mooeypoo

The point of oblivious turing machines is that the direction of their movement doesn't depend on the input, but is a function of time.

So, the head has some L/R movement, but it doesn't depend on the input.

 

M can't just move to the right on some decision based on what it gets as an input, it has some movement that is unrelated to the input. It will keep going wherever it is set up to go regardless of what it intercepts.

 

Does this explain it better?

 

This might help: http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/sp11/cse201A-a/ln412.pdf (Especially page #2, it goes over the definition of oblivious turing machines)

I can't express just how sad it makes me to hear that a person who believes Dinosaur bones are a conspiracy is soon to receive a PhD.

 

I have no choice but to assume (and hope, dear goodness) that her PhD is not in Biology, Geology, or Physics.

 

 

 

In any case, PhDs are relevant to their particular subject, no matter how much Ken Ham and his ilk try to convince everyone. "Oh look! This PhD person published a paper about how evolution doesn't make sense!" until you check, and see that the PhD is in something completely unrelated to Biology, the paper was published online without peer review, and its only valid claims are with badly-written logical fallacies.

 

So yes, she might have a PhD, but she *should* know that this doesn't give her authority on all subjects, and if her PhD didn't teach her how to consider *evidence* rationally and with critical thought (at the very least enough to avoid claiming authority on the subject of evolution at all), then the program she was in is worth diddly squat, and so does her authority.

"What would convince you?"

Bill Nye: "Evidence."

Ken Ham: "Nothing"

 

If a PhD candidate sees no problem with the second answer, her PhD should be stripped off and denied.

I might be new to the thread (admittedly, I skimmed it), but I'm a bit confused.

 

The original post shows an article from some unsupported blog post (the reference points to a nonexisting blog and a YouTube video) and a quick search in Google shows no other references for this.

 

In fact, the first result was Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation which, by the mere fact that this is a known phenomenon that was proven to exist (even today) is, by Occham's Razor alone, much more probably than either "other types of humans" or "aliens" hypotheses.

 

.... I'm not entirely sure what this discussion is about, then. Are we discussing the theoretical possibility that other branches of humans existed, regardless of the nonscience article given, or are we really discussing a non proven, non substantiated bombastic-article rumor as if it's science..?

 

I'm confused.

Alright, Wolfhart Willimczik, enough.

What you say is wrong.

The rules are wrong.

This forum is wrong.

Luckily for everyone, you don't make the rules. In fact, when you joined this forum, you marked this nice little ticker that said you agree to follow the rules of this forum. I can assure you, no paragraph in it stated you're in a position to insist on continuously abusing the rules in case you disagree with them.

 

There's a saying in the military: If you piss on the army, it gets wet; if the army pisses on you, you drown. So while no one is going to literally expel waste on you, I do hope you take this analogy to heart, because we're gettin' mighty moist here.

 

The problem is not your ideas. Your ideas, wrong or right, are the reason this forum exists (yay for everyone!) -- the problem is your attitude, and unfortunately for you, this is a non-negotiable problem that will be solved either by you correcting your ways or us correcting them for you, as politeness and decent attitude is the least we owe our members.

 

This whole thing went way too far, so here's the bottom line for the clearest clarity:

 

 

Cheers, and welcome to ScienceForums!

 

~mooey the whip lady

So a species dieing out due to lack of purpose is more ethical than an eternity of being murdered? with the added prolonged amount of torture it will receive given the unknown variable of whether it can be stopped? i think the option of wiping out the species seems rather more ethical given you conceptualise the animals existence from our own perception.

Since you're not even taking the time to break down my quote so I understand what it is you're referring to, I'll have to guess you're refering to my (rather MINOR and tangential) point about how releasing animals to the wild completely would mean their deaths.

 

So:

(a) That was not even remotely close to being the point of my thread. Nitpicking the points you can answer does not an intellectually honest debate make.

(b) I don't understand what you wrote in the above paragraph.

I base my argument and beliefs somewhat on ideological solutions but the counter arguments are weak considering the technology we have available to tackle the issues.

That would fly in a theology forum, not in a science forum. That's why we give you *evidence* and support to our claims.

 

What you are doing, really, is trying to nitpick claims, shrug counter claims off casually (without checking) and twist the facts so that *your* side will look more ethical and correct. I can recommend a couple of conspiracy theory forums that would accept this tactic and might even crown you for their royalty if you persist.

 

*We* are here for rational substantiated evidence-based arguments. Either participate according to our rules, or choose leave. You definitely won't convince anyone with that tactic.

I dont know about medicine or any alternatives, i presume the technological era we belong too could find all the answers to these issues by using methods like artificially synthazing whatever chemicals are needed from an animal.

You're proposing a huge extreme action based on something that you don't know. We're just trying to show you that there are things yo udon't know that might transform your idea from a great solution to an extremely unethical one.

 

Dismissing the claims we give you off hand just because you don't know them is not really showing your willingness to discuss things. It kinda shows us you're not here to *consider* points. You're here to preach.

 

 

So, "we can probably find a solution" is an irrelevant claim because we didn't find a solution yet. When we do, we can discuss the merits of poisoning animals and stopping medical use, etc.

 

And if you disagree with this, you need go get off your high horse and bring us actual evidence, because I, for one, am getting really tired of being a voodoo doll for your abuse because anyone who thinks slightly differently than you is a murderer.

 

~mooey

There's another issue that I think should be raised, especially in light of a recent blog article in NPR regarding veganism: Medicines.

 

Meat is not the only derivative of animal farming - life-saving drugs like Insulin, heparin (anticoagulant), amino-acid infusions and horomones are all derived from animals. I think most of us here in the thread would agree that there's a huge difference between using animals for non life-saving things like makeup and beauty product (and, indeed, many countries ban the use of animals for these products) -- and the use of animals for drugs that not only save lives, but are absolutely impossible to avoid without killing people.

 

This article talks more about veganism, but it makes several good points about animal farming and products in general. Some of them we can probably avoid, but some we cannot. It's a good read.

 

Insulin is not something you can choose to take if you're diabetic. You either take it, or you're dead. Heparin is a life-saving measure for preventing clots that kill people.

 

Even if we'd have agreed that we need to find alternatives (and perhaps we should) -- if we make all animals poisonous to man, or if we stop farming animals at all we might make these derivatives obsolete, which has a direct result in killing millions of people.

 

Not to mention that the previously raised point still applies; many animals *depend* on us taking care of them and would quickly die in the wild. Many animals are domesticated to such an extent that they did not come from "nature" but rather from human-made breeding. "Setting them free" might be the unethical point here, since it would mean their deaths and probable extinction. The fact we need to stop cruelty doesn't mean the only thing to do is go to the extreme of going back 10,000 years before animal domestication.

 

I think the point (which we've been trying to make in this thread consistently) is that this discussion is really more than the simplistic "good" vs "evil" of animal product use. There are grey areas that make the ethics behind animal farming a not-so-clear-cut deal and if we ignore these, we're really not being very realistic or intellectually honest.

 

~mooey

Whatever, You know, I know, We all know that murder is not a straw man argument; Its the single basis to the debate, things like cruelty, nutrition, incarceration and food costs are all straw man in comparison.

Saying we advocate murder, by twisting our claims and ignoring some of our points, so you can dismiss our point of view off hand is a strawman, and is offensive.

 

When I posted about it, I included a reference to the meaning of the fallacy term which also has examples in it. The examples you give in this snippet do not follow the ACTUAL meaning.

 

I do hope expecting you to read at least that reference is not too much.

If you can't substantiate a claim, don't make it.

If you can't answer a counter-claim, don't strawman it.

If you can't hold on to your moral position without painting the people who disagree with you with a dismissive brush, don't bother debating.

 

I think my posts are respectful and self explanatory. If you feel like getting back into a proper rational discussion answering the claims that people make to you honestly and with some reflection, please, I'll be happy to resume. Until that happens, though, I don't think I have anything else to contribute to this thread.

 

~mooey

The actual debate is "Can forcing somebody to do something be right?"

I answered that in the second post and repeated it in subsequent posts. The debate shifted to underlying subjects which you refuse to acknowledge.

I know you agree with getting rid of cruelty and i presume giving animal freedom, but not murder?, Ill find your evidence if it would persuade you theres a better way...

There's no need to presume anything. I put my entire reasoning in my posts. I think you should take a bit of time to read them.

Cheers.

This:

At this point, all i can say is, if you believe that animal murder is a necessity of survival and not the process of a corrupt society we can not debate this issue any further.

-- Summarizes the problem of this thread.

No one said we believe in animal murder. In fact, I explained the subtleties of that claim in at least 2 different posts. Further, we showed you in at least 4 different posts about the different problems where meat production (mass and mini) IS a necessity for survival, which you ignored. Then, you finish by labeling the entire society (and those who may disagree with you) as corrupt. This also serves to (once again) push our not-so-extreme claims into the extreme, and paint your dissenters with emotional brush.

It's getting quite offensive, now, honestly.

You are blatantly StrawMan-ing our claims so it's easier for you to answer us, and you're consistently ignoring and skipping claims that you don't feel like answering by dismissing them off hand, and then repeating the claim as if it was either unanswered or is still wrong despite evidence provided to the contrary.

That's great for you, but not really conducive to a proper debate, which is what this forum is for.



~mooey

I'm not labeling *you* with anything, I'm labeling specific claims you're making as appeal to extreme. I didn't do that out of the blue, I did it while giving specific examples and explanations.

 

And this is getting frustrating now, because once again you seem to nitpick specific claims you want to answer and throw it back at us instead of going to the crux of the issues we've raised -- some multiple times already.

 

Can you answer the point about B12? Can you bring evidence to your previous claim about it?

Can you answer our specific point about affording alternatives to meat (without guessing)?

Can you relate to our specific points about extremes rather than shrugging it off? I gave you examples and explanations, showing I spent time thinking about them and relating to specific problems.

 

Your post is just a new batch of points, some of them repeating themselves, some of hem slightly misrepresenting my answers, and some presenting red herrings. It's really frustrating, DevilSolution. It makes it sound like you came here to preach your opinion, not really participate in a mutual discussion and weighing of claims.

 

I just can't see myself going through a batch of new claims (some of which repeat themselves from previous posts) when I didn't really get any sort of reply o previous answers I made to you.

 

~mooey

I dismissed his argument because poor people eat the bad cuts, the processed meat which are the nasty parts of the animals which dont have much nutritional value and are what are cheapest.

They still get nutrition out of it, and they would still need a cheap alternative to meat if we force them to not be able to have it.

"No plant produces vitamin B12 so you are proposing to kill all the people who can not afford the synthetic material.", im pushing it to extremes? your claiming a single vitamin is now going to be the cause of death for poor people? how is it vegans survive? no fruit, nut, mushroom or veggie contains a vitamin which you claim will kill poor people? really? REALLY?

Vegans and vegetarians take either B12 fortified foods or supplement their diets. If they don't, they're unhealthy.

The UK Vegan Society, the Vegetarian Resource Group, and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, among others, recommend that vegans either consistently eat B12-fortified foods or take a daily or weekly B12 supplement to meet the recommended intake.[19][20][21]

It is important for vegans, whose food provides few sources of B12, and anyone else wishing to obtain B12 from food sources other than animals, to consume foods that contain little or no pseudovitamin-B12 and are high in biologically active B12. However, there have been no significant human trials of sufficient size to demonstrate enzymatic activity of B12 from nonbacterial sources, such as Chlorella and edible sea algae (seaweeds, such as lavers), although chemically some of these sources have been reported to contain B12 that seems chemically identical to active vitamin.[22][23] However, among these sources, only fresh sea algea such as Susabi-nori (Porphyra yezoensis)[24][25] have been reported to demonstrate vitamin B12 activity in B12 deficient rats. This has yet to be demonstrated for Chlorella, and no study in rats of any algal B12 source has yet to be confirmed by a second independent study. The possibility of algae-derived active forms of B12 presently remains an active topic of research, with no results that have yet reached consensus in the nutritional community.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12)

 

 

And the risks in NOT having this in your diet:

Vitamin B12 deficiency or hypocobalaminemia is a low blood level of vitamin B12. It can cause permanent damage to nervous tissue if left untreated long enough.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12_deficiency)

 

You should read both articles and the references they link to.

 

Random "but how do X survive" questions don't quite fly here in a science forum. If you claim people can live WITHOUT vitamin B12, and that Vitamin B12 CAN be found in other sources that are not meat -- without buying supplements or fortified foods, you should supply evidence.

Im not pushing it all to extremes, not all animals are tortured, caged and get there young slaughtered in front of them.....but its common knowledge that it happens frequently, hidden camera's and worker accounts show it to be true, its not as if they try hiding it.

I don't mean to be rude here but did you actually go over my claims? Because I didn't just say you push things to the extreme, I gave examples, and your answer doesn't reply to a single one of them.

 

I'm not trying to beat you down here. I'm actually in favor of many of the points you're making -- but you seem to be going at it with a purely emotional stance, and the more we discuss, the more adamant and defensive you become, and the less you seem to consider the points we are making.

 

Please -- please -- try to read the claims I put up as objectively as you can. I have a lot of respect for your opinion here, and I agree with many of your points. Those I disagree with I take the time to explain why. Please try to consider my actual claims before you jump up to reply.

Animals die anyway, if they starve and dont reproduce due to lack of purpose so be it,

I actually find that less ethical than farming animals, honestly. But that's a side point.

ive already said that, they shouldnt exist solely to be murdered regardless of being caged and tortured.

We disagree on "murder" here, and we disagree on "solely". Read my previous posts.

Cows can exist for milk without being forced to be pregnant constantly and chickens can provide eggs without being caged.

How? By making sure the regulation is proper. We can do the same with meat production, then. The *only* difference is that one results in the animal being dead and sustaining us. You seem to view this as an evil no matter what. I think we are trying to say that (a) that's nature [animals die all the time to sustain other animals] and (b) it can't be avoided for the moment because of nutritional values that are not easily replaced to poor people.

Meat itself isnt required for survival and infact it isnt that great at all, subjectively ive only found *game* to be rich in flavor (the ones that live free) other meats are quite bland in comparison, sometimes slightly salty and slightly unique. A sikh curry has far more flavor than a mcdonalds burger and can easily be adjusted to taste.

We're not going to repeat ourselves. You make a claim here (that meat isn't required) and you're the one who need to support it with evidence. Evidence are not your personal guesses. Show us research, please, because the evidence we have is that you're wrong.

 

I attached a basic article from wikipedia about why you're wrong, if you want to read the research that article is based on, the references section at the bottom of it is quite extensive.

 

This is still a science forum. You make a claim, you need to support it with evidence.

Things like eggs (of which i buy local free range and are hardly more expensive, 20% ish) offer most the nutrients meat does. Eat an egg a day and stop murdering sentient animals....

• 20% is still more expensive. And it makes a huge difference to a poor family, especially one with multiple kids.
• Eggs do not supply you with B12, as was pointed out earlier, and is a point you need to consider and answer properly, or stop making it altogether.
• If you think the Big Bad Companies that Abuse Animals did not jump on the trend of "free range" and "organic" to sell more product, you are sorely mistaken. I personally dislike "Organic" labels because it became a BRANDING technique rather than an actual regulatory measure. My parents work in produce from Mexico that is sent to the USA. You would be surprised how many technologies are *cheaper* and *safer* to produce good food (veggies and meat included) safely and without cruelty -- and yet it doesn't have the "Organic" brand because it has a technicality missing. "Organic" and "Free Range" are brands.

  But I digress.

In my last post i only had a slight dig when talking about dogs, the rest was all very mild, i offered counter arguments for my own beliefs and showed how my solution would work better than progressive education. I apologize if you mis-understood me.

Did you actually go through my entire reply or did you stop with the dog comment? Because I really do try to provide explanations with my counter claims here, and it seems like you claim I misunderstand you without properly going over what it is I pointed out.

P.S i have no moral high horse, im immoral by nature, i eat meat......im just offering a solution.

I don't know what that "PS" means since no one really said anything about whether or not you're moral or immoral person. What we do say is that you seem to be getting very defensive and pulling your claims from an emotional stance rather than read carefully through the arguments we bring up and answer them specifically.

 

I offered answers to your specific arguments. Please read through my post again, I think you missed a couple of big points there, and I'm starting to feel like I'm constantly repeating myself.

 

~mooey

And again you go to extremes. Cuthber talked about vitamin B12, and you immediately rushed to pig ears and bollocks as if the entire world kills pigs just to eat their nuts. C'mon now. These semi outbursts really just push both of us away from a decent discussion. Instead of getting everyone thinking and considering your points, we're pushing everyone into a defensive and emotional position. We're having a good scientific and rational debate, but that's not quite helping.

 

Can we try and talk about this without taking each other's claims to the extreme? In some circles, that would be a fallacy.

Wasnt aware pigs ears, eyes and bollocks had any nutritional value.....i stand corrected....

Sarcasm is unwarranted and doesn't really help. And it does have nutritional value, so your argument is somewhat moot; the question we may want to ask is whether or not the nutriotional value can be achieved from somewhere else, and/or whether or not the nutritional value is worth the act of killing. Those are valid questions we can discuss.

I apologize for my rash and somewhat tempered response mooeypoo, i do realise and understand that given a certain scenario, animals can still live a relatively content (or would so seem to them) life and still be used as a form of food for us. However the amount of bureaucracy involved with the legislation would mean the animals that are and will still be tortured in the mean time, which could be a century....

I disagree. I think we have a number of countries (in Europe specifically) that showed us that these regulations can be possible. Not perfect, but definitely much much better than in the USA.

I offer you this though: What right does anyone have to kill another animal because you like its flavour? if ofcourse you dont need it to survive....

So Cuthber already explained that this is a false claim; we do need meet to survive, and if we don't have meat we need synthetic alternatives. At the very least the claim should be ammended. Second, I never ever said kill an animal just because oyu like its flavor. ON THE CONTRARY; I said I'm *against* animals whose sole edible purpose is "novelty" and unique flavor -- like sharks and whales.

 

You seem to have a tendency to shoot from the hip and guess my motivations. I ask that you try instead to read my claims carefully -- you might be surprised how much closer we are to agreeing than disagreeing on many of the points.

I have a right to a shelter or roof because its a trade which doesnt cause pain or cut a life short, i could also build the roof myself from raw materials (which i'd love to do). I think the story is different if you have to raise a pig and kill it yourself?

It does cause pain, it's just less obvious. It ruins trees, it kills the animals and fauna that were previously on the place you're about to cover with cement, it creates pollution and pushes life forms away from their natural habitat. In fact, many many of our current problems with animals that are pushed to extinction is *because* we build houses on natural land that used to be their habitat.

 

 

You just choose to view these as less harmful than meat production. That's your right, I just claim the logic doesn't quite follow.

 

 

Finally, you raise an *emotional* issue. If I raise an animal and kill it for food then we're discussing about my emotional decision, not a practical or ethical one. We can ask the same thing about any ethical stance and emotions will almost always change the "regular" answer. Case in point: Is killing a child bad? Most people will say yes. Further question: Is killing Hitler as a child to save the lives of millions of people bad? Now you have a dilemma. Some would say still no, but most would view this as a tougher decision.

 

By inserting emotion here you *again* chose to take the "GENERAL CASE" into an EXTREME case.

 

I, for one, try not to make my moral decisions based on extremes. Also, when cases *are* extreme, I value the moral stance of the individual cases and not generalizing over the entire subject.

How does dog taste? meaty i suppose (sorry im doing it again, but pigs and cows have both shown high levels of sentience and intelligence).

Red herring, emotional appeal, and exaggeration. If you're sorry you're doing t again, perhaps you should just stop doing it

 

Really, I get where you're coming from, but I explained over and over again why these points are not really proving your case at all.

Lets evaluate some hypotheticals and see which comes out on top, from my perspective ofcourse (though i hope i give them all a fair trial)

 

1) All cruelty to animals stop

2) Animals are given freedom

3) Alternative forms of nutrition become widely available and as cheap

4) Alternative forms of nutrition is varied and tasty

5) OP, edit the DNA or use a molecule in the feed to make meat dangerous for human consumption.

Here's the thing (again)

 

I disagree with the way your logic follows. I explained why in the previous post, and your logic again follows the same path here. We disagree on the outcomes and meanings of these choices, and I think you're then continuing to take the decision into the extreme -- which serves to further split our views apart.

 

I think you should go over my explanation about why our logic doesn't fit together in my previous (rather long) post. I want to see where our disagreement lies before we both just start repeating ourselves needlessly.

 

~mooey

The practical must include 3 aspects:

 

Do you need the meat to survive?

Can you kill your own meat?

Had that animal had a free life?

 

If the answer is "no" to ANY, you should NOT be eating meat, however if you tick all boxes, i would be *forced* to agree with you.

And that's our disagreement, right here. I disagree that a "no" answer means we should not do it.

 

Humans have changed nature and went "against" what "is" in nature for millenia. Some of it can be deemed unethical, but absolutely not all -- so the fact that either one of those questions results in a "no" is not an automatic answer about the ethical nature of the question.

 

For that matter, my answers would have been "No" "Yes" and "Yes" and yet that that doesn't necessarily means we need to stop eating meat.

 

Can you survive without a roof over your head? Yes. And yet, it's not unethical to build a house, even though we're covering mother nature's property. It might be unethical to abuse this and go to the extreme -- like destroying rain-forests to build houses.

 

Even if the extreme cases are the unethical ones, they don't mean the entire practice is unethical.

 

Im not totalitarianly vegetarian or vegan, i super impose criteria which if isnt met, make you liable to some level of cruelty.

Yes, but you need to understand that (as many 'ethical' debates go) your opinion is not necessarily the only way to go. I understand what you're saying and I respect it, but you're asking if we should force people to do what you think. The answer, in my opinion, is no.

 

You said at first that you think we should force people because they don't know what they're doing -- IE, they do it because they didn't check or are ignorant and arrogant. I believe my explanations proves this wrong. I believe I proved this wrong by showing you that my disagreement with you stems from my personal interpretations of knowledge, and not just out of some basic emotional "stick to my guns" ideology.

 

So, if there ARE people who can disagree with you without being ignorant or arrogant, who make the decision while still considering ethical standards and still choose to view this ethical dilemma differently and draw slightly different conclusions -- then how is it ethical of you to force your opinions on them?

 

 

Indeed it is, where (in western society, which accounts for alot of the meat production) alternatives exist, animals shouldnt be prematurely killed or kept in captivity (regardless of torture in this case). How would you like an alien to put you in a box your whole life, make you physically or artificially pregnant and then kill your children in front of you? (implying they have a fairly high level of sentience)

You believe animals shouldn't be prematurely killed or kept in captivity. I respect that. I also disagree with it. I think that we need to treat animals with respect and we should not be cruel to them, but I do not think there is anything inherently wrong in continuing what our ancestors did for thousands of years and eat meat.

 

Again, I think you're putting up extremes here, and I'm trying to say that I agree with the extremes -- but I don't think *every* case of meat consumption and production *is* an extreme... does this make more sense?

I blindly refute this, explanation below;

 

In my country (and yours i'd bet), noodles, rice, potato's, eggs, bags of mixed vegetable (home brand stuff) and even the vegetarian alternatives are cheaper, you could even argue that fish are fine given that there not as sentient as mammals. The branded alternatives are more costly, but if everyone on the planet was forced to not eat meat, quorn and other alternatives output would greatly increase and price decrease (in a similar fashion to the way the cost of computing power decreases).

This has a lot to do with education, as I said above. I SLIGHTLY disagree about prices and vegetarian alternatives but that's mostly because of what I see here in New York City. To be perfectly fair, though, in NYC the whole thing about organic and being vegetarian or vegan is this new "fad" so prices also go by that (more "cool" = more expensive). I absolutely concede that my views on this may well be skewed by my personal view.

 

I think the only way to really see if vegetarian alternatives *are* cheaper is to search for research about this or references. I sadly don't have time, if you can do that that'll be great, otherwise I'll try to get into this after this (midterms!) week.

 

But I must just interject with one point still unresolved (and this is what I meant by education) -- even if you do have cheap alternatives, people don't know how to deal with them or what to do with them. And I think you dismissed the taste thing too easily with 'arrogance', which I also disagree with. Taste is acquired, and when people grow up on certain foods, other foods are hard to get used to. I, for instance, can't stand Tofu most of the time even though the food ITSELF is mostly tasteless and depends on how you make it. There are a couple of ways I enjoy it, but relatively few, mostly because the texture is weird to me.

 

I am absolutely aware that this is probably because I am not used to it. So the question remains -- how important is it for me to switch and GET used to it (or any other alternative, I just used tofu as an example). I actually think about this and sometimes when I think that the area I am in only has food I disagree with (either because it's mass produced, or made by companies I know are mistreating the animals, or because it's greesy and disgusting) I will force myself to choose alternates.

 

But I can definitely see why people -- again, especially poor people with multiple children -- can't really get into this. It's more effort than they can normally afford.

 

I'm not saying this as an excuse to why the quest to end meat production is futile -- I'm saying this is why we need to make it an *education* endeavor. If kids grow up to think about these issues, you will get this shift naturally (or at least MORE naturally) and within a generation, we'll have less acceptance of animal cruelty.

 

Look at the fur industry for instance. Less than a generation ago it was the biggest thing ever. Everyone walked around with mink and other furs and it was a rather lucrative status symbol: You had mink fur? You're rich!

 

And then the realization came, the campaigns to educate the public about what it MEANS to have fur. And slowly (but relatively quick, if you think about it) people stopped buying fur, and then started being against fur, and finally started demanding the ban of furs (NEWLY DONE IN EUROPE BTW! Great job on that for the activists!)

 

But at first when it was more of a "ban it!" call, the reaction was opposite; people viewed those callers as extremists and stuck to their guns instead of thinking about it. THAT approach (trying to force people) didn't work. What did work is educating people. It's tougher to achieve -- but it works much better.

 

That aside, for those that are *able* but still decide to eat meat (like everybody when you factor in how UNHEALTHY fast food and cheap meat is), well what then? Your answers on a floor in the slaughter house, or in a battery pen.

Again you go into extreme. You start by introducing people who choose to eat meat, and then group them with people who eat unhealthy. NOT the same thing, my friend. I eat meat, and yet I care about health and check my labels, and make conscious choices about how and where the meat was produced.

 

Beware of extreme generalizations, they tend to shift the argument.

 

The fact that many fast food places treat the animals they slaughter with extreme cruelty (and this should be dealt with) does not mean EVERY meat production place does the same. If we can't agree on that, I am not sure we can continue debating without talking a bit of a different language here.

Your philosophy is flawed, you seem educated enough, but yet still eat meat? until you cut of there nose and put them in a box where they cant even scratch the area there nose used to be, they aint gona change. Some people are happy not knowing what evils lurk in this society; and all for the sake of money that will buy them a new game, pack of cigs, bottle of wine or phone.

First, I'd be much happier if you could respect me the way I respect you and instead of saying that my philosophy is false, say that you disagree with my philosophy. I disagree with yours too, and yet I don't pretend to claim my truth is the absolute one. Ethics and morals are tricky like that. There may be more than one option.

 

The fact is, we both read the same facts and interpret them differently, clearly. In my opinion, you look more at the extreme cases and your solution is to therefore get rid of the entire industry. It may work, but I think it's too extreme. I think that if we deal with the extreme cases, there's no need to paint everything with the same brush. In fact, I would suggest that painting an entire subject with the brush of the extreme cases is a fallacy.

 

It is possible to be two educated rational people and interpret factual data to conclude different moral standing, especially in something that is so rooted in our culture.

 

 

Let's try not to be dismissive to one another. So far, we've been having a good debate about this.

Kids have no choice but to go to school, people are born into a society where they get forced into a prison cell for taking narcotic substances. I didnt get a vote if i wanted to go to school, i didnt vote on whether i should be allowed to grow my own cannabis. NOPE.

The example of kids is flawed, because one can say kids have barely any choice in anything -- their parents choose it for them. So let's stick to adults. You're right, some things we made a decision on that strips choices from people. Those things depend on how we as a society define morals. Sometimes we disagree. Sometimes they're cut and dry. This, quite clearly, is the former case.

 

That said, you do live in a democracy, and while you didn't vote to grow your own cannabis, there absolutely are groups out there who promote and work towards educating the public to eventually open the subject and BE ABLE to vote on this.

 

My point is that I think the meat-consumption business should do the same thing. Educate the public and raise the issue. Increase regulation, increase the outcry for animal cruelty. MAKE THIS a topic that we vote on and insert into our collective morals as a society.

 

But if your claim is that morals are absolute and therefore we need to automatically go by those morals, I must disagree with you vehemently on that. While some morals are clearer than others, some are definitely not. And disagreeing on these morals does not automatically makes a person a bad person, especially if they can sit down and explain the rationale behind their individual choice.

And by this token, to say you *shouldnt* force something upon somebody, when theres a list as long as piece of string that already forces me *not* to do something, or consequently be subjected to capital punishment, is quite ridiculous. How do you know its not human nature (for some humans atleast) to want to be intoxicated with narcotics? and then who are you to take that nature away? Well if that liberty can be taken, so can the liberty of eating meat, even if it is human nature. We cant toxicate our minds, but we can torture animals? Real smooth. (in fact almost every law is human nature, its not illegal to fuck a dog or to eat someone elses shit because that doesnt naturally happen (i hope lol)) This isnt a specific dig at you, just society in general relative to your argument, if your gona debate that people should have a choice, you have to defend the fact they should equally have the choice to grow cannabis or not attend school.

I said I think forcing things on others is morally mirky, and I stand by that statement. I also said that education on morals is much superior to forcing morals. I stand by that too.

 

This whole debate can stretch onwards to geological manipulation by the IMF and the unfair capitalist system, but it must start somewhere, by simply not buying meat you are doing a small and easy part....and if you still eat meat, you shouldnt be......

I think this is a bit of a red herring here, and slight exaggeration. So far we've been debating pleasantly, I think. I enjoy your input and you make me consider many points that I review for my own set of morals. I hope you get the same benefit. That, after all, is the entire point of discussions.

 

~mooey

No point beating that horse anymore. Your faith is quite strong, so, next problem:

Until i can find the data, do you not support the fact that "a bit of bad for the greater good" is not the best solution?

I absolutely do, which is why I think we should stop all cruelty. I just disagree with you that stopping cruelty means stopping meat production.

 

I think our disagreement is more on the "practical" side of things, with a tinge of what we each consider "bad". I don't consider eating animals inherently bad. I consider abusing that in a way that makes these animals suffer needlessly the bad thing. So in my book, meat eating is not bad (not even the "a bit of bad" that would have fit your question above). I consider, instead, that many of the mass-production companies are abusing the system and *they* are the bad. So my thoughts on stopping cruelty don't lead to stopping the consumption of meat...

 

Does this make my point clearer, maybe? I feel like our disagreement is quite subtle, but since the conclusion (in my opinion) is taken to the "far end" then we both stand on "different ends" of the spectrum. Does this make sense?

 

 

Remember this food chain isnt supplying the starving anyway, its supporting the rich and ignorant. The poor still starve, animals still get tortured.

Again, my problem is that you're generalizing torture. Not all animals that are eaten are tortured. Specific companies in specific means of operations torture animals. Not all. I believe those should be stopped, I believe we should make sure people are aware of the severity of this and sanctions should be put in place socially and by the government (with legal action that actually has teeth and with proper regulation) -- but I don't think that we should paint the entire act of meat consumption (or meat production) with the same brush.

 

That is probably where we disagree

 

 

Now, that said, I think I made a mistake giving an extreme example of Africa when I mentioned starving people. The reson this was a mistake is because we end up mishmashing causes; the reasons the people in Africa are starving are not because of meat or cruelty and will not benefit either way, most likely, if we ban meat consumption. Third world countries have a LOT of problems that contribute to the problem of starvation, so if we discuss that, we're bound to go into endless red herrings.

 

What I should have done is given a less extreme example of first world country "poor" who often cannot afford to not eat meat, most of the time as a combination of reasons of both money/effort and education. I think you need to remember that people need to also know what alternatives to buy and how to make it. Unlike meat, which can be rather cheap relative to how filling and nutritious it is. Think of families with 5-6 children... The consideration of whether to put beef or alternatives is mostly money, time, effort *and* knowing how to make it..

 

See, one of my biggest issues in the USA for instance, is that anything veggie is extremely expensive, relative to where I grew up (in Israel, and I know in Europe it's also similarly cheap). For my family in Israel, for instance, we had salad on the table ALL THE TIME. Salad, greens and nuts were not a choice of food, they were constant companions -- so while I specifically (and my family) were omnivors, I do have friends who are vegetarians and being that did not cause them to break their monthly salary or suffer in debt. Also, because Israel is so small, the veggies that you get are FRESH, they're tasty, they're mostly organic anyways (there's a lot more regulation in Israel, partly because it's a social democracy and partly because it's tiny and regulation is easier). When you want to eat veggies without going poor, you CAN DO IT -- without losing quality, too.

 

But that's not quite the case in the USA for some annoying reason. I was completely appalled when I went to the market and an Avocado (which is full of nutrients and good fats) is a friggin dollar fi'ty *each*. If you want quality tomatoes (the kind where you can actually taste tomato, and not just red water) you need to pay 50% more. Same goes to cucumbers which are the bane of my existence in the USA I must admit (I can only eat Kirby or 'persian' cucumbers, and even then, I kinda miss the european ones that have a lot more taste.. american ones taste more watery)

 

Anyways, that was a bit off topic, but I was trying to demonstrate that there is still a bit of an issue here in terms of rich and poor. It's sad, but there's a reason why McDonald's $1 menu works; a poor family of six can feed their children in under 10 dollars with lunch that can fill up those kids. If they want to feed their family with something *healthy* (starting with, say, *fresh meat*) they will have to pay double or triple. Feeding the family fresh veggies and/or meat alternatives will be at least double if not triple.

 

It costs too much for the moment for poor families to afford.

 

So I would be much happier with your initial OP if you'd have changed your idea to say something like "let's make sure the alternatives to meat consumption are CHEAP and HEALTHY and FRESH" -- that will actually give people the proper way to make the choice of whether or not (a) buy meat at all and (b) WORSE: buy meat from the companies that actually do treat animals in horrible cruelty (like McD and its mass-production fellas)

 

Do you see what I mean here? I think the problem is great to discuss when you're *able*. When you have the means to buy the supplements or substitutions that you and your children need in terms of nutrition. When you have the proper education to know what it is you need so you remain healthy through the different diet.

 

Until we have that, I think the issue is a bit unfair to begin with. Of course, that's not to say we need to accept cruelty. I'm *not* saying that. I think we need to fight cruelty (as I said above) relentlessly and make sure companies like those fast food chains are held accountable and made to stop (which they are not at the moment since the regulation has no actual teeth to act.)

 

I hope I'm conveying my point clearly..

 

and to most extents and purposes, the switch can be instantaneous but needs to be forced.

Right, that's the final point I want to make: Even if we lived in a perfect world where everyone could afford any sort of diet and knew how to implement it so their families are also fed and healthy -- I would have still been against forcing people. First, I think history taught us that forcing people doesn't work, on the contrary, it usually just creates further problems. Second, I think the better and MUCH more ethical idea would be to *educate* the public. It would be slower, perhaps, to achieve the final goal, but it would result in a much stabler maintenance of those ethics, and a much happier and more ethical society.

 

~mooey

Im not sure how much pull you can take from the push of animal cruelty, any large scale meat production will at some level have an animal being tortured to some degree, whether you want to debate the animals sentience is still somewhat regardless of its nonexistant freedom and obvious cruelty.

You're making the assumption that *any* meat consumption means animal cruelty -- I disagree with that.

 

I do agree that animal cruelty is a huge problem that should be dealt with. I just don't agree with the conclusion you seem to be making, that seems to be the basis of your idea. That's why I have trouble answering it on a purely ethical level.

The only other argument i could throw down is that in large scale meat production the lifestock feed actually accounts for alot more nutritional value than is harvested from the animal, so you'd possibly be replacing a food deficit with surplus. Wild animals would not be touched, only en-caged animals, rendering large scale animal production useless.

I'm not sure what you're claiming or suggesting here -- are you suggesting we can get more nutrients from animal feed than from the animal itself? If so, I'd like to see some research on that, please.

 

Look, one of the main obstacles we have right now in the world is mass food production for people who are starving. This makes the issue of meat consumption a bit shaky in terms of ethics -- even if I'd have agreed that any sort of meat consumption is cruelty, we still have the problem of finding an alternative because letting children die of starvation is equally as cruel.

 

That said, I do believe we can absolutely find ways to coexist with nature without so horribly abusing it. We can, in my opinion, have a middle ground where we can consume meat without being cruel to the animals we eat.

 

For that matter, if my belief is that humans have evolved to eat meat, then the problem is not so much the meat consumption itself, it is how we choose to do it. I don't think the way our forefathers a couple of millenia ago who hunted for food for their families were cruel to animals. In fact, a lot of cultures have a sort of respect to the animals that fed them, and knew enough to put some caps on the amount they hunt and had respect enough not to waste animal product and not to abuse the animals they either hunted or had in their fields.

 

In my eyes, the problem is mass production, and that's a huge issue we should address with better technology and better regulation. There is absolutely no reason for us to buy "fois gra" knowing that companies who produce it abuse animals horribly. That's not to say *all* meat consumption is bad.

 

I think by saying that since big companies abuse animals it means all meat consumption is bad we are making a leap that is in itself fallacious.

One final issue you raised was creating an *alternative, cost-effective* replacement for meat, im all for it, but to use the idiom i already quoted "what you dont know wont hurt you", basically implying even when cost effective alternatives exist (which do already) people are so set in the way they view meat that they dont or wont even try it, or say its rubbish when they do try it or wont try it through ignorance or arrogance.

I eat meat not because I don't know, but because I am making my own choices. I choose not to eat processed meat because I know how animals are treated. I don't buy fur (in fact, I am actively fighting against that industry) because I know how it's produced. I am actively fighting against "fois gra" because the way 99.99999999% of companies make it is appalling and terrible.

 

I fight for better regulation. I fight to make sure we don't over-hunt or over-fish. I fight against hunting animals that are almost extinct and that's only edible factor is their "novelty" value (like sharks and whales).

 

I fight for higher punishment for companies and individuals who are cruel to animals. I don't see their behavior, however, as an automatic conclusion that I should stop eating meat completely.

 

In that aspect, I make my choice *knowing* my options. I'm not ignorant, and I'm not arrogant.

 

 

 

So to sum up:

 

1. I don't think anyone should make the choice for anyone else.

((Edit/add: let me be a bit clearer; even if I agreed with you that all meat consumption is bad, I would have still advocated that we shoulnd't make choices for others -- I prefer we go at it with education and regulation than force people, which in my view will not solve the problem and will likely create new ones)

2. I don't think this will solve anything other than, perhaps, a small *symptom* of the problem, and even that won't really be effective.

3. I think this actually shifts the efforts away from getting a proper solution against animal cruelty -- since (a) not all meat consumption means cruelty and (b) cruelty to animals is not just in meat consumption.

 

What other options are there?

Not seeing other options doesn't mean we have to go with the option you propose. On top of that, we (you and I) don't necessarily know what the other options may be so we *can't* make that decision. It's a false dichotomy.

 

That said, I think there are other options; better regulations, much-much-much-much higher punishment for animal cruelty (which is not true right now) and development of technology to find non cruelty ways of producing high nutrient food that can replace meat consumption safely and effectively for the entire world.

 

~mooey

I think the bigger issue here is that you will probably take choice away from people who have no other choice.

 

It's one thing to discuss ethics about animals (which is a more complex than that, imho) when you have the means to have alternative food, it's another to do that to people in much more dire need that are unable to purchase or get the alternative. In fact, we have quite a large problem of people who since they don't have access to meat *and* not have access to its alternative, they are quite literally dying of starvation.

 

 

So I'm not entirely sure how to answer this question. It would be unethical to do that if you don't find a solution for these people because it would literally kill them and their children -- because they would have no other choice.

 

In general, by the way, if you look at cases of animal cruelty in humans, those are much more prevalent in *richer* societies where the food is abundant and companies abuse the system and try to produce thousand-time product value for sale.

 

If you go to rural/less-money-driven places (like, on the extreme, Africa) you see animal cruelty for the sake of eating diminish a little bit. People who rely on meat for their survival don't tend to abuse the animals (and yes, I'm generalizing, but I think you can see that general trend over the world). The people who seem to be extremely cruel to animals for meat are larger companies who want to make money faster, cheaper for themselves, and without regard to quality.

 

This type of thing would hurt the wrong people, imho.

 

I think a better solution would be to devise cheaper/better ways to create alternatives to meat so the need to harvest it from living animals is diminished. And while we're doing that, we can make sure that the animals we do eat right now (especially those who have no other choice) are treated with some decency.

I said that there was almost certainly sexual activity between the siblings.

I think you can find older content if you use the advanced search instead. Go there and look for posts by you -- that should give you posts without time limit, if I remember correctly.