Re: Animal rights and sexuality discussion (no connection)
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 2:05 pm
If you want to derail a serious conversation, showing a fruity bikini will do the trick.
The 'Dungeon Master' video games community
https://www.dungeon-master.com/forum/
Sealtiel wrote:I do believe that humans are animals & nothing more or less.
There seems to be quite a contradiction here. You say humans are animals and nothing more, then cite an example of why humans are different.Sealtiel wrote:As a human; I do find fault within myself. That said, nothing in nature is perfect; that's just how it goes. I'm guilty of some things that I wish I weren't, but that's part of what it is to be human.
Are you serious?Giradius wrote:It is capitalist humans.
What Jan said. Destroying the environment in the name of "progress" is hardly unique to capitalism.Giradius wrote:it is not "humanity" that destroys the rainforest to build hotels or grow coffee beans, it is capitalist humans.
Physically, no. Socially, I'd say a great deal.Giradius wrote:Humanity has been civilized for less than 10,000 years we have not evolved much in that time
What "sophisticated instinct" governs art, science, exploration, and so on? What other animal seeks to so fully understand and control its environment? You can try to reduce this to some animal instinct, but then, you can reduce this all to an argument that it's all just neurons firing in brains (or whatever passes for them in lower animals), and from there, you can reduce life itself to something not that special by looking at it all as a chemical process. To do so misses the point entirely.Giradius wrote:Humans are still animals, still have animal drives and instincts, however people seem to be under the impression that humans are more than that, when in reality we just have more acute or sophisticated ways of expressing them.
True, but most of this thread is that.Giradius wrote:nothing but subjective opinion
Giradius wrote:However despite that, I am a vegetarian anyway, and my girlfriend is a vegan
What's the distinction? You also consume milk, eggs, and whatnot? If so, you should probably look into the vegan propaganda about what abuses go on at many dairy and egg farms, before pointing such a stern finger of condemnation. Either that, or make an actual case rather than rely on pompous bombast.Giradius wrote:I cannot understand how people who claim to be well balanced or that they like animals, can eat meat, the question to me seems to be one of "why would you choose to eat food that screams, when you can do just fine without it?"
While I'm not jumping onto the global warming alarmism bandwagon, I'll agree that modern meat production is not particularly environmentally sound. I'll add, though, that modern agriculture in general-- what with the slash and burning, fertilizers, pesticides, and whatnot-- is pretty rough on the environment.Giradius wrote:It can also be said that there is no such thing as a meat eating environmentalist, because meat production generates a huge amount of the carbon emissions that could potentially spell the end of human life on this planet
What "health risks"? Where is the proof of this "fact"? Why has the eating of meat by early humans been so intimately linked with the evolution of intelligence in the first place? The problem isn't meat inherently-- it's that there's a McDonald's on every corner and those animal instincts of ours are strong toward getting food whenever we can. Don't confuse obesity-related health problems with the problems related to eating any particular type of food, though.Giradius wrote:the health risks, the fact that its not especially good for you anyway
This is just a visceral image designed to provoke a negative reaction without really making an intellectual argument-- like when anti-abortionists show gruesome pictures of dead babies rather than make an actual argument.Giradius wrote:the realization you putting decomposing corpse into your mouth.
WOAH there tiger!Are you serious?Giradius wrote:
It is capitalist humans.
I mean, do you think that systems like feudalism (or even communism) were better in that? We just control more power now than ever before (one very heavy tractor possesses more power than all the slaves working on a pyramid at one time). Nothing else.
I never said that it was.Destroying the environment in the name of "progress" is hardly unique to capitalism.
I thought it was pretty clear that the point i was making was that many aspects of human behavior are not unique to humanity!Your talk of "animal nationalism" is valid, but it neglects the matter of scale.
This contradicts something you say later on, and besides, the honey bee lives in hives of upto 40,000 members, you also quite wrong.No animals consciously organize on the level that humans do,
This statement contradicts your previous statement of...This wasn't always the case-- originally, humans were organized in little villages and nobody trusted the village a few miles away.
I am glad we can agree on something.It seems the group of people we consider "our own" is growing wider and broader, ever so slowly (first a village, then a tribe, then a nation, and so on), and this is a good thing, as the more people we can get along with, the less stupid fighting there is.
That's an easy one,What "sophisticated instinct" governs art, science, exploration, and so on?
Any animal that makes a nest!What other animal seeks to so fully understand and control its environment?
I don't think so, life IS just a chemical process, it is one that has some amazing emergent properties (like consciousness) which is why when we call somebody dead when metabolism stops.You can try to reduce this to some animal instinct, but then, you can reduce this all to an argument that it's all just neurons firing in brains (or whatever passes for them in lower animals), and from there, you can reduce life itself to something not that special by looking at it all as a chemical process. To do so misses the point entirely.
Do I?What's the distinction? You also consume milk, eggs, and whatnot?
Propaganda?If so, you should probably look into the vegan propaganda about what abuses go on at many dairy and egg farms, before pointing such a stern finger of condemnation.
Did you read my post?Either that, or make an actual case rather than rely on pompous bombast.
Ha-ha are you a holocaust denier as well?While I'm not jumping onto the global warming alarmism bandwagon,
Agreed, but it seems that intensive farming is here to stay and will get worse, the planet is already overpopulated, and the rate of growth for the worlds population is unsustainable, however you will find few people willing to admit what needs to be done about this.I'll add, though, that modern agriculture in general-- what with the slash and burning, fertilizers, pesticides, and whatnot-- is pretty rough on the environment.
Are you serious?What "health risks"? Where is the proof of this "fact"?
Why do you consider the actions of proto humans to be relevant to the actions of modern industrialized homo sapiens?Why has the eating of meat by early humans been so intimately linked with the evolution of intelligence in the first place?
Er, no, it is meat i'm afraid, simply virtue of its chemical makeup and manufacturing processes.The problem isn't meat inherently-- it's that there's a McDonald's on every corner and those animal instincts of ours are strong toward getting food whenever we can.
I think its fairly well known that the effect of diet on health is based mainly on WHAT you eat, not HOW MUCH, in fact i can eat a ton of celery every day and actually lose weight (because celery contains less calories than it uses to digest), one of the reasons meat is unhealthy is BECAUSE it is fatty and supports obesity.Don't confuse obesity-related health problems with the problems related to eating any particular type of food, though.
Nonsense! it is a statement of fact!This is just a visceral image designed to provoke a negative reaction without really making an intellectual argument-- like when anti-abortionists show gruesome pictures of dead babies rather than make an actual argument.Giradius wrote:
the realization you putting decomposing corpse into your mouth.
That's why I said "consciously." Honey bees, etc. organize on this level, but it's instinctual. There is no clear social evolution, except of course the evolution of their hive structure that goes with the whole other evolutionary process. They haven't put aside their differences and built great honey bee nation-states within the past 4000 years or so. I tried to choose my words carefully, stated "consciously," because I was aware of the situation with bees and ants and I think there's a difference between a conscious effort to build social groups and an instinctual "hive" mentality.Giradius wrote:This contradicts something you say later on, and besides, the honey bee lives in hives of upto 40,000 members, you also quite wrong.
Perhaps I should say "No animals consciously organize on the level that humans do NOW."Giradius wrote:This statement contradicts your previous statement of...
"No animals consciously organize on the level that humans do,"
Tens of thousands of years ago, humans and chimps were both fishing bugs out of trees with sticks. Now humans are building great cities and going to the moon. Chimps are still fishing bugs out of trees with sticks. It doesn't take much to see a difference.Giradius wrote:chimps make use of tools in the wild, this behavior is well known and has been the subject of study.
The animal that builds the nest only cares about shelter. It doesn't want to get rained on; but it doesn't ask why it rains, or wonder if it can predict when it's going to rain tomorrow, or dream up a god that is deciding whether or not it rains, or thinks about maybe someday even building a machine capable of doing that very thing-- controlling whether it rains or not.Giradius wrote:Any animal that makes a nest!
Like I said, when you reduce everything to such simple terms and make coarse distinctions like this you can whitewash right over what makes humans special in the first place.Giradius wrote:If Billy draws a better picture than Mandy, would you say that Mandy is incapable of drawing? would you say that drawing is unique to Billy?
My point was that I was aware of the sorts of the things that go on (such as the ones you cited), and if you're going to make the moral argument, then there's a certain amount of hypocrisy in also consuming milk and eggs. I never assumed you did, that's why I asked-- some people who are "vegetarian" but not "vegan" do, but not all, so I was inquiring.Giradius wrote:Do I?
I was actually referring to one thing, specifically. I'll explain that later on.Giradius wrote:Now who is the pompous bombast?
I mean, come on. Seriously.Giradius wrote:Ha-ha are you a holocaust denier as well?
That's just it. I'm not sure you can. I'm not saying you can't, but I don't know. I'd actually be really interested in this, because it's such an ideologically loaded issue (obviously!), and as such, each side has plenty of scientific evidence of dubious veracity to throw around, and does... it makes me want to figure out what the truth is.Giradius wrote:you can have a completely healthy diet without eating meat AT ALL
Sorry, I'm American, that number is meaningless to me-- we have enough trouble with logical units like kilograms, forget crazy ones like stone.Giradius wrote:I also mentioned that I am 17 stone, which hardly suggests a weakness finding food.
Sure. But you can eat potatoes deep fried in vegetable oil and get fat, too. Or drink gallons of high fructose corn syrup. Or, well... you get the idea.Giradius wrote:one of the reasons meat is unhealthy is BECAUSE it is fatty and supports obesity.
It's a statement of fact that is utterly irrelevant. Plant matter decomposes, too. Nothing you said was wrong, but everything we eat is slowly rotting. Slowly enough that we don't get sick if we eat it promptly, but the fact remains. Meat rots, plants rot too. All it's designed to do, like I said, is create a visceral image without really making any intellectual argument, because it applies to everything.Giradius wrote:Nonsense! it is a statement of fact!
You read far too much into it because I was making reference to very specific things. To me, a phrase like "why would you choose to eat food that screams" is nothing but pompous bombast. A statement like "putting decomposing corpse in your mouth" is a visceral image, not an intellectual argument. You seem to have taken it as a general attack on your post and you personally and upped the vitriol accordingly, but it wasn't meant that way at all-- let's keep things at least moderately civil, please.Giradius wrote:I don't find phrases like pompous bombast, and the accusation that my points lack intelligence to be especially pleasing on my first posts, however i will try and refrain from making snap judgements until i know people a little better.
I do know what you mean, I got my label of "concise and honest" for a reason, too.Giradius wrote:I enjoy vigorous debate, I don't mind bluntness
But we WILL quote you on that.Paul Stevens wrote:I think I better shut up.
Yeah, me too.Paul Stevens wrote:I think I better shut up.
I did stick to the facts!Giradius, please stick to the facts and refrain from reactionary personal attacks.
If I found Sophia's reply measured and civil, do you think I would have replied in the way that I did?Sophia's original arguments to your first response were, in the main, measured and civil.
Where was the insult? I genuinely did not see a single one.If you continue to throw unfounded insults at people, your posting priveleges will be rescinded
I had noticed the "consciously" part, however this does prompt me to ask why you consider society building as a learned behavior to be preferential to instinctive society building?That's why I said "consciously." Honey bees, etc. organize on this level, but it's instinctual.
I don't think humanity is any different, mankind is placed firmly on the same phylogenetic branch as the other great apes, our social systems are more complex and sophisticated, but essentially the same basic phenomenon are observed, protectiveness of offspring, reciprocal altruism, and like I posted before even charity and nationalism have their parallels elsewhere in the animal kingdom, there are even animals that practice commerce AND prostitution.There is no clear social evolution, except of course the evolution of their hive structure that goes with the whole other evolutionary process.
That's true, but why would you expect them to?They haven't put aside their differences and built great honey bee nation-states within the past 4000 years or so.
I disagree, social insects simply have precise instructions on what kind of society to build, this society seems to have served them perfectly well over the years, the same cannot be said of humanity.I tried to choose my words carefully, stated "consciously," because I was aware of the situation with bees and ants and I think there's a difference between a conscious effort to build social groups and an instinctual "hive" mentality.
But this fails to address the possibility that mankind may simply be the first species to develop sufficient intelligence to do so, and also places a bias on conscious behavior over unconscious, it also ignores the fact that humans have not always consciously organized on the level that we do now."No animals consciously organize on the level that humans do,"
Perhaps I should say "No animals consciously organize on the level that humans do NOW."
Agreed, but i would not expect to see social evolution in a species that knows instinctively how to organise itself, there is simply no evolutionary pressure to drive such adaptation, if the hive structure works well for the bee, and there is no evolutionary pressure against it, then there is nothing for evolution to work on.Proto-humans were fairly disorganized. Village-dwelling early humans were a little more organized. However, during this time, ants and bees stayed pretty much the same. My point was simply that humans have expanded the level they're (we're?) able to organize on, showing, to me, a clear social evolution.
And a chimp would be justified to think "what's the point of that? are there bananas on the moon?":PTens of thousands of years ago, humans and chimps were both fishing bugs out of trees with sticks.Giradius wrote:
chimps make use of tools in the wild, this behavior is well known and has been the subject of study.
Now humans are building great cities and going to the moon.
And also bashing open nuts with rocks (which they were not doing before) and what's more, different groups of chimps are bashing open nuts in different ways, they are each arriving at their various methods independently of each other.Chimps are still fishing bugs out of trees with sticks. It doesn't take much to see a difference.
which was the same reason that proto-humans built dwellings! again it may simply be that we are the first species to master construction, and besides, some of the feats of animal engineering are on a par with our own, bees were using hexagonal cells while we were still using round barrels, spider silk has amazing tensile strength, and the dams built by beavers are impressive.The animal that builds the nest only cares about shelter.Giradius wrote:
Any animal that makes a nest!
what would be the point? could it stop the rain if it knew? is there a selection pressure that prompts the development of meteorology in the animal kingdom?.It doesn't want to get rained on; but it doesn't ask why it rains,
Some animals actually CAN predict rain. Cows I think, and some species of birds.or wonder if it can predict when it's going to rain tomorrow,
That is a actually an argument in favour of animals, I can think of fewer developments in human history, more damaging than the invention of religion.or dream up a god that is deciding whether or not it rains,
But humans are not special, they are intelligent, and mighty, and wonderful in many ways, gifted yes, but unique? not really, we still do animal things, still indulge in animal behavior, we just do it better than many other animals.Like I said, when you reduce everything to such simple terms and make coarse distinctions like this you can whitewash right over what makes humans special in the first place.Giradius wrote:
If Billy draws a better picture than Mandy, would you say that Mandy is incapable of drawing? would you say that drawing is unique to Billy?
I wouldn't make a purely moral argument anyway, morality is subjective, and a subjective viewpoint is NOT a strong position for a debate.My point was that I was aware of the sorts of the things that go on (such as the ones you cited), and if you're going to make the moral argument, then there's a certain amount of hypocrisy in also consuming milk and eggs.Giradius wrote:
Do I?
No problem.I never assumed you did, that's why I asked-- some people who are "vegetarian" but not "vegan" do, but not all, so I was inquiring.
yeah seriously!Ha-ha are you a holocaust denier as well?
I mean, come on. Seriously.
Maybe next time then eh, I missed the creationism Vs Evolution debate, that would have been fun.Anyway, I don't want to get too deep into global warming stuff not because it isn't interesting or because I don't have points to make but because my views on it are complicated and this thread is already full of contention and controversy, and these replies are long enough.
Well I tell you what, lets ask somebody who knows, maybe a vegetarian.That's just it. I'm not sure you can. I'm not saying you can't, but I don't know.Giradius wrote:
you can have a completely healthy diet without eating meat AT ALL
Well my old professor once told me "People use statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support rather than for illumination".I'd actually be really interested in this, because it's such an ideologically loaded issue (obviously!), and as such, each side has plenty of scientific evidence of dubious veracity to throw around, and does... it makes me want to figure out what the truth is.
Crazy...or just different?Sorry, I'm American, that number is meaningless to me-- we have enough trouble with logical units like kilograms, forget crazy ones like stone.Giradius wrote:
I also mentioned that I am 17 stone, which hardly suggests a weakness finding food.
That's a good point!Sure. But you can eat potatoes deep fried in vegetable oil and get fat, too. Or drink gallons of high fructose corn syrup. Or, well... you get the idea.Giradius wrote:
one of the reasons meat is unhealthy is BECAUSE it is fatty and supports obesity.
Don't you think it's fair to say vegetarians tend to be healthier because to make that choice implies a certain degree of diet-consciousness which would then carry over into all food choices?
No its not, it was relevant because as i said previously all it served to do was highlight my own personal distaste at the thought of eating meat.It's a statement of fact that is utterly irrelevant.Giradius wrote:
Nonsense! it is a statement of fact!
Of course, but that doesn't bother me, as i said I never claimed plant matter didn't decay, merely that i found the idea of eating flesh unpleasant.Plant matter decomposes, too. Nothing you said was wrong, but everything we eat is slowly rotting. Slowly enough that we don't get sick if we eat it promptly, but the fact remains.
I'm new so I will give the benefit of the doubt.You read far too much into it because I was making reference to very specific things.Giradius wrote:
I don't find phrases like pompous bombast, and the accusation that my points lack intelligence to be especially pleasing on my first posts, however i will try and refrain from making snap judgements until i know people a little better.
Yet to me, it is a valid question!To me, a phrase like "why would you choose to eat food that screams" is nothing but pompous bombast.
It was meant to be visceral, if it evoked disgust in you, then it did its job of showing how I feel about it, that IS how i feel when i see somebody eating chicken.A statement like "putting decomposing corpse in your mouth" is a visceral image, not an intellectual argument.
As I said, I reserve judgement, and your reply shows I was correct to do so.You seem to have taken it as a general attack on your post and you personally and upped the vitriol accordingly, but it wasn't meant that way at all-
Maybe we got off on the wrong foot, I am new here don't forget, and so my defences are up.- let's keep things at least moderately civil, please.
Both excellent qualities, I like to think I am honest (maybe a bit too honest at times), although I can tell from looking at this thread that I am NOT concise :pI do know what you mean, I got my label of "concise and honest" for a reason, too.
No, all that I was saying was that humans' social behavior has changed over the past few thousand years, while that of most other animals has not. It wasn't meant to say that learned social behavior was somehow superior to instinctual, merely that we have shown definite social evolution over that time period where other animals (see, "other animals," I have no problem with the notion that humans are animals too) have not.Giradius wrote:That's true, but why would you expect them to?
This a very humanocentric viewpoint, it sounds like you are saying that the only demonstrable intelligence must result in human behavior.
This is just them seeing a familiar genetic marker in another colony. In a way it's like humans of one race all banding together. I'm not sure if this is good.Giradius wrote:And anyway, ants have, its called unicoloniality, multiple ant colonies merging to form a larger colony yet retaining their "family" groups.
It's not an "achievement" at all. The insect doesn't understand the physics involved. It didn't see a need and try to solve a problem. Natural selection led to a solution to the problem, sure, but there was no ingenuity on the part of the insect. It wasn't as though some brilliant ant or bee figured it out herself.Giradius wrote:Imagine a hypothetical insect, that creates a simple solar heating unit for its nurseries, the physics involved in this heater are every bit as complex as a heater built by humans, why does the fact that the insect know how to build this structure instinctively make it less of an achievement?
With the key difference, as before, they don't understand why.Giradius wrote:some of the feats of animal engineering are on a par with our own, bees were using hexagonal cells while we were still using round barrels, spider silk has amazing tensile strength, and the dams built by beavers are impressive
You're right that it has led to a lot of violence and hatred, but then, I'd say religion was also instrumental in the creation of civilization in the first place. It's also pretty much an inevitable result when you have people that start asking "why." They all have their own version of "why" of course, and that's when the trouble starts.Giradius wrote:That is a actually an argument in favour of animals, I can think of fewer developments in human history, more damaging than the invention of religion.
Well, sure, but deciding that there was no intention is a religious view, too. Atheism is a religious view.Giradius wrote:However this can backfire where you see intention where there was none, and so when primitive man went about his daily life, he began to wonder about whose intention it was that the sun comes up everyday.
I think this is the fundamental thing we disagree on, because, while I agree that much of what humans do is still motivated by instinct, I see a lot of progress in overcoming some of the more damaging instincts, too. We probably won't ever agree on this one so I don't think I have much else to say about it.Giradius wrote:But humans are not special, they are intelligent, and mighty, and wonderful in many ways, gifted yes, but unique? not really, we still do animal things, still indulge in animal behavior, we just do it better than many other animals.
Sure. I actually agree with you, there. I said I didn't want to jump on the alarmism bandwagon, while I do accept a lot of the science. I think maybe part of the problem is that anyone who shows the least bit of skepticism is immediately flipped out upon and accused of being akin to a holocaust denier. It tends to shut down rational discussion.Giradius wrote:Global warming is a scientific fact
So don't, then.Giradius wrote:I dont live in the US so i cant comment
You're right about statistics, but I think it's fair to say it's a logical fallacy to say "it works for me so it can work for anyone," because everyone's different. I'm not sure what the long-term health effects are, positive or negative. This page says "the health of Western vegetarians is good and similar to that of comparable non-vegetarians." Maybe it's that simple.Giradius wrote:Well my old professor once told me "People use statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support rather than for illumination".
In my views, its a pretty open and close case, I am a vegetarian, i am in good health
Not really. It suggests that people who think about what they eat may choose vegetarianism, whereas people who don't really think about what they eat won't choose it because it's not something in the "cultural norm." It'd be interesting to see how this plays out in a culture like India where vegetarianism is a cultural norm even among people who don't particularly think about what they eat-- they do eat a lot of fatty deep fried snacks and drink sugary pop, for example.Giradius wrote:But doesn't this also suggest that vegetarianism is the choice made by people who actually think about what they eat?
I don't know, if you forget about a cabbage and it gets that rotting cabbage smell, while the ends of the leaves get all liquidy and start turning into slime, it's pretty nasty.Giradius wrote:In fact I offer you a challenge, try to create the same distaste and revulsion as i did with my sentence but instead using the word carrot, or potato or cabbage.
You are referring to humanity as a collective, which is not accurate because humanity does not live as a collective (which is in my view one of our biggest drawbacks).No, all that I was saying was that humans' social behavior has changed over the past few thousand years, while that of most other animals has not.
I agree with that, but its not really saying much.It wasn't meant to say that learned social behavior was somehow superior to instinctual, merely that we have shown definite social evolution over that time period where other animals (see, "other animals," I have no problem with the notion that humans are animals too) have not.
And your evidence for this what?I'd say religion was also instrumental in the creation of civilization in the first place.
Well its like any other ideology that divides people into "us" and "them", this is another manifestation of human tribalism, in europe we have football (soccer) hooligans, who organise miniature wars against supporters of different football teams.It's also pretty much an inevitable result when you have people that start asking "why." They all have their own version of "why" of course, and that's when the trouble starts.
Oh not this old chestnut again!Atheism is a religious view.
The reason for this is that both activities amount to the same thing, the denial of evidence based facts or ideas which are important.I think maybe part of the problem is that anyone who shows the least bit of skepticism is immediately flipped out upon and accused of being akin to a holocaust denier.
I can imagine, from what I have heard, his dad was not much better.For what it's worth, I didn't vote for George W. Bush and plenty of others didn't either. We were as sick of his crap as everyone else. Probably more so because we live here.
The use of controversy seems to be something that happens a lot, wasn't one of the creationism in science lessons slogans "teach the controversy", the annoying thing is that there is NO controversy on the subject, and people with agendas simply try to make it appear that there IS a controversy.I personally can't stand Bush and others using any controversy (real or invented) about global warming as an excuse to completely push aside all forms of environmentalism.
Its not a logical fallacy because the claim I am making is biological in nature and supported by empirical evidence.You're right about statistics, but I think it's fair to say it's a logical fallacy to say "it works for me so it can work for anyone," because everyone's different.
[/quote]I don't know, if you forget about a cabbage and it gets that rotting cabbage smell, while the ends of the leaves get all liquidy and start turning into slime, it's pretty nasty.
This is just them seeing a familiar genetic marker in another colony. In a way it's like humans of one race all banding together. I'm not sure if this is good.Giradius wrote:
And anyway, ants have, its called unicoloniality, multiple ant colonies merging to form a larger colony yet retaining their "family" groups.
yet the problem was overcome anyway, again this suggests you have a bias toward conscious over unconscious behavior.It's not an "achievement" at all. The insect doesn't understand the physics involved. It didn't see a need and try to solve a problem.why does the fact that the insect know how to build this structure instinctively make it less of an achievement?
neither do many humans, most people don't understand how their television works, despite using one everyday.With the key difference, as before, they don't understand why.Giradius wrote:
some of the feats of animal engineering are on a par with our own, bees were using hexagonal cells while we were still using round barrels, spider silk has amazing tensile strength, and the dams built by beavers are impressive
Well its like any other ideology that divides people into "us" and "them", this is another manifestation of human tribalism, in europe we have football (soccer) hooligans, who organise miniature wars against supporters of different football teams.It's also pretty much an inevitable result when you have people that start asking "why." They all have their own version of "why" of course, and that's when the trouble starts.
Not this old chestnut again :pAtheism is a religious view.
The reason for this is that both activities amount to the same thing, the denial of evidence based facts or ideas which are important.I think maybe part of the problem is that anyone who shows the least bit of skepticism is immediately flipped out upon and accused of being akin to a holocaust denier.
I can imagine, from what I have heard, his dad was not much better.For what it's worth, I didn't vote for George W. Bush and plenty of others didn't either. We were as sick of his crap as everyone else. Probably more so because we live here.
The use of controversy seems to be something that happens a lot, wasn't one of the creationism in science lessons slogans "teach the controversy", the annoying thing is that there is NO controversy on the subject, and people with agendas simply try to make it appear that there IS a controversy.I personally can't stand Bush and others using any controversy (real or invented) about global warming as an excuse to completely push aside all forms of environmentalism.
Its not a logical fallacy because the claim I am making is biological in nature and supported by empirical evidence.You're right about statistics, but I think it's fair to say it's a logical fallacy to say "it works for me so it can work for anyone," because everyone's different.
The slime bit was quite nasty, and the smell is pretty vile but it seems harder to evoke a visceral feeling of revulsion using vegetables to that which you can do with meat.I don't know, if you forget about a cabbage and it gets that rotting cabbage smell, while the ends of the leaves get all liquidy and start turning into slime, it's pretty nasty.
You can still look at the trends affecting humanity as a whole. I'm not trying to say everyone's the same here; some humans have evolved, so you're adding it to the "average," as it were. I didn't necessarily mean everyone had evolved in the same way or to the same degree.Giradius wrote:You are referring to humanity as a collective, which is not accurate because humanity does not live as a collective
My only point is that it wasn't. By the way, you just referred to "humans" as a collective.Giradius wrote:How is that different from what humans have done?
Then you should know that you can get better results when you actually understand what's going on. Numerous studies have been done involving animals that instinctively know how to build something or other, and it's always found that they're not very good at all at adapting that knowledge to a different purpose. If you instinctively know, like a beaver, how to build a dam, then you can build dams, but you're never going to figure out-- because the knowledge isn't in the realm of conscious thought-- how to adapt your knowledge of making watertight wood structures to build a boat. The technology may exist, but it's inflexible.Giradius wrote:yet the problem was overcome anyway, again this suggests you have a bias toward conscious over unconscious behavior.
Maybe I am a bit of a utilitarian, but as far as I am concerned its results that matter
That's the thing, though. If we're talking about the birth of civilization, religion was the source of morality. Back in the ancient past, they didn't have Adam Smith or Karl Marx. They didn't have the US Constitution. They didn't have the scientific method. What they did have was religion. They had Hammurabi's code, the Ten Commandments, and so on. In these societies, either the king was god (Egypt) or the king was appointed by god (China), and so on... This was all well and good because convincing the people that god(s) would punish them if they stepped out of line was a great tool for keeping people in line, but that did also allow order to take hold. Living in our secular world with the benefits of our modern sciences, we tend to forget that for a long time, there was pretty much nothing else and this stuff was real.Giradius wrote:Statements like this are a short step away from "Religion is the source of morality" type arguments.
I'd say that anyone making an unprovable statement based on faith, whether that faith is in one god, many gods, or the absence of any of them, is holding a "religious belief." By your definitions, this would include the strong variety of atheism, but not the weak one, I guess. Interestingly, I've noticed most people (at least around here) who call themselves "atheists" (most of which professing the complete absence of any sort of god-- that is, strong atheism) are more against the Jewish/Christian/Islamic concept of "God" rather than actually not believing in any sort of god of any kind.Giradius wrote:Atheism is a philosophical standpoint, which is not the same as a religious belief.
The right wing here tends to endorse some completely unscientific nonsense. That annoys me. However, the ones who continually fail to tell the difference between this and any skepticism at all and want to just tar and feather everyone who dissents in any way whatsoever as "one of them" aren't adding anything to the discussion either. Name-calling and invective will just shut down discussion, not change any minds. In fact, all it'll do is bolster the opposition.Giradius wrote:The reason for this is that both activities amount to the same thing, the denial of evidence based facts or ideas which are important.
Which claim? If it's that you can eat a nutritionally complete diet without any meat, then, in the Western world, sure, probably. Another difference is what food is actually available, so, in the developing world, I'd wonder about protein sources.Giradius wrote:the claim I am making is biological in nature and supported by empirical evidence. Everybody is different, but not that different! human nutritional requirements are fairly standard