Jump to content

Eldad Eshel

Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Eldad Eshel

  1. This thread is about the competitiveness of society, and the need for grades from early age, what I call the meat grinding machine. From the age of 6 kids are forced into schools, where the competitiveness is high, and also the demand from them, to bring grades and school accomplishment, mainly through tests they have to take. From the age of 6 they are thrown into the meat grinding machine. The parents want their kids to succeed, and push them towards the earning of good grades. The competitiveness is not just at school, but also at home, from their loved ones, from those who need to look out and care for them the most. Is this really the best system ? Why not a system of compassion and understanding ? towards those we love most. The learning material can be passed in different ways, than grades and tests.
    Our society is a jungle, kind of like the wild jungle of the animal kingdom, where each individual has to survive on his own. At a more progressed age the individual must find a job or go to the university, and the pressure gets even more intense. Some are thrown out of this system and become homeless, living and begging on the streets.
    The world of the open market, the world of jobs, is alot of elbow shoving, alot of sucking up, and looking physically attractive. It is a very stressful and competitive world where not everyone can get along. If you fall behind, you will get stampeded on, crushed to the grown.
    The world of the academy is also very stressful and competitive, sort of the continuation of school for kids. It is mostly all grades and tests, where each individual is seen as a statistic and not as a human being. You fail to reach the acquired grade ? You are cut off. Simple as that.
    I think a more progressed system needs to be implemented, where everyone can pursue their dreams, without tests and grades, but still with all the learning and education. There may be some initial flaws in this system, but overall it is more ethical and I'm sure the problems can be figured out with time.



    I live in a rural area with a number of farms, most of which are less than 500 acres I personally know many of the farmers and have worked on a few; being a farmer on this scale is a vocation and, believe me, they love their animals and take VERY good care of them.


    When it comes to dispatching the animals, in the UK, there are very stringent regulations to ensure theyre killed as humanly, and with as little stress, as possible.


    So these animals are protected from disease, wildlife and winter, which, is more than can be said for many people here; that sounds pretty ethical to me.

    YAY ! What a wonderful world ! *bursts into dance*


    You make it sound so pleasant to be a farm animal. Do you really think all farms are like the ones you mentioned, are you even aware of the cruelty going on in most farms ? Europe is generally a greener and more caring place than others, it is not an example. I am talking about industrial farms, with systematic killing, with as close to zero humanness. Tearing of chicks' beaks, throwing unneeded chickens in shredders. Seperation of the sibling from it's parents right at birth, the animals are stuck together in high densities in small fenced areas, not even being able to move, animals being over fed. There are probably many more examples of this, that an expert on the subject can give. There is a general awareness of all this in the global community, but the truth is that the cruelty is still going on, and may go on forever, if harsher steps are not taken.

  3. Live stock have been been domesticated for thousands of years; they can't survive in the wild. Do you realise evolution takes time? You can't just send the cattle and pigs off on their merry way and hope they'll be able to fend for themselves. I fail to see the logic here, how can this be seen as less cruel? I've asked you this before, but I'll just ask again: why are you on a science forum when you have very little understanding of basic scientific concepts? Furthermore, you don't seem to be at all interested in rethinking your opinions when logical evidence is put forth. Realising you're wrong can be cathartic too.

    You are looking at the moment, instead of the long run. As I have said yes there will be problems initially, but they can be worked out. The meat industry has become very cruel, acting as an industry of animal slaughter, in the cruelest ways. (Like pulling out the chicks' beaks.) There are even people who are sadists who take up these jobs so they can torment the animals. Maybe this cruelty cannot stop without alltogether stopping the killing of animals. An industry of systematic slaughter of sentient creatures, does that not sound wrong ?


    "why are you on a science forum when you have very little understanding of basic scientific concepts?"

    Yes I am no scientist and even consider myself a spiritualist, but I still enjoy this forum. It is lively and I have learned much during my time here. I tried a spiritual forum but it was quite dead. Still perhaps this forum is more interesting. I like the convergence of science and spirituality. I love science, I just see it as not fully complete yet.



    Why? What ethical argument is there for that division?


    What about humane destruction to end or avoid suffering? Or is it ethical to force a being to live through to the bitter end, regardless.

    In the case of insects it is mainly a need to kill them. Just killing them for the heck of it should also be not allowed. Mainly insects are parasites or trespassers, and kind of NEED to be killed.


    To avoid suffering humane suicide or ending of life should be allowed I think. There is a case of an israeli who had cancer and was in pain who flew to switzerland to end his life peacefully. I think that is legitimate.


    And yet again you ignore the part about who feeds and cares for the existing animals we're no longer able to sell or eat until they die naturally. You seem willing to allow millions of animals to suffer the whims of your wishful thinking, as well as burden millions of humans with the care of animals they don't benefit from. How about they all stay at your place?

    Yes this is obviously a problem, but I don't think it is that critical a problem that my wishes could not take place. They will gradually be set back to nature, or kept for other resources than their meat. Yes there are ALOT of animals cause humans love to eat ALOT. If forced reproduction of the animals will stop they will also dwindle down in their numbers. So again this is a thing that takes time.

  6. I would draw the line at insects. And mice should not be killed unless there is no choice. Like in other cases of ABSOLUTELY HAVING to kill animals.



    Ah, the wishful thinking plan of success! Let's definitely make a fundamental change in our diets and not worry about it because probably it will all work out maybe. Someday, eventually. Sort of.


    In reality, such a change, if made abruptly, would result in millions of pointless animal deaths. Why do you keep avoiding the question of what to do with existing animals if we can't eat them when they die naturally? Who takes care of these animals for free until they do?

    Eating the animals that die naturally ? That is not a bad idea, for sure better than the current methods of cruel murder.


    There's good evidence that, if we could get the whole planet to stop eating meat, it would greatly reduce emissions that aid climate change. But what do you do with all those animals?


    We're already eating less meat per person in major populations centers in first world countries. Modern lifestyles and better healthcare access are raising awareness. But what do you do about Masai tribes in Africa, where cattle are considered the metric of success? Or any other culture that relies on livestock to survive?

    Let's say a law was given to the entire planet that killing animals is prohibited. I'm sure everything will be worked out, over time and despite the hardships that may arise. It might take time, but at the end I am sure everything would turn out for the best.

  8. Why is it unethical? Is a lion unethical for killing a gazelle?

    Man isn't a lion or any other wildlife animal. Man is much more evolved, and can also exist without killing animals.

    Man in general strives to be ethical, and not killing animals would be a step forward.


    Tasty is an opinion, and worthless as a supporting argument.


    You cruel, sick, animal hater! If we can't kill the animals for food, we'd have to just let them die of natural causes. Nobody could afford to feed and provide healthcare for that many animals as pets with no compensation. How hateful of you! You're a monster! Cows and pigs on the highway, dying and causing other deaths as well. You really didn't think this through.


    Plus, you can't get vitamin B12 from a non-animal source. Even vegans use a supplement.


    So it's probably best not to try to force your horrible, cruel beliefs on those of us who respect and work towards ethical treatment of livestock. It's also pretty unrealistic to think everyone would just stop eating meat. Why don't you come down off your high horse and help where it's needed? More ethical treatment is a better next step than prohibition. You have to see the sense in that.

    Cows and chickens can still be used for their milk and eggs, sheep for their wool, while being treated ethically. There would need to be some kind of global plan on how to treat the other animals, if to set them back in nature and how. I'm sure the professionals can handle this, it is still much prefered than slaughter.


    "More ethical treatment is a better next step than prohibition"

    Maybe. But killing them still involves some kind of vicious murder and slaughter which is unethical and cruel, there is no ethical murder. Killing and eating young animals I think is even more unethical, and should be stopped immediately.

  9. I would like to talk about the killing of animals and consumption of meat. This is generally unethical by itself, and the way the animals are treated today is EXTREMELY unethical, using very cruel methods. Man can survive without meat, and this way all the animals will be spared. Every kind of meat food can be copied in a vegeterian version, and it being even similarly as tasty. There are professionals in this field that can do this, it is not necessarily a common and obtainable thing. I think killing of animals should be against the law. And then tasty vegeterian food will be created massively and be obtainable. Making our society much more ethical and humane.


    So is there anything specific you think doesn't make sense that we could help with? How can we deal with the fact that you think it's wrong somewhere in the math but you don't know the math?


    I don't mean disrespect, but this seems like someone who admits he knows nothing about nails taking a quick look at a house, and then telling the architect that he must have used the wrong nails, because the house just doesn't seem right.


    How about school for math? Has anyone mentioned Khan Academy to you?

    Well I was and still am interested in learning physics in the university. And learning physics you also learn math. There is a university in Israel called the Open University, that anyone can get in to, but actually is on a very high level. I already have a year of study there in physics, from a while back. All my documents and grades are too old to get in a regular university like the Tel Aviv University.

    I don't see the problem with "a bunch of math [] that seems to work". From my perspective that is pretty much the holy grail of physics.

    Well I would also like an understanding, possibly and better a simple one, to go with it, of what it is describing.


    You really should become one before assuming that because you don't get it, it's wrong. You should assume that because you don't get it, you need to study it on a deeper level.


    And that's not really our function here. We can discuss it, but trying to raise your knowledge above a popsci misunderstanding level is really the role of a good school, with formal classes where you can get excellent science coursework.


    So far, you pose that something may be wrong, and then when shown your error, you insist you're right. I find it hard to follow discussions like these. They seem pointless, asking for answers and rejecting everything mainstream in favor of your own incredulity. This is NOT a healthy learning process, and I don't think you're well served by it.

    I want to learn and understand, but I doubt going to school will help me at this, as from what I understand and even mentioned above, it is that almost everything in QED is based on "in the math". It is more of a mathematical theory. They basically got a bunch of math down that seems to work.

  12. Could quantum electrodynamics theory be wrong ? Everything about this theory does not fit into shape in my mind. I am no expert on the subject, but maybe a better theory for explaining electromagnetism needs to found. Or is it so well founded and proven ?

    For example virtual particles and them being only "in the math". I even read they can go back in time, this seems ridiculous. Also being able to attract particles by sending or "shooting" particles seems very odd to me, seems to defy logic. This also being just "in the math". Another thing is how photons themselves are the quanta of electromagnetic energy.

    Electromagnetism works very simply and elegantly, it is odd that such an elaborate and odd theory is needed to describe it. Maybe the universe has basic forces, that are part of it's basic existence, sort of like how the electron is a basic particle.

  13. Maybe electric charge also contorts spacetime, but in differents ways than mass alone, and at stronger rates, as to give the results of electromagnetism. Creating not just attraction but also repelling.

  14. Yes telepathy is very controversial and hard to pin down, even for me who believes in it strongly. So back to the telekinesis.


    There have been several people with telekinetic abilities who have been researched at the university, and in some cases also with positive results. One example is the russian woman Nina Kulagina, who was studied by high ranked physicists who came up with positive results. I am sure they produced papers on the subject with actual proof. Is this not considered as evidence ? You can also view her videos and judge for yourself. If you know of more people in this magnitude please let me know, as I am not that big an expert on the subject.

  15. I have another telepathic experience to share. I was in the hospital feeling very bad, and was trying to get my doctor (a woman) to take me outside to the open air. I was in a closed department. I said to her in my head "I have to go outside, let me go outside" like this over and over. She after a while came, took me by the hand and wanted to take me outside. There were 2 doors leading outside, we passed the first one, then were just about to pass the second one, but staff came and took me inside. I was new there and was not allowed to go outside yet. Only after 3 months was I allowed to go outside. This is a very special incident. One of the most special that happened to me in my life.

  16. The universe is part of the Everything. Which I call from hebrew the Clal. The Clal includes everything, including everything outside our universe, and is very ambiguous and hard to percept.
    Our universe is a certain formation from within the Clal, and this is a triangle, that in each of it's corners is an element, and in it's center is the Middle. The top element is the "Godly" or from hebrew the Elohi, and it's "color" is black ~ deep purple, The right element is the minus (-) and it's color is orange, the left element is the plus (+) and it's color is bright blue. The Middle's color is luminescent white.



    Everything in the universe can be described by a triangle, In every scale from the highest or biggest, to the lowest or smallest.
    Each triangle can reproduce and create more triangles.
    All the triangles are connected through their middle.
    This Triangle is the Code of the Universe.
    Inside the triangle there are more elements, around the middle is a small and upside-down triangle, the colors of it's elements are right-yellow, left-red, bottom-green. This is "The Middle's triangle". To the panels of the main triangle is another triangle, the color's of it's elements are left-brown, right-pink, and top-bright purple. Right adjacent to this triangle is another one and the color's of it's elements are left-gray, right-turquoise, and top- navy-blue. These two are the panel triangles. The Triangle is composed of 4 main elements, and a total of 13 elements. The number 4 is very important in our universe, and so is 13.
    On the highest most scale of the universe there is a triangle in which the top element is Space, the left element is Matter and the right is Gravity. The Middle is the source of creation, the source of life. In the Middle's triangle the right element is Energy, the left is Time, and the rest I am not sure about quite yet.
    In our universe there are "matter transcendent powers" or "super natural powers", such powers for example are Telepathy and Telekinesis. The Speed of Telepathy is infinite, it somehow warps through the universe, using the Clal. This holds the key to advanced space travel.
    One of the lowest scales triangles contains the electromagnetic forces, it's + is what we call the negative electric force, like of the electron, and it's - is the positive electric force, like that of the proton. It's red is the magnetic force. The godly is the neutral charge like the neutron, and the middle is the force that connects the nucleus's particles in the atom. The rest of the elements I am not sure about quite yet also. The atom is also a triangle, similarly, the electron is the plus, the proton the minus, the neutron godly, and the Middle is the force that connects the nucleus's particles. The proton also makes up a triangle with it's quarks, and the force that connects them.


    Reliving stress and anxiety, and removing carcinogenic substances from the body are two entirely distinct phenomena. One is not a simplification of the other in any way, shape or form. As result, I see one example here as "actually reading the article and using an evidence based argument", and the other as "making stuff up."


    I think that being unable to distinguish between coming to a conclusion based on a preponderance of evidence, and simply making things up will seriously inhibit one's ability to discuss science. Are you sure you're clear on the distinction being made here?

    Psychology and biology go together hand in hand. That is how I see it. I am not an expert on the subject but maybe the stress and anxiety help create the carcinogenic secretions, or prevent the body from handling them.


    On a bit of a different note, to ejaculte you don't have to masturbate. You can have sex, or do the alternative I offered. I see the action of touching and rubbing your genitals as the main problem. When I do my alternative I don't have all those negative symptoms I mentioned, just saying.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.