that you can't eat anything endangered.

Ha ha, you silly people still believe in evolution...

Ha ha, you silly people still believe in evolution...

Who said anything about evolution? That's actually a silly thing. Unless you are a kid, then you've at least evolved from one...

Meat tastes good. So, no. Don't get rid of meat!

Meat tastes good. So, no. Don't get rid of meat!

That is the ONLY way to really ban meat eating. You'd have to get rid of ALL sources of meat including cannibalism.

ooc in RL it turns out we need more meat then vegetables. Turns out we utilise animal fat [no the grease on a mcdonalds burger] far better then plants, not only that our ancestor was strictly carnivorous [ we oopsed on Austrolipithicus] you know we have teh same tooth structure as a lion? we only grew one extra tooth to be ableto eat plants, that tooth is at the very back and doubles as a bone crusher. our front teeth are blades, and the fangs are for ripping meat. Meat protein builds up brain cells, it is actually considered neglect to not give a child meat when growing up [this just in soy doesnt cut it, in fact it makes men grow breasts, and women get breast cancer because it contains so much plant estrogen!!!!] so jsuta little tip, humans are omnivores we NEED meat, vegetable, grain to survive....Dairy is just icing on the cake. it may not be nice to kill animals....but meat is one of the few places we get seratonin....after eating a meat meal you become happy and calm, if you dont eat meat...you will eventually be grouchy all the time....this is true...this is not likethe PETA propaganda they place, i dont like eating cows made in factory conditions or chicken either , i prefer Genetically engineered meat and Vegetables as they are safer and have no chance of disease [unless you grind up dead cow brains and feedthem to dead cows] because they make them more resistant [salmonella] but Free range is essential to good meat. I am proud to eat meat...it means my brain is larger and more developed then a herbivores, and because of vegetables we are healthier then pure carnivores...

ooc in RL it turns out we need more meat then vegetables. Turns out we utilise animal fat [no the grease on a mcdonalds burger] far better then plants, not only that our ancestor was strictly carnivorous [ we oopsed on Austrolipithicus] you know we have teh same tooth structure as a lion? we only grew one extra tooth to be ableto eat plants, that tooth is at the very back and doubles as a bone crusher. our front teeth are blades, and the fangs are for ripping meat. Meat protein builds up brain cells, it is actually considered neglect to not give a child meat when growing up [this just in soy doesnt cut it, in fact it makes men grow breasts, and women get breast cancer because it contains so much plant estrogen!!!!] so jsuta little tip, humans are omnivores we NEED meat, vegetable, grain to survive....Dairy is just icing on the cake. it may not be nice to kill animals....but meat is one of the few places we get seratonin....after eating a meat meal you become happy and calm, if you dont eat meat...you will eventually be grouchy all the time....this is true...this is not likethe PETA propaganda they place, i dont like eating cows made in factory conditions or chicken either , i prefer Genetically engineered meat and Vegetables as they are safer and have no chance of disease [unless you grind up dead cow brains and feedthem to dead cows] because they make them more resistant [salmonella] but Free range is essential to good meat. I am proud to eat meat...it means my brain is larger and more developed then a herbivores, and because of vegetables we are healthier then pure carnivores...

Meh, we're getting into the stupidity and pointlessness of evolution.

Meh, we're getting into the stupidity and pointlessness of evolution.

"Mama always said, 'Stupid is as stupid does'"

So...now what? This topic has nothing left to talk about.

So...now what? This topic has nothing left to talk about.

I thought there wasn't anything to talk about ago but someone brought it back. If you look at the posts, there are some large gaps.

Did the people all eat each other or something?

And no one invited everyone else?

I guess it's too late for them...heh heh heh.

Haven't read all that, but did anyone post links to

http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html
http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi#PETA

???

ooc in RL it turns out we need more meat then vegetables. Turns out we utilise animal fat [no the grease on a mcdonalds burger] far better then plants, not only that our ancestor was strictly carnivorous [ we oopsed on Austrolipithicus] you know we have teh same tooth structure as a lion? we only grew one extra tooth to be ableto eat plants, that tooth is at the very back and doubles as a bone crusher. our front teeth are blades, and the fangs are for ripping meat. Meat protein builds up brain cells, it is actually considered neglect to not give a child meat when growing up [this just in soy doesnt cut it, in fact it makes men grow breasts, and women get breast cancer because it contains so much plant estrogen!!!!] so jsuta little tip, humans are omnivores we NEED meat, vegetable, grain to survive....Dairy is just icing on the cake. it may not be nice to kill animals....but meat is one of the few places we get seratonin....after eating a meat meal you become happy and calm, if you dont eat meat...you will eventually be grouchy all the time....this is true...this is not likethe PETA propaganda they place, i dont like eating cows made in factory conditions or chicken either , i prefer Genetically engineered meat and Vegetables as they are safer and have no chance of disease [unless you grind up dead cow brains and feedthem to dead cows] because they make them more resistant [salmonella] but Free range is essential to good meat. I am proud to eat meat...it means my brain is larger and more developed then a herbivores, and because of vegetables we are healthier then pure carnivores...



well, i'd like to start by thanking you for actually bringing some form of argumentation back into this debate, as oppossed to the many 'meat tastes good! we should not ban it!' comments. still so, i'm afraid your comments are still very unwarranted. i've provided you with answers, quotes, and links to your claims.


1. we do not have the teeth structure to eat meat. regardless that we may have once needed to eat meat, the fact is that in out current society, there is no need, whatsover to eat meat.

"Human teeth are similar to those found in other herbivores with the exception of those pesky canines (of course, the canines of some of our evolutionary relatives, the apes, are elongated and are thought to be used for display and/or defence). Our teeth are rather large and usually abut against one another. The incisors are flat and spade-like, useful for peeling, snipping and biting relatively soft materials. The canines are neither serrated nor conical, but are flattened, blunt and small and function like incisors. The premolars and molars are squarish, flattened and nodular, and are used for crushing, grinding and pulping non-coarse foods."

http://www.vegetariansociety.org.au/200211nl.htm





2. Soy does not cause breast cancer. i actually typed 'soy and breast cancer' into the search box on my computer, and honestly, every hit that came back, supported this.

"In addition to breast cancer, soybean isoflavones may help reduce the risk of several types of cancer, including lung, colon and rectal cancer."

http://www.virtuvites.com/soy_isoflavones_virtuvites.htm




3. meat is not one of the few places seratonin is found. grains and vegetables contain far more carbs than does meat.

"Seratonin is boosted by carbohydrate foods ie grains, vegetables... Other seratonin stimulants include walking, riding, stretching, reading, meditation and prayer."

http://www.upnaway.com/poliowa/Did%20You%20Sleep%20Well.html




4. yikes, i don't know who gave you the impression that genetically engineered foods are good. here's a link that has a website full of info that this food sucks.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/gelink.html



thanks,
the town crier

ooc in RL it turns out we need more meat then vegetables. Turns out we utilise animal fat [no the grease on a mcdonalds burger] far better then plants, not only that our ancestor was strictly carnivorous [ we oopsed on Austrolipithicus] you know we have teh same tooth structure as a lion? we only grew one extra tooth to be ableto eat plants, that tooth is at the very back and doubles as a bone crusher. our front teeth are blades, and the fangs are for ripping meat. Meat protein builds up brain cells, it is actually considered neglect to not give a child meat when growing up [this just in soy doesnt cut it, in fact it makes men grow breasts, and women get breast cancer because it contains so much plant estrogen!!!!] so jsuta little tip, humans are omnivores we NEED meat, vegetable, grain to survive....Dairy is just icing on the cake. it may not be nice to kill animals....but meat is one of the few places we get seratonin....after eating a meat meal you become happy and calm, if you dont eat meat...you will eventually be grouchy all the time....this is true...this is not likethe PETA propaganda they place, i dont like eating cows made in factory conditions or chicken either , i prefer Genetically engineered meat and Vegetables as they are safer and have no chance of disease [unless you grind up dead cow brains and feedthem to dead cows] because they make them more resistant [salmonella] but Free range is essential to good meat. I am proud to eat meat...it means my brain is larger and more developed then a herbivores, and because of vegetables we are healthier then pure carnivores...



well, i'd like to start by thanking you for actually bringing some form of argumentation back into this debate, as oppossed to the many 'meat tastes good! we should not ban it!' comments. still so, i'm afraid your comments are still very unwarranted. i've provided you with answers, quotes, and links to your claims.


1. we do not have the teeth structure to eat meat. regardless that we may have once needed to eat meat, the fact is that in out current society, there is no need, whatsover to eat meat.

"Human teeth are similar to those found in other herbivores with the exception of those pesky canines (of course, the canines of some of our evolutionary relatives, the apes, are elongated and are thought to be used for display and/or defence). Our teeth are rather large and usually abut against one another. The incisors are flat and spade-like, useful for peeling, snipping and biting relatively soft materials. The canines are neither serrated nor conical, but are flattened, blunt and small and function like incisors. The premolars and molars are squarish, flattened and nodular, and are used for crushing, grinding and pulping non-coarse foods."

http://www.vegetariansociety.org.au/200211nl.htm





2. Soy does not cause breast cancer. i actually typed 'soy and breast cancer' into the search box on my computer, and honestly, every hit that came back, supported this.

"In addition to breast cancer, soybean isoflavones may help reduce the risk of several types of cancer, including lung, colon and rectal cancer."

http://www.virtuvites.com/soy_isoflavones_virtuvites.htm




3. meat is not one of the few places seratonin is found. grains and vegetables contain far more carbs than does meat.

"Seratonin is boosted by carbohydrate foods ie grains, vegetables... Other seratonin stimulants include walking, riding, stretching, reading, meditation and prayer."

http://www.upnaway.com/poliowa/Did%20You%20Sleep%20Well.html




4. yikes, i don't know who gave you the impression that genetically engineered foods are good. here's a link that has a website full of info that this food sucks.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/gelink.html



thanks,
the town crier

I hate the rhetoric from people like you. Very weak.

well, then would you please grace the rest of us with arguments of your own? or is the attack on "people like me" (?) all you have to say?

The fact that we "could" live without a meat diet is irrelevant. Humans have been omnivoric since the species first evolved - first as scavengers, then as hunters. To kill to eat is a natural act - and no matter how you suggest our teeth might be aligned (and a vegetarian society - what a great objective place to get _that_ evidence!) - the fact is that for every day humans have lived on this planet we have managed to eat meat with no sign of difficulty. I remind you that our molars can also be used to hold food while the incisors and canines rip and tear the meat.

Now, I don't have a problem with people _being_ vegetarian, I like to think of myself as fairly open-minded when it comes to people's tastes - I have to say I'd probably wimp out on actually killing the chicken myself, but there again I didn't grow up on a farm and if I had I'd probably eventually have gotten used to it - but you will NOT force your agenda down my throat (pardon the pun) because you are unaware of a natural concept that has been occurring for millions of years.

Animals. Kill. Other. Animals.

"That's not true, we taught a lion to eat tofu!"
--Free Rainbow Jr., "Futurama"

Your move.

The fact that we "could" live without a meat diet is irrelevant. Humans have been omnivoric since the species first evolved - first as scavengers, then as hunters. To kill to eat is a natural act - and no matter how you suggest our teeth might be aligned (and a vegetarian society - what a great objective place to get _that_ evidence!) - the fact is that for every day humans have lived on this planet we have managed to eat meat with no sign of difficulty. I remind you that our molars can also be used to hold food while the incisors and canines rip and tear the meat.

Now, I don't have a problem with people _being_ vegetarian, I like to think of myself as fairly open-minded when it comes to people's tastes - I have to say I'd probably wimp out on actually killing the chicken myself, but there again I didn't grow up on a farm and if I had I'd probably eventually have gotten used to it - but you will NOT force your agenda down my throat (pardon the pun) because you are unaware of a natural concept that has been occurring for millions of years.

Animals. Kill. Other. Animals.

"That's not true, we taught a lion to eat tofu!"
--Free Rainbow Jr., "Futurama"

Your move.



why is this irrelevant? the bottom line is that we "could", as you agree, all live a vegetarian diet. it's healthier, environmentally, and morally better. we don't have to eat meat. it's beyond me why you would choose differently. to say that it's okay to eat meat, because we have in the past, is irrelevant. we now know the harms to eating meat, and the benefits of eating vegetarian, to see that there is nothing, not one nutrient in meat that cannot be found from another source. summarily, there is no reason you can give me to eat meat.

i find it ironic that, though you throw out my warrant because it is from a 'veggie site', you still fail to provide any of your own. i don't have the need or desire to look up another source for you, but i can say that any warrant i give you will most likely be from some sort of 'veggie site', because odds are, some 'beef is good' website will not post information on why you should not eat their product. therefore, you will theoretically find all of my warrants as biased. but at least, i am providing them.

animals kill other animals. yes. but humyns, on the other hand, have the knowledge and the means not to have to do so.

thank you,
the town crier

environmentally, and morally better

Environmentally? How so? We grow anamals to kill them and use them as food. I don't see where not doing this would make any differnce.

Morally better? Are you suggesting I'm an immoral person for eating a cow? How so, exactly. Where in our traditional moral system (I don't mean new age bullshit, I mean tradition) does it say that feeding on lower life forms, lower links on the food chain if you will, is bad? I've never heard of that. How can you feel guilty that we eat anamals? You have no emotional attatchment to that pound of ground chuck in the grocery store. I sure don't feel any sympathy for the cow. "But what if other life forms ate humans?" They don't. If they did, we'd shoot them every time they tried. We can eat anamals because we're intelligent enough to control them. Humans will never be an ordinary part of someone elses meals. At least I hope not. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is explain how it's morally wrong to eat a cow.

Did you even read the links I gave? I know Maddox is usually being sarcastic when he writes articles, but those are pretty convincing.

http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi#PETA
http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html

environmentally better because it does not add to deforestation, water pollution, and global warming.

i'm not saying that you are an immoral person, because i do not know you, and i apologize for sounding that way. what i meant was refering back to an argument earlier dicussed in this thread known as absent referents. an absent refer takes place anytime something is objectified, whether it be in pornography, rape, murder, or even eating meat. when you look at meat, you do not see if for the subject it is (the animal) but for the object you are now making it (dead animal flesh.) absent refers are a slippery slope, that is, when you objectify something, it becomes easier and easier each time.

-the town crier

Okay, then let me ask you something.

What makes killing plants to eat any different?

Either way, unless you plan to spend the rest of your days with a microscopic mesh filtering the lactobacillus out of bottles of Yakult, you are ending a life in order to put things in your mouth.

environmentally better because it does not add to deforestation, water pollution, and global warming.

Eating meat does all that huh? News to me. So... cooking the meat makes it hot in the house, and if you all open the doors it can lead to warming the globe. All the water evaporating from the grill or the water put in the pan so the meat doesn't burn has grease in it and this somehow stays mixed with the water for eternity, thus polluting the water. And forests disappear because that deer I ate is not at the same time dropping the seeds of the fruit it just ate in a different area through taking a crap. I've got it all figured out now, thanks. :roll:


what i meant was refering back to an argument earlier dicussed in this thread known as absent referents. an absent refer takes place anytime something is objectified, whether it be in pornography, rape, murder, or even eating meat. when you look at meat, you do not see if for the subject it is (the animal) but for the object you are now making it (dead animal flesh.) absent refers are a slippery slope, that is, when you objectify something, it becomes easier and easier each time.

Oh. I did not know that. Well yes, that's psychological. Hard to argue with that. Objectifying makes it easier to do anything that would otherwise make you feel guilty. HOWEVER eating meat does not make me feel guilty. I do not need to objectify to eat it. It's the same way for a LOT of people. Sure they might feel a little queasy if you told them what happens in all the gory detail, but in a couple hours they'll get over it. Wouldn't that make it... moral, by your definition? Of course it could be argued that they objectify to get over it, but a lot of people don't. Or at least won't admit it if asked. That is a point of debate till we see some hard scientific psychological testing. Which means it can NOT be sponsered by vegitarian groups. In fact it helps if they don't WANT it to happen and the PETA firebombs their research facility. It would help even more if meat eaters didn't like it either. That would require a little prepping though in the way of telling them exactly what the test will do. "Through this test we will prove that 50% of the men in this room objectify meat, and are among the ranks of serial rapists and the great murderers of our time." I'D be apprehensive, even if it wasn't true.

plants are not sentient beings.

Oh and I would like to stress that though I will let people eat a cow off my farm, I will NOT let them kill my special cow that I like. I will also not let people eat my dog. I feel an affection for those anamals, whereas I do not feel affection for the other cows. Personally killing them would make me feel bad on the principle of killing a fuzzy anamal, but boy do those steaks taste good!

Shit, I guess I would have to objectify to kill them for meat. However I do not kill them. I just buy their meat.

Go to www.petasucks.cc and read. It's the most informative site I've been to. And I have no problem with vegetarians, but I can't live off of that diet.

environmentally better because it does not add to deforestation, water pollution, and global warming.

Eating meat does all that huh? News to me. So... cooking the meat makes it hot in the house, and if you all open the doors it can lead to warming the globe. All the water evaporating from the grill or the water put in the pan so the meat doesn't burn has grease in it and this somehow stays mixed with the water for eternity, thus polluting the water. And forests disappear because that deer I ate is not at the same time dropping the seeds of the fruit it just ate in a different area through taking a crap. I've got it all figured out now, thanks. :roll:


Clarification: The converting of forested land to grazing land for animals, such as cows, leads to a decrease in the amount of oxygen being produced by trees, and ian ncrease in the amount of methane gas being released into the atmosphere by bovines. It's not the actual cooking of the meat, it's the process of rasing the cattle in order that we can eat them that is harmful to the environment, and is cited as a cause of global warming.

As for the actual issue of eating meat. This is something that individual nations can decide for themselves. It does not need to be brought to the attention of the UN. Although I do enjoy reading and discussing the debates brought up, on the rare occasion that I can find an intelligent post by someone.

But I still don't understand how morality has anything to do with eating meat. Everybody lives by a different set of morals, based on what they believe to be right and wrong. There is no universal right or wrong when it comes to eating meat or not eating meat, only people's opinions.

Screw animals! They taste good and we need to eat! :twisted

Clarification: The converting of forested land to grazing land for animals, such as cows, leads to a decrease in the amount of oxygen being produced by trees

Do unto others what has been done to you. I effectivly lost a debate using that argument. Algae provide much more oxygen then any trees. Even if all the trees were gone, the remainin plants and algae would be sufficent. I would worry more about improper farming techniques, such as overgrazing.

and ian ncrease in the amount of methane gas being released into the atmosphere by bovines

I'm not sure how to answer that. I've heard about the problem (especially in India, with cows living their full lives) but I'm not sure how to argue with that. I don't feel like looking it up, so I'll let someone else argue.

You didn't explain water pollution either.

But I still don't understand how morality has anything to do with eating meat. Everybody lives by a different set of morals, based on what they believe to be right and wrong. There is no universal right or wrong when it comes to eating meat or not eating meat, only people's opinions.

I'm not the first one to question the morality of eating meat. I just responded to what I thought was a statment implying it was an issue and asked if that's whatit meant.

I might question the morality of objectifying anamals. I wonder if it's morally wrong to perform the act of objectifying ANYTHING, or if only what your objectifying is morally wrong and objectifying is a natural occurance. I actually think that's a pretty good question when I think about it. But I suppose it's a decision that will be as split as the issue at hand.

hehe, I don't know how to explain the water pollution part. The Town Crier is on his/her own for that one :p

Clarification: The converting of forested land to grazing land for animals, such as cows, leads to a decrease in the amount of oxygen being produced by trees, and ian ncrease in the amount of methane gas being released into the atmosphere by bovines. It's not the actual cooking of the meat, it's the process of rasing the cattle in order that we can eat them that is harmful to the environment, and is cited as a cause of global warming.

As for the actual issue of eating meat. This is something that individual nations can decide for themselves. It does not need to be brought to the attention of the UN. Although I do enjoy reading and discussing the debates brought up, on the rare occasion that I can find an intelligent post by someone.

But I still don't understand how morality has anything to do with eating meat. Everybody lives by a different set of morals, based on what they believe to be right and wrong. There is no universal right or wrong when it comes to eating meat or not eating meat, only people's opinions.

Thanks for that - but the deforestation effect is more of an issue of corporate/Westernised consumerism than of diet.

If the world was vegetarian then McDonalds Veggieburger restaurants would still be knocking down forests, only they'd be replacing them with veggie farms and plantations.

why is this irrelevant? the bottom line is that we "could", as you agree, all live a vegetarian diet. it's healthier, environmentally, and morally better. we don't have to eat meat. it's beyond me why you would choose differently. to say that it's okay to eat meat, because we have in the past, is irrelevant. we now know the harms to eating meat, and the benefits of eating vegetarian, to see that there is nothing, not one nutrient in meat that cannot be found from another source. summarily, there is no reason you can give me to eat meat.

i find it ironic that, though you throw out my warrant because it is from a 'veggie site', you still fail to provide any of your own. i don't have the need or desire to look up another source for you, but i can say that any warrant i give you will most likely be from some sort of 'veggie site', because odds are, some 'beef is good' website will not post information on why you should not eat their product. therefore, you will theoretically find all of my warrants as biased. but at least, i am providing them.

animals kill other animals. yes. but humans, on the other hand, have the knowledge and the means not to have to do so.

thank you,
the town crier

Regardless of how reliable or factual your arguments are or are not, I do't think that you have not sufficiently justified "banning" meat. Just because everyone COULD live on a vegetarian diet, doesn't mean that they should be REQUIRED to. Just because you think that it's better doesn't mean that everyone has to apply it to his or her own lives. Everyone COULD ride Volkswagon Beetles, which may have this or that feature above other models, but should we ban all the other models and MAKE everyone ride a Beetle? Should we MAKE everyone have Lance Armstrong's exercise program just because it's healthy?

I don't mind you trying to convince people that a vegetarian diet is better, I do however (along with many other people) mind your endorsment of forcing this idea upon everyone.

There is another thing that I think you have overlooked as to why people eat meat and why it isn't a good idea to "ban meat" outright. Some people eat meat for religious reasons. For these people, a "ban on meat" would trample on religious rights. Go ahead, be a vegetarian, good for you. Go ahead try to convince everyone in the world that a vegetarian diet is better, good for you. But don't condone the outlawing of ideas that oppose you, that is not good for anyone.

I personally do not believe that a vegetarian diet is superior. Although I have not looked over all the evidence provided either way, I feel compelled to add that scientific evidence can often be portrayed in several different ways and certain presentations can make it "prove" things it really doesn't. Thus I understand the apprehension some people feel about visiting "veggies sites" and believing everything said.

Respectfully,
Mitae

...ing thread before posting.

oonamahambra and global warming: it is a bad idea to destroy all trees. ever hear of ecosystems? they're cool. don't eff them up. overgrazing, that is bad, yeah. we cut down freaking forests and mow over whole countrysides with unnecessary cattle. mhm, green house gas emissions, too. sucks. water pollution? it used to be (they're better about it, but we still face the effects) that we'd let blood and bonemeal runoff into all sorts of freshwater rivers and lakes. you think that stuff is made for the ocean, either? surprise, it's made to stay in cow bodies! we also fish like there's just gonna always be more of 'em. if we don't stop killing 'em off, we've got another thing coming.

o and morals: yes, you are an immoral person for eating a cow. i'm inclined to expand the term and say you're immoral for not reading the freaking thread, but i'll try to be polite. the whole point is that you don't feel any emotions at all when you buy a piece of 'meat' on some seran wrapped styrofoam tray.
_ “Behind every meal of meat is an absence, the death of the animal whose place the meat takes. The absent referent is that which separates the meat eater from the animal and the animal from the end product. The function of the absent referent is to keep our "meat" separated from any idea that she or he was once an animal, to keep something from being seen as having been someone” (the curious ant, jul 08)
_ finally, let's talk a little about how your mindset, humyn-superiority, causes all forms of domination! this is what happens explicitly when we talk about super awesome books like carol j adams's SEXUAL POLITICS OF MEAT. drawing on a more or less acceptable framework of subject and object, adams shows how dehumynization is the key to both meat eating and sexism. adams speaks specifically about the use of absent referents in meat-eating and the parallel use of them in sexism. where absent referents are less apparent, however, dehumynization makes a nice bridge too. conceiving of yourself as superior or more important than another person, on whatever grounds of differences, can only come from a framework where differences equal lesser. take a quick look at some racial, social, sexual, or gender slurs for a gruesome illustration of how negative separation from the ecosystem affects not just the environment, but the humyn species too. (falaslonde, aug 15)
_ the difference between animal -> 'meat' and iron -> steel is the absent referent. i'm pretty happy you're granting out animal subjectivity. that easily concedes all of the absent referent concept: that is, the very word 'meat' (the referent) is nonsensical until something is lost (dies!)- the animal. this is the process of objectification: the death of the animal (a very dramatic absence) is the death of the subjecthood and the counterfeiting, if you will, of 'meat,' the object. the same phenomenon occurs in sexual objectification (which is what adams writes about). a person looking at a pin-up girl is creating an absent refer, seeing only a sexual object, devoid of personhood, of subjectivity. only an object. just a piece of meat. (cause enough yet? it's the same damn thing.) here's a good place for talking about the rest of domination. (falaslonde, aug 17)
_ now, we can look at these foundational precepts and say, hey, domination isn't so cool (a thing you have not explicitly disagreed with). i'm not asserting a correlation. i'm asserting a direct causation. humyn-centeredness is the framework for all other forms of domination (remember slurs?). we causally otherize animals, viewing their diffence, their non-rationalizing, non-inventing, non-global socialization, non-humynness (!) as not just difference but lesser-ness. that's the framework. otherization with zero-sum values.
the impact is cross-application of this framework onto humyn people. whether its sexual, gender, socioeconomic, or racial difference, we have a whole lot of practice at recognizing the difference and then passing it off as less. welcome to the world of dehumynization.


let's not drop the cruelty of anal electrocution or 'knocking' in the head. or the absurd transportation on tightly packed trucks, or lives lead in cages with 'no emotional attachment at all.' that certainly sounds morally inviting.

Ahh, extremism.

So, anyone who eats meat automatically whole-heartedly condones the most barbaric known treatment of animals, huh? You veggies are full of fun facts.

That's like saying that anyone who is human condones war.

Face it: the ban on meat-eating ain't gonna happen, now or ever. And shoving your ideology in everyone's faces is only going to make us regard you as the fantastically annoying morons you are.

You want humans to live and let live with animals, and yet you are unwilling to try living with other humans. Hypocrites.

hee hee, now we're not just 'fantastically annoying morons, but also, hypocrites.


i'm sorry amiria, but your little example is quite silly. you can in fact, be a humyn and not condone war (:high5: to all the pacifists out there) but you cannot, whatsoever, eat a dead animal without condoning the fact that it has been killed.

i live with meat eating humyns. how am i a hypocrite?

This is a really dumb proposal. You can't ban meat eating because first of all, do you know how many vitamins ur country is going to have to produce to cover all the things people would be getting from red meat? Secondly eating meat is a part of peoples culture. For example, the greeks. At easter, christmas, and new years the eat lamb on a spit. What are they gonna do when you ban a thousand yr old tradition b/c u feel sorry for the animals? Animals reproduce just like humans do, and if you feel sorry for the animals then you dont have to eat meat. But that doesnt mean that everyone else has to not eat it.

Wait The Town Crier, I want to know how eating meat adds to water pollution.

mitae: it's true that the possibility of living vegetarian doesn't equal an obligation. however, combining the two (the obligation coming running best from the sexual politics of meat, i think) delivers a sweet sucker punch that's changed the hearts and habits of many, myself included.

amiria: the crier there has got a shining point. a person can't eat a dead animal without endorsing their death and the destruction of their subjectivity. er, you're obviously very passionate, but you're also ignoring a very structured discussion that covers a lot of ground for a vegetarian consequent.

karadeenos: cute. nutrition facts and culture. suffice it for now to say (if you really, really can't read a few pages of notes) that there are about two billion people not eating animals and behaving very much alive.
and, as heartless as it resounds, so what if the greeks don't get their easter, christmas, and new years dead lamb? i'm almost thudding my head on the desk: entire cultural destruction (a thing even you don't dare assert) still amounts to nothing before a sheer and flawless moral obligation.

oonamahambra: thanks for listening. er, you're obviously very attentive? i mean, when the subject of a post is 'it wouldn't be so long if ya'll would just read the effing thread before posting,' and your name is specifically in it with your specific questions answered, a body would think that would be enough. i don't know how else to get your attention. we send huge ships through the ocean with flesh and for flesh and dumping their trash and air contaminants and water contaminants. we let blood and bone meal and feces get into the streams and rivers and lakes. we are dominators on a rampage and we're going to wipe ourselves out if we don't wake up soon.

the Holy Empire of Falaslonde

If there was to be an international ban on meat eating...We the people of the Middle country will most defenitely (and defiantly) NOT comply...

We do not consume that mucgh meat anyway...at least compared to vegetables. We by our culture are not varatious consumers of meat...and many are vegetarians by their religion...and the meat we DO consume consists mainly of Chicken and Duck. We will not take away the rights to eat these meats as so many, including myself, desire them with their food...

All right all right, I read it. It was one huge block paragraph and I just glanced at it. I didn't even see my name or 'water pollution' in it. Now I will attempt to counterpoint your points. When you read, you may think 'Oonamahambra is very insensitive', and maybe I am, but if you compare eating meat to the sexual revolution maybe I'm just one of those unenlightened old fools. Don't worry though because I'll die off soon enough. But I probably won't change my mind.

it is a bad idea to destroy all trees. ever hear of ecosystems? they're cool. don't eff them up. overgrazing, that is bad, yeah. we cut down freaking forests and mow over whole countrysides with unnecessary cattle.

If properly done, cattle don't need forests cut down in the first place. Overgrazing IS the reason that they need to cut down the forests. That's my whole point. With proper farming techniques they can keep the NATURAL GRAZING LAND (READ: never covered in forests as long as Europan descendents have been here) good for grazing indefinatly. How do you think Buffalo lived in the plains states for so many centuries? Granted there weren't as many people eating them and there might not have been as many buffalo as cattle today (I don't have numbers on either, but it's a safe guess that there's more cattle) but the plains could have supported many more buffalo too.

Let's move away from grazing now and go to something that doesn't need to chop down any forests or ruin grazing land. Let's assume that cattle don't need to graze on grass. Let's assume that farmers fed them oats and grains and such not fit for human consumption but fine for cattle. Hey, they do that! Problem solved. Growing these oats is easy, too! There's plenty of land to do it, and if done right the land is good indefinatly. It's common knowledge that farmers in the United States are paid by the U.S. government not to farm their full potential in anamal products and crops because we couldn't use it all. We could ship it to needy countries (my personal opinion, no matter how unfeasable) but that's beside the point. The point is we can easly support every cow in this country JUST on oats. It might be more expensive, but you'll never see another tree cut down for grazing again.

green house gas emissions, too. sucks

Don't tell me that methane from cattle contributes more to the greenhouse effect then polution from our machinery. Not even compairable. With more efficent power sources I *hope* we get going on developing, that argument will hold less water then it does now.

it used to be (they're better about it, but we still face the effects) that we'd let blood and bonemeal runoff into all sorts of freshwater rivers and lakes. you think that stuff is made for the ocean, either? surprise, it's made to stay in cow bodies

Yes that is an unfortunate problem, but as you said, it's well taken care of now. No reason to get rid of the system after you fix the problem. Yes, we have to deal with the effects, and deal we shall. What more CAN I say? All we can do is try to change the future. Arguing over that history is useless.

we also fish like there's just gonna always be more of 'em. if we don't stop killing 'em off, we've got another thing coming.

Overfishing is a serious problem. However the only fish I eat are ones I catch myself when I go fishing. I can count on my nuts the number of times I bought it from the store this year. I can't defend that problem. However the problem is recognized and hopefully measures will be taken to solve it. Maybe fishermen can be paid to catch less by their governments too. I don't know the answer to that one.

o and morals: yes, you are an immoral person for eating a cow

I beg to differ.

i'm inclined to expand the term and say you're immoral for not reading the freaking thread, but i'll try to be polite

All 15 pages? Give me a break.

“Behind every meal of meat is an absence, the death of the animal whose place the meat takes. The absent referent is that which separates the meat eater from the animal and the animal from the end product. The function of the absent referent is to keep our "meat" separated from any idea that she or he was once an animal, to keep something from being seen as having been someone”

I think we all have the idea of what that meat was before it was in seran wrap and syrofoam.

finally, let's talk a little about how your mindset, humyn-superiority, causes all forms of domination! this is what happens explicitly when we talk about super awesome books like carol j adams's SEXUAL POLITICS OF MEAT. drawing on a more or less acceptable framework of subject and object, adams shows how dehumynization is the key to both meat eating and sexism. where absent referents are less apparent, however, dehumynization makes a nice bridge too. conceiving of yourself as superior or more important than another person, on whatever grounds of differences, can only come from a framework where differences equal lesser. take a quick look at some racial, social, sexual, or gender slurs for a gruesome illustration of how negative separation from the ecosystem affects not just the environment, but the humyn species too.

Blah blah blah bl... oh. You're done? Sorry. Nice explaination of dehumanizaion. Let's go back to the subject now. For your information, I can't find a dictionary that says you can dehumanize an anamal. You can only take another human and mentally take away their humanity. Remember this: 'cow /= human' Find a new phrase.

the difference between animal -> 'meat' and iron -> steel is the absent referent. i'm pretty happy you're granting out animal subjectivity. that easily concedes all of the absent referent concept: that is, the very word 'meat' (the referent) is nonsensical until something is lost (dies!)- the animal.

Good. Back on topic. The meat is still there, even when it's alive. It's beneath skin, but it's there. Don't try to tell me people won't acknowledge that a cow has a few burgers beneath that skin untill it's dead. I disprove your theory by admitting that a live cow has meat under his skin that will one day be on someones dinner table.

the animal. this is the process of objectification: the death of the animal (a very dramatic absence) is the death of the subjecthood and the counterfeiting, if you will, of 'meat,' the object. the same phenomenon occurs in sexual objectification (which is what adams writes about). a person looking at a pin-up girl is creating an absent refer, seeing only a sexual object, devoid of personhood, of subjectivity. only an object. just a piece of meat. (cause enough yet? it's the same damn thing.)

I said I would think objectification over, and I thought about it. First I thought about the morality of the concept. Objectifying a human is bad. That takes away basic human dignity. Then I thought 'but do cattle have dignity to take away? is objectifying a cow and objectifying a human even the same thing? IS thinking of a cow as dinner objectifying?' Are cows and humans equal? What would seperate a human from a cow? Rational thinking, maybe. I haven't seen much evidence of a cow rationalizing. Abstract though? Maybe. Cows most likely survive on instinct and basic emotions, whatever emotions it has. Dignity. I haven't seen much evidence of dignity from cows. Morals. See dignity. Valor. See dignity. Conscience. See valor. Humans have a lot of things that makes us the undisputable top dog on this planet, things that anamals don't. A tiger can maul a human to death, but that doesn't make him my equal. There's a fundamental difference between dehumanization and dominion over anamals. Anything I, a while man, can do, that black man over there has the capability to do too. He is my equal. There are thing I, a human, can do that a tiger would NEVER be capable of. You might say 'But a human born without a hand wouldn't be human under that reasoning!' One COULD be the devils advocate and debate that, but I will NOT be the one to try and tell people that someone with a deformed hand is less human then I am. That'd be deadly, and I have a hard time swallowing it myself. Genetically we're similar enough that we're both human.

Put a cow at an equal level to humans if you wish, but I don't consider it logically possible.

Oh and you can objectify a picture all you want, but when you are standing in front of the person it is no longer a picture.

now, we can look at these foundational precepts and say, hey, domination isn't so cool (a thing you have not explicitly disagreed with). i'm not asserting a correlation. i'm asserting a direct causation. humyn-centeredness is the framework for all other forms of domination (remember slurs?). we causally otherize animals, viewing their diffence, their non-rationalizing, non-inventing, non-global socialization, non-humynness (!) as not just difference but lesser-ness. that's the framework. otherization with zero-sum values.
the impact is cross-application of this framework onto humyn people. whether its sexual, gender, socioeconomic, or racial difference, we have a whole lot of practice at recognizing the difference and then passing it off as less. welcome to the world of dehumynization.

You must not swat flies.

Yep. What I just said was addressed by this paragraph. Once again, it's impossible to make something not human if it wasn't human to start with. Don't try to tell me cows are human.

Otherness? A cow and a human are not fundamentally the same. Our mentality is not the same, or they would react on a natural basis the same way to thing as we do, which they do not. We are different. Through that difference we CAN eat the meat of those cows. Do not expect me to consider cows 'different, but equal'. It will never happen.

To answer your question, no, I do not think dominating another human is moral because we are fundamentally the same. We have a conscience. Our conscience tells us what that person is going through and what we would be going through at the same time. Another differnce between anamals and humans - pity. An anamal would not feel pity if it were harming us. If an anamal were to tightly pack us into trucks, which it wouldn't because it'd just eat us raw, it would feel no pity.

Oops, forgot to log onto the Oonamahambra account before posting that. Just replace 'Left Wing Haters' with Oonamahambra ok?

I'm well aware that eating an animal means killing it first, thanks loads.

That was not the point I was attempting to make. My point is, one can endorse meat-eating (yes, and the killing of said animal to provide the meal) without endorsing anal electrocution and the other practices you mention in your, I must say, equally passionate and unreasoned post.

Fact is, though, I eat meat and will continue to do so no matter what your opinion is on the matter. As I have said, I have no problem with you eating only veggies if that's what floats your boat, but I refuse to believe I am evil (alright, you never said that, but the word "amoral" was used which is hardly less emotive) because I think different from you on the issue. I do not endorse unduly suffering of farmed animals (even when the time come for them to begin the process towards burgerhood, I endorse a quick and painless death)

For the record, I have several vegetarian friends, and we have long since agreed to disagree on matters of food. We can comfortably eat pizza together even if I'm having a BBQ Meat Lovers, without my being accused of bovine genocide and having my slice slapped from my hand and trod upon.

Please don't take me out of context again to further your own political arguments. It demeans us both.

Better yet, just stop talking, because you won't change anyone's mind here and it's obvious you have no intention of seeing any other possible point of view.

Vegetarians make me sad.

THAT ANIMAL GAVE ITS LIFE SO YOU MAY FEAST ON ITS DELICIOUS FLESH! And you spit on its tasty legacy. :(

But seriously, it's far from immoral to eat meat. Let's look at it with some universability. If everyone stopped using animal products, would we continue to raise and care for the animals farmed for such purposes? Nope. Would we open the gates and say 'Be free!!'? Nuh uh, they'd ruin the ecosystems of the world. They'd be all killed, with some frozen embryos and maybe a few in conservation parks.

Which is worse?
Mutualism (Benefits for the various farmed species in question: we feed them, protect them from predators, and keep them healthy. Benefits for us include food, clothing, medical research, fertilizer, and any other animal product you can think of), or Extinction?

I'd say mutualism is by far the better choice, for both us, and all the species in question.

Something that I think vegetarians dont really understand is that if they ban meat eating, what do they think is going to happen to the billions of cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens and fish that are currently in farms? They're going to be culled, and probably quite mercilessly, since the companies that are going to have to do it are the ones that have just gone out of business.

Don't tell me that methane from cattle contributes more to the greenhouse effect then polution from our machinery. Not even compairable. With more efficent power sources I *hope* we get going on developing, that argument will hold less water then it does now.

Methane production from food-animals makes up a significant portion of the man-made pollution, but neither get close to the greenhouse gasses released with each volcano eruption.

I'm 628th in the world for Largest Defense Forces (per capita) and I can't use it?

but you cannot, whatsoever, eat a dead animal without condoning the fact that it has been killed.

That's an absurdly stupid sentence. You don't have to eat meat to accept that something has been killed. Condoning the killing is different from accepting the fact that it's been killed which that sentence stated.

Now, you brought up grazing being a cause of water-pollution, deforestation et cetera. So, are you arguing that by increasing the number of grazing animals you'll decrease the environmental destruction caused by them? That's the most absurd thing I've heard.

1.) An increase in the number of livestock means a proportional increase in the number of acres of land destroyed by that livestock yearly. Since we aren't able to kill animals (in your hypothetical "utopia"), that means they've got no checks on their growth. This means that you're advocating the widespread deforestation and destruction of the environement, because animals aren't going to follow EPA regulations no matter how well thought out they are.

2.) Not eating meat means that animals that -do- die are going to rot, rotting meat causes diseases. And, as stated before, the numbers of animals are going to rise by your banning of the killing of animals, that means there is going to be a -lot- of rotting meat, thereby endangering the human species.

3.) An increased number of animals on arable land unable to feed them means that they'll starve to death, a harsh and very cruel way to die. Those who don't die will survive by attacking human farms for food.

So, from this we can discern that vegetarians [Well, you at least] aren't worried about the environment, they advocate cruelty to animals, and they're misanthropic in that they don't care if their cruelty to animals kills people.

alright amiria, so you don't endorse 'anal electrocution and other practices'. tell me then, how do you think the animal for your burger was killed? do you honestly believe that they killed the cow 'quick and painlessly'? and if so, it still doesn't matter! because bottom line is - the animal is being killed. i don't really care which form of death you endorse, it's the fact that you endorse any kind whatsoever that is relevant. yes, yes you are immoral, and no, i'm sorry, i will not stop talking.


the town crier.

Morality is not universal. Everyone has their own set of morals. Whether you consider one person to be moral or immoral is irrelevant. Calling someone immoral for eating meat is about as absurd as calling someone immoral for eating vegetables. As for a quick and painless death, actually, that is enforced. I attend a university with a well-established veterinary college and agricultural college, and can provide you with details if you so wish. Just telegram me. :)

alright amiria, so you don't endorse 'anal electrocution and other practices'. tell me then, how do you think the animal for your burger was killed? do you honestly believe that they killed the cow 'quick and painlessly'? and if so, it still doesn't matter! because bottom line is - the animal is being killed. i don't really care which form of death you endorse, it's the fact that you endorse any kind whatsoever that is relevant. yes, yes you are immoral, and no, i'm sorry, i will not stop talking.


the town crier.

Cattle aren't killed by "anal electrocution" that's absurd, they're killed humanely by a bullet to the head.

Some of you people are fucking insane...

alright amiria, so you don't endorse 'anal electrocution and other practices'. tell me then, how do you think the animal for your burger was killed? do you honestly believe that they killed the cow 'quick and painlessly'? and if so, it still doesn't matter! because bottom line is - the animal is being killed. i don't really care which form of death you endorse, it's the fact that you endorse any kind whatsoever that is relevant. yes, yes you are immoral, and no, i'm sorry, i will not stop talking.


the town crier.

A great pity. Because you are completely insane. BTW nice work for ignoring the rest of my post, and for that matter every other argument put to you by everyone else to focus on one slightly weaker argument.
This is my last post on this thread, because it's quite clear that you're an idiot and nothing I say or do will change that.

PS: I had a Meat Lovers Pizza for tea last night. It was yum.

I don't give a shit how the fucking cow dies. As long as it tastes yummy.

Why the Constitutional Monarchy of Rotovia has not yet been apporved for United Nations membership this issue has so enraged my people it has demanded my immediate response.

Firstly I am personally a not vegetarian as my own choice and is non-reflective of my nation's opinion.

Next, we are a nation devoted to Classical Liberalism Ideology, Freedom & Civil rights. Therefore I can not stand by and allow a resolution to pass restircting basic human rights. We have aggreed we have the rights to free speech, free thaught and free education but before all these basic rights comes the fundemental rights such as Breathing, Living & Eating. Without basic rights we aren't Human, but without Primary rights we are dead. So I beg you not to prevent the freedom loving nationals of the world the right to choice what they eat. Sure, you may personally diassagree with eating meat, but your people should be able to make that choice.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR MINDS THAT THE ANIMALS WE EAT ARE NOT SENTIENT!

IF we stopped eating animals, contrary to popular belief, the envirtonment would NOT be improved. The meat animals we would release (You can't keep 'em for the fun of it) would reak havok on the countryside.

Heres sommat for you "Town Crier"

Where I live, In order to protect our Organic and large vegetable patch, fact is I have too shoot bunnies! In order to stop all the plants I like to eat getting killed! And also, rabbits are tasty.

I was on holiday for two weeks and found the bl@@dy things had eaten all the cabbages! I like cabbage, so that is damn annoying.

We've tried fences etc, but the only way, I find, that works is a HW97K launching a 14.4 gram lead accupell at 600fps into a rabbits head.

alright amiria, so you don't endorse 'anal electrocution and other practices'. tell me then, how do you think the animal for your burger was killed? do you honestly believe that they killed the cow 'quick and painlessly'? and if so, it still doesn't matter! because bottom line is - the animal is being killed. i don't really care which form of death you endorse, it's the fact that you endorse any kind whatsoever that is relevant. yes, yes you are immoral, and no, i'm sorry, i will not stop talking.


the town crier.

Cattle aren't killed by "anal electrocution" that's absurd, they're killed humanely by a bullet to the head.

Heh, "Anal electrocution". The Free Land of Andruil would like to go on record saying that that is a fantastic name for a rock band.

You people are missing the point; even if I supported vegetarianism (which I don't) we cannont force our people to share our veiws. It flies in the very face of free choice.

Heh, "Anal electrocution". The Free Land of Andruil would like to go on record saying that that is a fantastic name for a rock band.

Damn skippy, a better name for a rock band would be "Petah and the Anal Electrocutions".

:evil: coz i feel sorry 4 the anmails! :shock:

I believe eating meat is wrong, but banning it wouldn't actually work and would just piss people off. Vegetarians just need to set an example and try to gradually bring people around.

wow. this has digressed again.

left wing haters / whoever: 1 we basically agree on overgrazing until you think that feeding all those cattle even on only oats would somehow not take up land. where do oats come from?
2 methane from cattle contributes to the greenhouse effects. not more than our, er, consumerist machinery. but we also use that machinery to transport and slaughter and transport cattle some more. we could cut out two of those steps with veggiism.
3 runoff is meant to demonstrate the culture that birthed this thing, this meat-eating thing. it wasn't healthy, and it's still quick-fixing itself to ruin. so they dump it on fields now instead of freshwater. how long can we really last like this?
4 fishing ('over'fishing) bad. yea!
5 read 15 pages? that's really too much? i read freaking 40 some pages on the gay rights rez thread before even starting my post there. it's just courtesy to know what's being talked about before you start parroting things that were answered before. i really don't think you need a break here.
6 a) we have the idea, wonderful, of what meat was. we killed living subjects for it. you're missing the point completely: the idea no longer means anything to us, or we couldn't psychologically continue. why do you think veggies for ethics are always so sick at the sight or smell of meat? b) you're missing it on dehumynization, too. let me see if i can explain this a little more clearly. you ask for a new term. what i'm saying is that dehumynization is the cross-application of a framework that comes from 'dehumynization' of animals. of course that doesn't make sense to you: animals aren't humyn animals. they're nonhumyn animals. so the word that might make sense, to perhaps coin it, is desubjectification. dehumynization, then, is just a branch from the poison root: desubjectification. it's true that cows aren't humyn, they're different. but you're not giving warrants, you're just being stubborn, and not answering that difference does not (DOES NOT) equal lesser. you don't seem to answer back how this process, the cross-application of framework, works. grant that out. neither are you answering back why domination (all forms of it, remember) are bad. cool. c) by your 'meat is there even when animals are alive' logic we get all sorts of bad crap. i) i'm alive and i have 'meat.' are we then justified in desubjectifying me? ii) the way you're talking (meat exists on animals while alive) is late rhetoric. it only comes to the scene after the fact, from a world conditioned to stretch their disregard for subjects back from corpse to living. that's the absent referent process in effect. even the living thing loses it's subjectivity (that allows mistreatment). d) your logic following the final absent referent paragraph makes me like you again. you're really thinking and arguing now! there is one, er, major logical lapse though, and one minor. in minor, you are saying that our unique abilities make us better (and you do a wonderful job precluding an argument about divisions in humynkind by genetics, very cool) than nonhumyn animals. the trouble with this is that animals also have some very unique abilities. this flows nicely into the major lapse: animals are different than humyns, without question. but that difference isn't less. it's just different. they perform a wholly other function in the balance of the world, and for us to therefore condemn them is a dangerous absurdity. it happens to cause domination among humyns and environmental destruction. e) why, then, will it never happen?

amiria: by all means, dear, if you'd care to explain your point of view and engage ours, i'd love to see what i can.

filamai and extra cattle will overrun the world people (esp. oiio): i can only guess that thinking that vegetarianism increases cattle numbers comes from thinking that cattle naturally breed freaking constantly. surprise: humyns breed them. doubtless a return to sustainable numbers isn't easy, it's probably even gradual. but that doesn't stop it from being a necessity, as argued elsewhere.

tipayimisoowin: it'd be polite if you'd answer back specific warrants. calling all morality relative just isn't gonna hold up, especially when this has been addressed before-
'c) the ABOLITION OF MA/N talks specifically to this argument that ethics are mutable (or inherently irrational, or whatever other collection of words you'll apply to discount them).' t: non-universal. 'there's a couple of problems with you thinking this. i) the first is that it takes out any sense you might have made earlier, specifically when talking about efficiency or survival. why do you want those things?? ii) the second is that it turns back any chance you had of reaching those ends (survival now?) because there isn't any way to get there. if there are no ethics, nothing is ethical, nothing is unethical, and nothing has value (i don't understand the usefullness of how you called it. i think it's better if we identify it with virtue, or good v bad, because it makes the discussion make sense and have a vocabulary). iii) if nothing has goodness or badness, then we can all only seek the things we want. that's the only remaining thing to act on. the things we want are quickly revealed to be a collection of irrational things: the weather and the state of my digestion define these things almost entirely when we leave out ethics. and so in your haste to destroy ethics as the basis of reason, to remove the goodness or badness from things, you've brought yourself full circle, a slave to the irrational forces that determine the things you want.'
carry this out to its logical conclusion.

rotovia: for god's sake, you can still eat. hell, if anything we increase the variety and choice- vegetarian diets are so broad! (read the freaking thread, people.) why, again, should a humyn's right to choose override a nonhumyn's right to live?

sugaryfun: you may very well be right. that's why we all hopped into this discussion. (okay, so it's why i did.)

the Holy Empire of Falaslonde

filamai and extra cattle will overrun the world people (esp. oiio): i can only guess that thinking that vegetarianism increases cattle numbers comes from thinking that cattle naturally breed freaking constantly. surprise: humyns breed them. doubtless a return to sustainable numbers isn't easy, it's probably even gradual. but that doesn't stop it from being a necessity, as argued elsewhere.

You've missed the point entirely. As I said, we humans and the animals we farm for food live mutualistically. It's good for both our species and their species. You must also remember that farm animals are not moral agents. No-where whatsoever did I say that they'd "overrun the world people". I mean that you cannot set them free without severely unbalancing a fair assortment of ecosystems. (Remember the effect of feral animals on Australia's ecosystems.) So, the various species of farm animals would be wiped out. made extinct. annihilated.

'Moral Veganism' is morally repulsive.

Incase I was not clear enough for you. (It appears all that Tofu is messing with your head). My people have all nessacary rights, including the irght to choose what they want to eat. How dare you decide what we can and cannot eat? It's called free choice. If my people want they can eat nails and there's nothing you can do about it, unless nails have feeling to...

tipayimisoowin: it'd be polite if you'd answer back specific warrants. calling all morality relative just isn't gonna hold up, especially when this has been addressed before-
'c) the ABOLITION OF MA/N talks specifically to this argument that ethics are mutable (or inherently irrational, or whatever other collection of words you'll apply to discount them).' t: non-universal. 'there's a couple of problems with you thinking this. i) the first is that it takes out any sense you might have made earlier, specifically when talking about efficiency or survival. why do you want those things?? ii) the second is that it turns back any chance you had of reaching those ends (survival now?) because there isn't any way to get there. if there are no ethics, nothing is ethical, nothing is unethical, and nothing has value (i don't understand the usefullness of how you called it. i think it's better if we identify it with virtue, or good v bad, because it makes the discussion make sense and have a vocabulary). iii) if nothing has goodness or badness, then we can all only seek the things we want. that's the only remaining thing to act on. the things we want are quickly revealed to be a collection of irrational things: the weather and the state of my digestion define these things almost entirely when we leave out ethics. and so in your haste to destroy ethics as the basis of reason, to remove the goodness or badness from things, you've brought yourself full circle, a slave to the irrational forces that determine the things you want.'
carry this out to its logical conclusion.

I am sincerely having trouble understanding what you are saying here. I don't recall anyone commenting on my post about morality, so I didn't think that I was being impolite for not responding. And I don't remember talking about efficiency and survival. And I most certainly did not say that nothing has goodness or badness, only that each person defines what is good or bad differently. Those are two entirely different concepts. Perhaps I made myself unclear in my post. I was playing devil's advocate, trying to give an objective point of view. For that inclarity I apologize.

I would appreciate if you would explain yourself further, but I really do not understand what you are trying to say in reference to my post. Using quote would be beneficial. Thanks.


As a footnote, aside from trying to clarify The Town Crier's post about how cows affect the environment, this is the only post I can find of myself talking about morality, though I might have missed a page in the thread. (Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 6:41 pm)

Morality is not universal. Everyone has their own set of morals. Whether you consider one person to be moral or immoral is irrelevant. Calling someone immoral for eating meat is about as absurd as calling someone immoral for eating vegetables. As for a quick and painless death, actually, that is enforced. I attend a university with a well-established veterinary college and agricultural college, and can provide you with details if you so wish. Just telegram me.

Thank you in advance.

I think it's time that we all just accepted the basic fact that there is room for all of God's creatures..... on the plate right next to the potatoes!

:wink:


But seriously, I can respect a vegetarians point of view, however when they try enforcing their morality upon the others then they are no better than the religeous zealot who wants the whole world to follow their God in all his teachings. It is simply yet another facet of the intolerance that makes the world a less pleasant place to live.

left wing haters / whoever: 1 we basically agree on overgrazing until you think that feeding all those cattle even on only oats would somehow not take up land. where do oats come from?


And when you release hundreds of millions of these overgrazing animals, what do you think they're going to eat? Not to mention that a lot of non-vegetarians are left-wing, I myself am.


b) you're missing it on dehumynization, too. let me see if i can explain this a little more clearly. you ask for a new term. what i'm saying is that dehumynization is the cross-application of a framework that comes from 'dehumynization' of animals. of course that doesn't make sense to you: animals aren't humyn animals. they're nonhumyn animals. so the word that might make sense, to perhaps coin it, is desubjectification.

[snip a bunch of insane "Romanticist crap"]


The problem here, is that you're rejecting a valid and working framework for knowledge and applying a bogus POLITICAL framework for knowledge. Since you're using the search for knowledge as a way of advancing your political aims, you think that the rest of the community is. Fortunately for the rest of us, only Humanities people tend to do this.

Yes, desubjectification removes some context from scientific studies, but that context is generally unimportant compared to the benefit we get from objectification scientifically. In fact, until you can provide a Subjective Universal Truth, all your so called warrants are null and void because they are subjective, and subjectivity is internal. Internality is non-universal.

So, I'm inclined to disregard all your moralistic/feministic arguments based solely on your attempt to declare that your morality is the only correct morality.


filamai and extra cattle will overrun the world people (esp. oiio): i can only guess that thinking that vegetarianism increases cattle numbers comes from thinking that cattle naturally breed freaking constantly. surprise: humyns breed them. doubtless a return to sustainable numbers isn't easy, it's probably even gradual. but that doesn't stop it from being a necessity, as argued elsewhere.


No, you don't understand, animals (humans included) will breed until they overreach the equilibrium, and then they move or die off (slowly) and then they do it again. Since we aren't allowed to kill animals to ensure the survival of their or our species, and since the numbers of 'natural' predators are down because those predators threaten our species, those numbers of livestock will skyrocket.

Since there is a lot of arable land, that means that you're going to have -wild- cows roaming around, and they'll overgraze until we get another dust bowl. Then they'll attack our farms, because thats what animals do when they're hungry and there is no food.




'c) the ABOLITION OF MA/N talks specifically to this argument that ethics are mutable (or inherently irrational, or whatever other collection of words you'll apply to discount them).' t: non-universal. 'there's a couple of problems with you thinking this.


And he's wrong, there are no objective ethics in the universe that we can study, since they can't be studied objectively, they are subjective. Since they are subjective they are different from person to person. Ergo, they are mutable.

C.S. Lewis was a Romantic, and Romantics having joined with the Enlightened in their rebellion against the Feudalist order of the day--and having won--rebelled again. Romantics feel that a return to that Feudalist society is of benefit to all humanity. This is plainly false: Feudalist societies harmed the ecology of the planet worse than first-world democratic republics do, not to mention the degredation of humanity that comes under a society when everyone is the property of their vassal-lord.


why, again, should a humyn's right to choose override a nonhumyn's right to live?

To turn that around, why should human rights be overruled by non-human "rights"? As I stated before, rights are a social contract, by their inability to cognate, animals aren't given rights because they can't consciously enter into a social contract.

Um, did you vegiterians read my last post?

How do you explain the fact that I have to kill creatures in order to sustain a nice amount of ORGANIC (and delicious) vegetables. How you explain the fact that I have to go out with an air rifle and shoot rabbits and pigeons etc.? They don't feel any pain.

Um, did you vegiterians read my last post?

How do you explain the fact that I have to kill creatures in order to sustain a nice amount of ORGANIC (and delicious) vegetables. How you explain the fact that I have to go out with an air rifle and shoot rabbits and pigeons etc.? They don't feel any pain.

I was actually waiting for this myself...
So, any takers? What's the justification, or do you just let the random hoards of animals come in and strip the ground bare?

'with all due respect, it isn't at all that i don't know the standard spelling, but that i reject it. let me point out a few implications that convinced me to recolonize my spelling.
in dale spender's 1980 book MAN MADE LANGUAGE, he points out how clearly what's known as sexist language relegates womyn to the background of our perception, making womyn linguistically invisible and even contributing "more male" to our theories and experiences. in deborah cameron's 1985 book FEMINISM AND LINGUISTIC THEORY, she goes on to explain the specific way that language creates reality. "experiments in linguistics reveal that when faced with generic man" even "wom[y]n consciously exclude themselves from the reference." the words make the difference. and finally, that difference is patriarchy. in sylvia bailey-shurbutt's 1998 UNTYING THE TONGUE: GENDER, POWER, AND THE WORD, she articulates the limitations, especially in the world of writing and publishing, where womyn have faced specific limitations based entirely on the language we use.
in short, i choose to alter my spelling because i choose to reject the sexist historical baggage the traditional spelling carries. it's not a random mistake. i mean it.'

thanks.


The etymological root of 'human' is from the Greek, 'homo', meaning, well, human. The -man in human is not derived from the Germanic root of this word, meaning a male. So why replace the 'man' with 'myn'? One, it's not refering to men, and two, you're just going to confuse people and/or make then think you're some kind of screaming irrational feminazi, which I'm sure you're not.

I lost my whole post from an 'invalid session'. I give up. No argument from me. Just live with the fact that I essentially said it all comes down to whether you believe that animals are humans equal. All your arguments are based off that. I went on to question who really is greater though. We depend on animals if they're all living. Some keep down others populations, some polinate plants, and so on and so forth. Actually we could live of algae for air and only devise a way to polinate crops, but that gets rid of most plants that need polination. They seem to depend more on themselves then we depend on them. So you decide.

I suggest we kill off all animals and just end this.

Oh and by the way, people who say they are vegetarian but eat fish are not vegetarians. They still eat killed animals.

I would also hope you don't eat any dairy products or by-products, don't wear leather or wool, and don't kill thousands of plants every year to feed yourself. Those huge fields steal grazing land from the animals, as well as kill animals who attempt to graze there.

I have no problem with vegetarians, but lets not kid ourselves. the human race is at the top of the food chain, whether we like it or not.

A person who eats no meat except fish (like myself) is called a Pesco Vegetarian. Someone who doesn't eat or use *any* animal products is a vegan, not a vegeatarian.

So what if we are at the top of the food chain? That doesn't mean we *must* eat meat.

Though We of Anhierarch are for the most part vegetarian and vegan, provisions are made for meat-eating citizens and tourists - we culture our meat, that is, it is grown in vats. Meat of all varieties are available, and since the meat that is grown lacks any form of nervous system, it is completely cruelty free.

The Speaker of Anhierarch



The famous Spam Farms of Anhierarch? I thought that was only a legend![/quote]

As a Pesco vegetarian I would eat meat if we could grow it in vats. We're actually not that far off being able to do that in the real world.

For the love of ethiopian hunger, it's meat! Sure animals are fluffy, cute, and can make nice pets, but animals eat animals too, not just people. Eating meat is the way of the world, it happens all the time. All of you animal rights activists should think for a bit, where is it wrong for us to eat meat, if other animals can? If you ban meat eating for humans, than I guess it's time for you to de tooth and claw all the carnivores in the world because they're just so wrong for abiding by the laws of nature. So you go and pick up your signs and protest us eating animals. Then I'll watch as nature goes on from animals eating animals. It's just plain simple ecology! And if you wanna go on to say that animals are living things hence we can't kill them, well then I guess we better not eat plants to for they are living as well! Think of the chloroplasts! The poor, poor chloroplasts. My god in heaven what will we do to save the chloroplasts....those poor green things.....with the chlorophyll......

Animals don't have any choice about what they eat. Humans do, because we can think rationally and make choices, as well as produce good meat substitutes.

In Kokottswana, we have forbidden vegetable and we eat exclusively meat of all kind.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR MINDS THAT THE ANIMALS WE EAT ARE NOT SENTIENT!
quote]

Er, YES they are. The old idea that animals and children cannot think and do not feel pain, which our Victorian ancestors believed, has been widely discredited. Most animals are intelligent, to varying degrees. They can fear and suffer, just like us.

[quote]
IF we stopped eating animals, contrary to popular belief, the envirtonment would NOT be improved. The meat animals we would release (You can't keep 'em for the fun of it) would reak havok on the countryside.

Personally I advocate a *gradual* change to a universal vegeatarian diet. (That's the only way it could happen anyway, since people everywhere aren't going to all just give up meat overnight- some of them aren't in a position to do so and many wouldn't want to). That way, we would stop breeding animals for slaughter so there would be fewer of them. Since my reasoning for not eating meat is not based on animal rights I would have no problem with the painless killing of excess animals.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR MINDS THAT THE ANIMALS WE EAT ARE NOT SENTIENT!
quote]

Er, YES they are. The old idea that animals and children cannot think and do not feel pain, which our Victorian ancestors believed, has been widely discredited. Most animals are intelligent, to varying degrees. They can fear and suffer, just like us.

[quote]
IF we stopped eating animals, contrary to popular belief, the envirtonment would NOT be improved. The meat animals we would release (You can't keep 'em for the fun of it) would reak havok on the countryside.

Personally I advocate a *gradual* change to a universal vegeatarian diet. (That's the only way it could happen anyway, since people everywhere aren't going to all just give up meat overnight- some of them aren't in a position to do so and many wouldn't want to). That way, we would stop breeding animals for slaughter so there would be fewer of them. Since my reasoning for not eating meat is not based on animal rights I would have no problem with the painless killing of excess animals.

They're not. They can feel pain, yes, along with every chordate at least, but they are not intelligent. Heh, just ask any farmer.

A person who eats no meat except fish (like myself) is called a Pesco Vegetarian. Someone who doesn't eat or use *any* animal products is a vegan, not a vegeatarian.

What about someone who only eats italian pasta with spinach sauces? Are they Pesto Vegetarians? :>

Animals don't have any choice about what they eat. Humans do, because we can think rationally and make choices, as well as produce good meat substitutes.

I think the importance of fats in one's diet has been discussed at length? If it hasn't, I refer you to the following paper, which has a very excellent bibliography on the importance of dietary fat-which is most easily procured through meat eating. Mostly what I hear from the vegan community is that, if you work *really* hard, you can not die immediately from a meat-free diet, as long as you go out of your way to make sure you find protien and fat in the few places you can realistically get it from the vegitable world. It just seems *really* obvious to me that other animals don't have to work so hard for their nutritive needs. I can't remember the last time I saw a pride of lions discussing their four food groups: Gazelle, Zebra, Ox and Wildebeast.

http://wwwchem.csustan.edu/chem4400/sjbr/polet.pdf

Even then, when did vegetarianism become a moral issue? I mean, when compared to the actual real problems that still exist in the world and the fact that vegetarianism isn't going to solve any of them, you'd think we'd actually get oof our kiesters and do something productive. I suppose it is a bit cathartic to get all high and mighty about something that, in the grand scheme of things really doesn't matter at all.

Animals aren't sentient, but putting them through undue pain is wrong. Very few animals are sentient.

A person who eats no meat except fish (like myself) is called a Pesco Vegetarian. Someone who doesn't eat or use *any* animal products is a vegan, not a vegeatarian.

What about someone who only eats italian pasta with spinach sauces? Are they Pesto Vegetarians? :>

Animals don't have any choice about what they eat. Humans do, because we can think rationally and make choices, as well as produce good meat substitutes.

I think the importance of fats in one's diet has been discussed at length? If it hasn't, I refer you to the following paper, which has a very excellent bibliography on the importance of dietary fat-which is most easily procured through meat eating. Mostly what I hear from the vegan community is that, if you work *really* hard, you can not die immediately from a meat-free diet, as long as you go out of your way to make sure you find protien and fat in the few places you can realistically get it from the vegitable world. It just seems *really* obvious to me that other animals don't have to work so hard for their nutritive needs. I can't remember the last time I saw a pride of lions discussing their four food groups: Gazelle, Zebra, Ox and Wildebeast.

http://wwwchem.csustan.edu/chem4400/sjbr/polet.pdf

Even then, when did vegetarianism become a moral issue? I mean, when compared to the actual real problems that still exist in the world and the fact that vegetarianism isn't going to solve any of them, you'd think we'd actually get oof our kiesters and do something productive. I suppose it is a bit cathartic to get all high and mighty about something that, in the grand scheme of things really doesn't matter at all.

You're talking about vegans and vegetarians as though they are the same thing. They aren't.
A vegetarian diet contains animal fat because vegetarians, unlike vegans, do eat animal products (dairy products, eggs etc.). They therefore get plenty of fat- you actually need to watch that you don't get too much. Heart disease kills more people than cancer in the U.S. and Australia.
I have done extensive reading on the subject and vegetarians don't miss out on anything the body needs. They get plenty of protein (as long as you get enough calories to fulfil your energy needs it's nearly impossible to be lacking in protein), iron, vitamins etc. It isn't hard work.

Vegetarianism became a moral issue when it became an option (Kant's categorical imperative- ought implies can ie. if we were still leading a nomadic hunter gatherer lifestyle it would not be an option and therefore not a moral issue). Though you trivialise it, many people consider the current abuses of animal rights that go in the world to be an 'actual problem'. Personally, the issue for me with eating meat is one of waste. I am making a conscious effort to reduce my usage of the planet's resources and the ammount of waste I create. The production of meat is very wasteful, so I do not wish to encourage the system. It is something simple and easy I can do every day to make my own small difference. Every little bit helps.

filamai: 1 no warrant on why nonhumyn animals aren't moral agents.
2 at worst, grant them their subjectivity back. reasons to do this: a) difference don't equal lesser: they have the same subjectivity as humyns. b) if you don't, you effectively allow all forms of domination by the framework your endorsing.
3 a) if you don't mean they'd unbalance ecosystems by overpopulation, then how? b) before we effed it up, they used to be an integrated part of the ecosystem. return to that.

rotovia: 1 why should the right to choose override the right to life?
2 it shouldn't! a) moral obligation is by definition more important. b) the right to life is more fundamental: without it, you can't choose a thing.

tipayimisoowin: 1 about specific warrants: i was looking for some analysis on the substance of the moral assertion instead of a broad and general attack on morals as a whole.
2 the passage i quoted came earlier in the post but applies to your argument nonetheless. it explains how application of lewis's ABOLITION OF MA/N establishes morals as external standards. it's true that we perceive them, and to some degree may therefore err, but it's not true that we can never know them, or that they don't exist. the point of his book (and that paragraph) is that without morals, we are also without reason. without reason, ya'll have no method of arguing with me =)

oiio: you must be confused. you're dropping the analysis on my whole last point six, about dehumynization and desubjectification. '6 a) we have the idea, wonderful, of what meat was. we killed living subjects for it. you're missing the point completely: the idea no longer means anything to us, or we couldn't psychologically continue. why do you think veggies for ethics are always so sick at the sight or smell of meat? b) you're missing it on dehumynization, too. let me see if i can explain this a little more clearly. you ask for a new term. what i'm saying is that dehumynization is the cross-application of a framework that comes from 'dehumynization' of animals. of course that doesn't make sense to you: animals aren't humyn animals. they're nonhumyn animals. so the word that might make sense, to perhaps coin it, is desubjectification. dehumynization, then, is just a branch from the poison root: desubjectification. it's true that cows aren't humyn, they're different. but you're not giving warrants, you're just being stubborn, and not answering that difference does not (DOES NOT) equal lesser. you don't seem to answer back how this process, the cross-application of framework, works. grant that out. neither are you answering back why domination (all forms of it, remember) are bad. cool. c) by your 'meat is there even when animals are alive' logic we get all sorts of bad crap. i) i'm alive and i have 'meat.' are we then justified in desubjectifying me? ii) the way you're talking (meat exists on animals while alive) is late rhetoric. it only comes to the scene after the fact, from a world conditioned to stretch their disregard for subjects back from corpse to living. that's the absent referent process in effect. even the living thing loses it's subjectivity (that allows mistreatment). d) your logic following the final absent referent paragraph makes me like you again. you're really thinking and arguing now! there is one, er, major logical lapse though, and one minor. in minor, you are saying that our unique abilities make us better (and you do a wonderful job precluding an argument about divisions in humynkind by genetics, very cool) than nonhumyn animals. the trouble with this is that animals also have some very unique abilities. this flows nicely into the major lapse: animals are different than humyns, without question. but that difference isn't less. it's just different. they perform a wholly other function in the balance of the world, and for us to therefore condemn them is a dangerous absurdity. it happens to cause domination among humyns and environmental destruction. e) why, then, will it never happen?'
2 i absolutely fail to see how every form of domination is a scientific benefit.
3 i don't understand what you say about subjectivity, and i have a feeling its because we interpret the word differently. frequently i use it almost grammatically in describing animals. i have subjectivity: i am the subject of my life's sentence, acting on objects. however, i also acknowledge the subjectivity of other animals, both humyn and nonhumyn. could you demystify?
4 i'm not sure again what you mean by political aims, or how i'm abusing (you imply?) the search for knowledge. to me, every decision i make is political, rooted in personal policy and (hopefully) effecting the politics of others. i don't see anything wrong therefore with doing things politically (in fact i think it unavoidable).
5 cattle-take-over: it seems to me the only reason you think cattle would do this is because there are not enough natural predators of them, and this is because we killed them. the solution i suppose would be to not kill the natural predators either.
6 in talking about lewis, we shift gears on the definitions of subject and object. for discussion now, we talk about object as unchanging, immutable, external things. you talk about subject as random chaotic perception. if we be nice to subject and just talk about it as perception which of course comes from a person's particular set of experiences, then everything we see is in the sense you say 'subjective.' colors, even sizes and amounts, all relative to our specific perceptions. if that's what you're saying, then fine, i just don't see anything wrong with it. if you're somehow still defending observation of simple fact as objective, then you contradict. (didn't we talk about this? see aug 17 pt 8)
i guess i don't know about lewis's advocacy on feudalism. frankly, i think it for once sincerely irrelevant: the ABOLITION OF MA/N was (at least intended) to be the most foundational work of reason in the sense that it involved no conclusions at all of a moral nature. it only said that morals must be.
7 right to choose v right to live: see rotovia. 1 in the framework of social contract, you'd see how life outweighs. 2 social contract blows, and we talked about this, in fact on aug 16. you never gave new analysis after my answers.

imperial unions: 1 i read it, but i thought your claims were so warrantless and absurd i didn't want to waste time on it. i guess i just can't believe that 'fact is' followed by something you want to be true makes an argument.
2 (monokabul) i suppose the best thing for me to do is just rely on my background of deontology. there is no excuse for killing animals- not to eat them, not to keep them from eating crops.
3 innovate.

echiteka: i guess i disagree about the etymology, for now.
why change it? i think the confusion is minimal and i feel the obligation is heavier. to be mistaken for irrational, or straight up disregarded on this ground, i can't say i'm scared of. that's firstly because the obligation matters more to me, and secondly because i seriously doubt the productive engagement i'd receive from anybody who discounts everything i say because of an alteration in spelling.

the Holy Empire of Falaslonde

Heart disease kills more people than cancer in the U.S. and Australia.

Stupidity kills more people than everything else put together... :shock:

GET IT THROUGH YOUR MINDS THAT THE ANIMALS WE EAT ARE NOT SENTIENT!
quote]

Er, YES they are. The old idea that animals and children cannot think and do not feel pain, which our Victorian ancestors believed, has been widely discredited. Most animals are intelligent, to varying degrees. They can fear and suffer, just like us.

[quote]
IF we stopped eating animals, contrary to popular belief, the envirtonment would NOT be improved. The meat animals we would release (You can't keep 'em for the fun of it) would reak havok on the countryside.

Personally I advocate a *gradual* change to a universal vegeatarian diet. (That's the only way it could happen anyway, since people everywhere aren't going to all just give up meat overnight- some of them aren't in a position to do so and many wouldn't want to). That way, we would stop breeding animals for slaughter so there would be fewer of them. Since my reasoning for not eating meat is not based on animal rights I would have no problem with the painless killing of excess animals.

They're not. They can feel pain, yes, along with every chordate at least, but they are not intelligent. Heh, just ask any farmer.

I didn't say they were as intelligent as humans (although some particularly smart animals might be more intelligent than some particularly dumb humans- I'm sure some of the guys I went to school with could be outsmarted by the average chimpanzee), just that they were intelligent.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, sentient means 'percieving or capable of perceiving things by means of the senses'. Animals certainly do that.

filamai: 1 no warrant on why nonhumyn animals aren't moral agents.
2 at worst, grant them their subjectivity back. reasons to do this: a) difference don't equal lesser: they have the same subjectivity as humyns. b) if you don't, you effectively allow all forms of domination by the framework your endorsing.
3 a) if you don't mean they'd unbalance ecosystems by overpopulation, then how? b) before we effed it up, they used to be an integrated part of the ecosystem. return to that.

1. Human beings are moral agents. Dolphins too, rather maybe. Cattle, chickens, and the like are definatly not.
2. I'm sorry, what about subjectivity? And mutualism does not equal domination.
3a. They would unbalance ecosystems by their very presence. They've changed a great deal from their wild form.
3b. i. We haven't f'd it up at all. We live mutualistically with them. ii. As I said, they cannot go back. they have changed a great deal from the animals our ancestors began to farm.

I don't think we should ban meat-eating. It should be allowed and it is natural.

Based on the will of the people of Itara, we follow the decision to eat what we will, as long as it is done so with respect for the creature concerned. Thus be it animal or vegetable, it is done with ritual and thanks for the spiritual welfare of all forms of life.

It.

I don't think we should ban meat-eating. It should be allowed and it is natural.

Funny how people assume natural=good.
Snake venom is natural. Antidotes are not.
Freezing to death is natural. Wearing clothes is not.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR MINDS THAT THE ANIMALS WE EAT ARE NOT SENTIENT!

IF we stopped eating animals, contrary to popular belief, the envirtonment would NOT be improved. The meat animals we would release (You can't keep 'em for the fun of it) would reak havok on the countryside.

I suppose you really meant 'sapient'. They are that, too.

This is a really dumb proposal. You can't ban meat eating because first of all, do you know how many vitamins ur country is going to have to produce to cover all the things people would be getting from red meat? Secondly eating meat is a part of peoples culture. For example, the greeks. At easter, christmas, and new years the eat lamb on a spit. What are they gonna do when you ban a thousand yr old tradition b/c u feel sorry for the animals? Animals reproduce just like humans do, and if you feel sorry for the animals then you dont have to eat meat. But that doesnt mean that everyone else has to not eat it.

While I would never support a ban on eating meat (people have a right to, just because I think it's wrong doesn't give me a right to impose that belief on others) you're wrong about the vitamins.

The only vitamin that is found exclusively in animal products is B12, which is a problem for vegans not vegetarians (since vegetarians can get it through eggs and dairy products). There are no vitamins that are found exclusively in meat. A vegetarian diet isn't missing any important nutrients at all, and is in fact probably healthier, since vegetarians tend to get more vitamins, antioxidants and dietary fibre, and less animal fat (cholesterol causing).

:? tell me this, it has been the pracitce of our ancestors to eat meat. we have evolved from eating meat, and it is a notable fact that the human race would not a have existed if it wasn't for the practise of hunting and eating meat from the very dawn of time. so why bann this perfectly natural form of life that is so good for you and enjoyable?

ooc in RL it turns out we need more meat then vegetables. Turns out we utilise animal fat [no the grease on a mcdonalds burger] far better then plants, not only that our ancestor was strictly carnivorous [ we oopsed on Austrolipithicus] you know we have teh same tooth structure as a lion? we only grew one extra tooth to be ableto eat plants, that tooth is at the very back and doubles as a bone crusher. our front teeth are blades, and the fangs are for ripping meat. Meat protein builds up brain cells, it is actually considered neglect to not give a child meat when growing up [this just in soy doesnt cut it, in fact it makes men grow breasts, and women get breast cancer because it contains so much plant estrogen!!!!] so jsuta little tip, humans are omnivores we NEED meat, vegetable, grain to survive....Dairy is just icing on the cake. it may not be nice to kill animals....but meat is one of the few places we get seratonin....after eating a meat meal you become happy and calm, if you dont eat meat...you will eventually be grouchy all the time....this is true...this is not likethe PETA propaganda they place, i dont like eating cows made in factory conditions or chicken either , i prefer Genetically engineered meat and Vegetables as they are safer and have no chance of disease [unless you grind up dead cow brains and feedthem to dead cows] because they make them more resistant [salmonella] but Free range is essential to good meat. I am proud to eat meat...it means my brain is larger and more developed then a herbivores, and because of vegetables we are healthier then pure carnivores...



well, i'd like to start by thanking you for actually bringing some form of argumentation back into this debate, as oppossed to the many 'meat tastes good! we should not ban it!' comments. still so, i'm afraid your comments are still very unwarranted. i've provided you with answers, quotes, and links to your claims.


1. we do not have the teeth structure to eat meat. regardless that we may have once needed to eat meat, the fact is that in out current society, there is no need, whatsover to eat meat.

"Human teeth are similar to those found in other herbivores with the exception of those pesky canines (of course, the canines of some of our evolutionary relatives, the apes, are elongated and are thought to be used for display and/or defence). Our teeth are rather large and usually abut against one another. The incisors are flat and spade-like, useful for peeling, snipping and biting relatively soft materials. The canines are neither serrated nor conical, but are flattened, blunt and small and function like incisors. The premolars and molars are squarish, flattened and nodular, and are used for crushing, grinding and pulping non-coarse foods."

http://www.vegetariansociety.org.au/200211nl.htm





2. Soy does not cause breast cancer. i actually typed 'soy and breast cancer' into the search box on my computer, and honestly, every hit that came back, supported this.

"In addition to breast cancer, soybean isoflavones may help reduce the risk of several types of cancer, including lung, colon and rectal cancer."

http://www.virtuvites.com/soy_isoflavones_virtuvites.htm




3. meat is not one of the few places seratonin is found. grains and vegetables contain far more carbs than does meat.

"Seratonin is boosted by carbohydrate foods ie grains, vegetables... Other seratonin stimulants include walking, riding, stretching, reading, meditation and prayer."

http://www.upnaway.com/poliowa/Did%20You%20Sleep%20Well.html




4. yikes, i don't know who gave you the impression that genetically engineered foods are good. here's a link that has a website full of info that this food sucks.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/gelink.html



thanks,
the town crier

Soy does NOT give men breasts (where'd you pull that factoid from?), though some of the additives which have been found in factory farmed beef and chicken are known to. A diet rich in soy actually *reduces* a woman's risk of breast cancer- in countries where they eat a lot of it, like Japan they have much lower rates of breast cancer.

The body makes it's own seratonin. You can also get it from eating chocolate.

Don't kid yourself that there is 'no chance of disease' in genetically engineered meat and veggies. It depends what you do with them. You could get E Coli from meat or veggies which have been in contact with cow dung, as often happens in slaughterhouses and on farms.

'My brain is more developed than a herbivores' Both Albert Einstein and Leonardo Da Vinci were herbivores, and I'm sure they could both write better than you did in this post.

Humans do not need meat to live.

I still can't understand hwo you can even entertain such a notion. The people of Rotovia, and all other nations for that matter, should be allowed to choose their own diets. Most nations allow the use of tobacco (even though it has proven lethal effects) beacause of our belief in free choice. Now, I don't support tobacoo, or the remaining of it's legality. I do however, feel that we can not impose rules on eating.

rotovia: 1 why should the right to choose override the right to life?
2 it shouldn't! a) moral obligation is by definition more important. b) the right to life is more fundamental: without it, you can't choose a thing.


As far as rights are concerned, you seem to be arguing that animals have the same rights as people do. The argument about animals having rights oughtn't to be in this thread and definitely not in the UN forum. I understand that this argument is essential to the idea of a "ban on meat eating", but this silly thread is only doing it a disservice in location. It would likely be only discarded as ridiculous, it being in such an environment as this. Also, these arguments are in almost total subjugation to one's religious and moral opinions, this makes it very hard to convince people to believe your way.

You seem to just be asserting that animals have a right to life and that they can choose. Yes, they can choose but only to a certain (relatively insignificant) degree. Why do you believe that animals have a right to life similar to that of people? Why do you think that their right to life is greater than peoples' right to choose? If you have already posted this, then please add more detail. I disagree, I feel that life in general is to be respected as a sacred thing, but that the killing and eating of animals (with such a respect) is entirely warranted and realistic. I don't understand why you think we have a moral obligation to not eat animals, please explain.

Entirely off the subject, but still concerning your quote: what relationship are your number designations (1 why should...; 2 it shou...) representing? The listing of things by number tends to imply an order of importance and priority or even a seuquential relationship between articles. However, this is a standard antecedent-consequent statement, neither antecedent or consequent is the more important. Without antecedent the consequent loses context and without consequent the antecedent is inconclusive. You seem to be making the answer a separate fragmented argument of its own. Just trying to make sure you don't confuse people or weaken your own arguments through this mistake in presentation.

alright amiria, so you don't endorse 'anal electrocution and other practices'. tell me then, how do you think the animal for your burger was killed? do you honestly believe that they killed the cow 'quick and painlessly'? and if so, it still doesn't matter! because bottom line is - the animal is being killed. i don't really care which form of death you endorse, it's the fact that you endorse any kind whatsoever that is relevant. yes, yes you are immoral, and no, i'm sorry, i will not stop talking.


the town crier.

Cattle aren't killed by "anal electrocution" that's absurd, they're killed humanely by a bullet to the head.

Actually, they first fire a retractable steel bolt into the cow's brain to stun it, then slit it's throat. This is done because the meat has to be bled, and if the cow was dead when its throat was slit its heart would not still be beating and the blood would not pump out of the body so effectively. The system doesn't work too well as the bolt sometimes gets gummed up with blood and brains and won't fire, and sometimes the slaughterhouse worker, fatigued by performing the same demoralising action thousands of times a day, misses so often the cows are fully conscious when their throats are slit. No 'anal electrocution' though.

I don't think we should ban meat-eating. It should be allowed and it is natural.

Funny how people assume natural=good.
Snake venom is natural. Antidotes are not.
Freezing to death is natural. Wearing clothes is not.

antidotes are not? have you any knowledge in medicine? antidotes of any sort must be based upon the original chemical structure of the venom which it is treating. and another thing freezing to death is not natural! it is simply STUPID! really come on, i think there could have been at least 10 better examples you could have used. and beside human beings are very un-natural creatures. we are the only creature with the need to globalise, and through this clothing has become needed in order to adapt to the unatural environments which freezes us to death. and besides why is such a topic even on the nation states any ways? this is the UN forum isn't it? if you want to talk about vegetarian recepies i have a better website for ya www.greenpeace.org so come on lets discuss something a little more GLOBAL instead of MORAL

Okay, then let me ask you something.

What makes killing plants to eat any different?

Either way, unless you plan to spend the rest of your days with a microscopic mesh filtering the lactobacillus out of bottles of Yakult, you are ending a life in order to put things in your mouth.

1) Plants don't feel pain or fear
2) Eating meat is very inefficient- it takes far more money, land and water to produce it than to produce edible plants

do any of u's actually care about bannin meat eatin in a fictional world??? :lol:

Okay, then let me ask you something.

What makes killing plants to eat any different?

Either way, unless you plan to spend the rest of your days with a microscopic mesh filtering the lactobacillus out of bottles of Yakult, you are ending a life in order to put things in your mouth.

1) Plants don't feel pain or fear
2) Eating meat is very inefficient- it takes far more money, land and water to produce it than to produce edible plants

Inefficiency is a joke of an argument. Just because something is inefficient doesn't mean that it is to be slated for banning. If this were true we would have to "ban" all but about one or two nations in Nation States. The right to life is based on pain or fear? I'm afraid that that doesn't make much sense. And I think you know it doesn't so I'm not going to argue it out. This would exclude some animals from the right to life too, by the way.

Mitae

I am a vegetarian myself and I think meat eating sucks. I eat fish for the protein though. I also think that fish have had a free and good life and they don't live long anyway. I am against factory farms and eating chicken, beef, pork, sausage etc. I think a few of us should talk and think up a really good way to explain this and make a UN proposal that would go all the way through.

I am a vegetarian myself and I think meat eating sucks. I eat fish for the protein though. I also think that fish have had a free and good life and they don't live long anyway. I am against factory farms and eating chicken, beef, pork, sausage etc. I think a few of us should talk and think up a really good way to explain this and make a UN proposal that would go all the way through.

We're higher on the food chain, we get to eat animal's that are lower on the food chain. Thats the way it's been for 100,000 years and probably will be for awhile.

I really don't hin you should ban meat eating for the world, but for your country that is awesome! You can truely express your beliefs through the laws of your country. It should be up to the leader of a country to decide that.
:D

I know I said I wasn't going to post here anymore, but AniVeinna raises a point.

Is compulsory vegetarianism one of the national issues? If not, it should be - this lets everyone behave according to their own moral code on this issue.

Besides, compulsory vegetarianism would cripple Amiria's economy ^_^

--Reasons why this wouldn't pass over well in Luporum--

1. We like meat
2. Our wolves like meat
3. We don't feel like taking protein pills or eating soy for the rest of our existance

Even if this bill is passed it will end up just like the mandatory metric system BS. Stop trying to force your personal beliefs onto other nations.

-President Marcus Fenarius

we need an overview.

let me first disclaim numbers as a means of sorting by importance. it's only sorting by each separate argument. in that spirit,

1 eating meat is bad for you. a) animals are full of animal hormones. i) these hormones aren't made for humyns, and as a result, don't know where to go once they're in our bodies. when the body tries to utilize hormones that weren't meant for it, it develops cancer (breast and colon). ii) the body also gets easily addicted to these hormones. that's why folks think meat tastes good or is in any way attractive: addiction. b) animals are full of cholestorol. just like us, they make it. a humyn body gets all it needs from itself. introducing meat to the diet introduces all the animals' cholestorol right along with it. c) in vegetarianism or even veganism, getting the nutrition you need to keep going isn't that hard. eating a variety of fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, and beans could cover a person quite easily. in fact, it does, for many.

2 it sucks to be a meat-animal. a) throughout the thread, various methods of execution have been discussed. apparently the acceptableness of them are in question. i think we could get a general consensus on impact stunning and bleeding. b) the lives they lead, we can agree, are clearly no longer natural. we didn't used to cage up cattle and murder them regularly. i'm not talking about the goodness or badness of these now. evaluate that yourself. c) cattle are transferred from place to place when alive in tight quarters, overheated and too close together. they often produce sores on their skins from rubbing against one another or even gore each other on their horns. d) fowl get their beaks cut off, er, to protect them from each other? they wouldn't be normally at odds with each other if we gave them their natural space. e) fish suffocate to death.

3 we eff up the environment. a) there's a tremendous waste of land and water in growing plant food to feed to animals. it could be used to feed and humyns. b) oftentimes the land we have naturally available is insufficient or tired out, and so we cut down forests and rainforests to make land available. c) blood and bonemeal runoff contaminates fresh water. d) feces and carcasses emit greenhouse gases. e) fishing has decimated or destroyed innumerable populations of fish. we begin to see the effects of throwing that wrench into ocean ecosystems. f) the populations of animals bred for meat are admittedly ridiculously unsustainable in a natural environment.

4 the morality of eating meat. this is laid out on a foundation that there are in fact moral precepts, as illustrated in the logical conclusion of their removal, as well as the recognition of the existence of rights and their inherency in the creature which retains them. the only objection we've seen to this is something about how rights come from social contract that can only be participated in by humyns. undercutting this argument comes from exploring the impact and alternative to this humyn-centeredness.
'_ “Behind every meal of meat is an absence, the death of the animal whose place the meat takes. The absent referent is that which separates the meat eater from the animal and the animal from the end product. The function of the absent referent is to keep our "meat" separated from any idea that she or he was once an animal, to keep something from being seen as having been someone” (the curious ant, jul 08 )
_ finally, let's talk a little about how your mindset, humyn-superiority, causes all forms of domination! this is what happens explicitly when we talk about super awesome books like carol j adams's SEXUAL POLITICS OF MEAT. drawing on a more or less acceptable framework of subject and object, adams shows how dehumynization is the key to both meat eating and sexism. adams speaks specifically about the use of absent referents in meat-eating and the parallel use of them in sexism. where absent referents are less apparent, however, dehumynization makes a nice bridge too. conceiving of yourself as superior or more important than another person, on whatever grounds of differences, can only come from a framework where differences equal lesser. take a quick look at some racial, social, sexual, or gender slurs for a gruesome illustration of how negative separation from the ecosystem affects not just the environment, but the humyn species too. (falaslonde, aug 15)
_ the difference between animal -> 'meat' and iron -> steel is the absent referent. i'm pretty happy you're granting out animal subjectivity. that easily concedes all of the absent referent concept: that is, the very word 'meat' (the referent) is nonsensical until something is lost (dies!)- the animal. this is the process of objectification: the death of the animal (a very dramatic absence) is the death of the subjecthood and the counterfeiting, if you will, of 'meat,' the object. the same phenomenon occurs in sexual objectification (which is what adams writes about). a person looking at a pin-up girl is creating an absent refer, seeing only a sexual object, devoid of personhood, of subjectivity. only an object. just a piece of meat. (cause enough yet? it's the same damn thing.) here's a good place for talking about the rest of domination. (falaslonde, aug 17)
_ now, we can look at these foundational precepts and say, hey, domination isn't so cool (a thing you have not explicitly disagreed with). i'm not asserting a correlation. i'm asserting a direct causation. humyn-centeredness is the framework for all other forms of domination (remember slurs?). we causally otherize animals, viewing their diffence, their non-rationalizing, non-inventing, non-global socialization, non-humynness (!) as not just difference but lesser-ness. that's the framework. otherization with zero-sum values.
the impact is cross-application of this framework onto humyn people. whether its sexual, gender, socioeconomic, or racial difference, we have a whole lot of practice at recognizing the difference and then passing it off as less. welcome to the world of dehumynization.'
be it ever so conceded.
'we causally otherize animals, viewing their diffence, their non-rationalizing, non-inventing, non-global socialization, non-humynness (!) as not just difference but lesser-ness. that's the framework. otherization with zero-sum values.
the impact is cross-application of this framework onto humyn people. whether its sexual, gender, socioeconomic, or racial difference, we have a whole lot of practice at recognizing the difference and then passing it off as less. welcome to the world of dehumynization.'

the Holy Empire of Falaslonde

I know I said I wasn't going to post here anymore, but AniVeinna raises a point.

Is compulsory vegetarianism one of the national issues? If not, it should be - this lets everyone behave according to their own moral code on this issue.

Besides, compulsory vegetarianism would cripple Amiria's economy ^_^
Thanks for ur support... i am so glad someone sees where i am coming from.

I said yes! But animals are so CRISPY AND CRUNCHY!!!!!

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

filamai: 1 why are humyns the exclusive possessors of moral agency? you aren't giving us any reasons by repeating the statement! 2 i'm giving you reasons why we ought to treat them like it. they are a) that their biological difference does not make them less. this happens to be the reason i reject sexism, heterosexism, classism, racism.. differences don't mean less. b) the 'mutualism' your giving us is parasitic. check out the overview: it can't work out in wonderful mutualism when you're destroying life as part of the agreement. you've got to recognize 'subjectivity' (by this, i guess i might mean moral agency: agency, anyway) because there is no other way of precluding the domination condemned in the last point.
3 while it's true that animals have changed, when i say we 'effed' it up, this is precisely what i mean. restoring some nature is not impossible. one of the lucky things is that we aren't really locked in this self-stoking cycle, we just have to get in there an interfere.

a note on b12: a person needs surprisingly little b12 and can live on their existing stores of it for suprisingly long. frankly i think it's easier for vegans to get than for vegetarians: this is because the majority of vegan diets tend to be organic and often home-grown. a little attentiveness is relatively simple even so.

san michael: even assuming for some reason that humyns are only 'in existence' because of meat eating, it's no longer a necessary part of our diet, and it's causing serious problems, visit the overview.

rotovia: '1 WHY should the right to choose override the right to life?
2 it shouldn't! a) moral obligation is by definition more important. b) the right to life is more fundamental: without it, you can't choose a thing.'
the best i can make of your post about tobacco was that if meat should be banned, so should tobacco. my advocacy says that we shouldn't eat meat because mainly of a moral obligation. the ideally consistent contention on tobacco, then, is to prevent it where it infringes on the right to life of others and not recommend it for an individuals health (the same thing occurring with meat: the difference being that all meat eating infringes on right to life, while only some tobacco use may).

mitae: 1 i guess i don't see why you're engaging the thread if you don't think it belongs here.
2 neither do i see how making arguments in total, err, 'subjugation' to religious or moral identification is therefore unacceptable. in fact, that's the only way we ever can make arguments, or choices of any kind. to try to separate them is a fatal amputation, as evidenced by the logical conclusion of this removal. to ask for amoral policymaking is an absurdity: it's asking for choices that have no effect.
3 why does the right to life outweigh the right to choose? because without the right to life, there is no right to choose. if i kill you, you cannot eat meat or not eat meat anymore. the right to life is more fundamental: it is presupposed by the right to choose. removing life removes choice. you could, theoretically, grant more weight to choice, but you'd self destruct.
4 sorry if my numbers distracted you. if it helps you, replace them with underscores or bullets.

the Holy Empire of Falaslonde

an argument that has been left out lately i think, is that of water conservation, and to add to the outstanding overview provided by falaslonde, i'll give the point that it takes 10 times the amount of water to produce a pound of meat, than it does to produce a pound of grain. water shortage is an ever growing problem in our world, and it is not something that should be wasted in the production of meat. this also by definition makes a vegetarian diet less expensive than a meat eating one.



the town crier

Nope

Man has rights because it has the capability to reason. No other species has such capability; therefore, no other species enjoys such rights and therefore is fair game for anything any human may wish to do to it.

Look, for God's sake, can't you all see this topic is going nowhere?

Falaslonde, Town Crier: your arguments are convincing no-one, a NSun (or for that matter RL UN) proposal to ban meat is just as unlikely to pass now as it was before. We say again. STOP TRYING TO SHOVE YOUR OWN PERSONAL MORAL CODES DOWN EVERYONE'S THROATS.

Everyone else: Same thing, no matter what we say, the pro-vegetarians will not be convinced. Relax in the knowledge that any proposal on the issue will fail - and leave this stupid topic alone.

Everyone has a different moral code - some people's allow for meat eating and some do not. Some people think eating meat is bad for you and for the environment and some do not. When it comes to "bad for humAns" you're just as likely to find a different scientific study next week arguing the other way. When it comes to bad for the environment that is more an issue of pointless Westernised overconsumption than diet. So perhaps you could lobby against that instead. When it comes to bad morally that is a) an issue of your own personal moral code, and b) not exclusively due to meat-eating.

Perhaps as a compromise we could propose regulations to ensure universally "free range" farm animals that are killed humanely with undue suffering?

Please, this is like the Middle East, we can argue this point forever. Let it die.

do any of u's actually care about bannin meat eatin in a fictional world??? :lol:

Good point.
Though we in Itara tend to view all existence as fictional, that is what makes it interesting.

:) It.

Meat is good...that's all I have to say.

(anyone ever notice how many ex-nations are on this thread? :roll: )

Crunchy, yummy, tasty animals

You bumped a two month old thread. :o :x :evil:

modalert lockity lock?

modalert lockity lock?
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/templates/subSilver/images/topic_lock.gif Damn right. And you, Oppressed Possums, just got yourself an official warning.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator