Political Crossfire Forums

[Selfish_Meme]

But then isn't there a place for consistency in morals, otherwise the laws we derive from them would be quite bizarre, not that they aren't now but even more bizarre. At what point do we say this is moral for the majority?

[Canada_Rocks]

Selfish_Meme wrote: But then isn't there a place for consistency in morals, otherwise the laws we derive from them would be quite bizarre, not that they aren't now but even more bizarre. At what point do we say this is moral for the majority?

Well obviously. Like i said with that "genocide" example. Humans in a particular region with similar stimuli tend to for a moral average. This helps us make laws. A good exaple to prove this would be religion and atheists. Religious people get additional stimuli for their "society" therefore they might think abortion is immoral, when certain athiest might think it is perfectly legitamite.

Have you ever heard of the statement when somebody is refering to a worn torn country that "life is cheap there". Many people in those countries lack the moral stimuli to understand that killing is wrong. Now don't get me wrong, the human species have these morals built into us in one way or another. We are a communal species meaning we live in packs, society or groups in order to surve, therefore, killing eachother would cause tention in the group. there are some genetic traits that provide morals to us.

[Selfish_Meme]

I understand what you are saying, there is also the evolution of morals. We don't come into the world with a fully fledged set of morals. I would think that many of our morals should be open to reasoning and rational debate. Otherwise we may hold views that are inconsistent with a real world view. Isn't that what we do here in this forum test our underpinnings for their rationality?

[XiangYu]

I heard someone once coin the Phrase "Society's Evolving Sense of Decency" when talking about the morality of such issues as butchering/killing animals and aborting fetuses....

[revolution_reversal]

Selfish_Meme wrote: revolution_reversal wrote: As for the dude above me, you are hopeless, they used the term tropism that means its different. They don't react to stimuli like an animal does. Plants are not animals, they can't fear or react like an animal can. Lets keep in mind that these are two scientifically different kingdoms in the natural world here people. You ever wonder why plant biology and animal biology is alway separate?
Well ad hominem and all your argument still doesn't stand up, you are saying that its system of feeling is different therefore it isn't sentient, which is rubbish. If we knew an alien species that are intelligent and they don't have central nervous systems, then you would be a specist, just as bad as a racist. Plants can and do shy from bad stimuli, loud noise and stuff. Just because they do it at a much slower rate does not invalidate the response.

By the way Gobu, one definition of sentient is to feel, not only conciousness.

I'd like you to present me with sourced evidence then please. that shows your assertions about plants.

[mathurin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_plant_movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimosa_pudica
The Sensitive plant (Mimosa pudica L.) is a creeping annual or perennial herb often grown for its curiosity value: the compound leaves fold inward and droop when touched, re-opening within minutes

[Selfish_Meme]

revolution_reversal wrote:
I'd like you to present me with sourced evidence then please. that shows your assertions about plants.
I did look on page 2

[GTTofAK]

Gogo Yubari wrote: GTTofAK wrote:
But you cant get all your fatty acids and there is the rub.

Are you serious?

Food Sources:
Whole wheat
Brown Rice
Soy
Fresh Seeds
Salmon
Cod

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art3221.asp

Salmon and cod are not part of a vegan diet. It is a fact that certain fatty acids are absent in the vegan diet. Most notably DHA and EPA. Blood levels of both are low in both vegetarians and vegans.

Gogo Yubari wrote: Quote: But millions of people think a vegan diet is healthy.

That's becasue it is healthy.

You know what rhymes with healthy? Hyperbole. Please don't waste my time. Vegetarians point to health metrics that are used for the omnivorous population and say "hey look at use we have lower risks factors for those" Big whoop. Just because the standard health metrics are based around an omnivorous diet does not mean that a vegan/vegetarian diet does not have problems of its own. Sure you may be less likely to develop clogging of the arteries(mind you its less than 1%) but you are more likely to have damage ot your nurvious system of years and years of depriving your nervous system fo the nutrients it needs, which can stop your heart just as easy as a blockage.

Gogo Yubari wrote: Quote: Someone made an interesting case once that vegans, and vegetarians are so annoying because their bodies are starving for meat, or more specifically the nutrients found in meat.

Vegans are annoying because they prove that you don't need to eat meat, and people that do eat meat can do nothing but throw baseless claims and insults at them without being able to back them up.

You know damn well that vegans and vegetarians tend to be deficient in many nutrients. Got to any vegan website and just look at all the hoops you have to jump through to get that diet to even come close working.

Someone could eat the perfect omnivore diet and get 100% of the nutrition they need. But that probably isn't going to happen. However, someone cannot eat a perfect vegan diet. You will be deficient in some the the nutrients you need no matter how hard you try and supplement. You simple cannot get EPA and certain other fatty acids from anything other than meat products. But just like omnivore the odds are that the average vegan isn't going to eat a perfect diet either. So in the end which is worse?


Gogo Yubari wrote: Quote: Now before you pipe up remember that despite the possibility of supplementing many of these few do. In most studies I have read the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are deficient in B-12, and various fatty acids. Basically while its possible to travel back in time its not easy.

The studies are full of it. I have just prven that fatty acides come from Wheat and rice, something that vegans eat a lot of.

Not all fatty acids come from Wheat and rice. Some are only found in animal products.

Gogo Yubari wrote: Quote: The standard response of any predator when they are deficient in the nutrients is aggression.

Umm, it is the people who eat meat that are agressive. Look at this thread and see for yourself.

When was I getting aggressive. I just wanted to have a debate. If anything you are proving my point for me.

[Stone Phillips]

:lol:

[XiangYu]

Stone Phillips wrote: :lol:

:lol:
:lol:


:-D
:-D


:-D
:-D

[Canada_Rocks]

GTTofAK wrote:

Salmon and cod are not part of a vegan diet. It is a fact that certain fatty acids are absent in the vegan diet. Most notably DHA and EPA. Blood levels of both are low in both vegetarians and vegans.

Salmon and cod aren't the only items on the list.

so I say prove your claim.

Quote:

You know what rhymes with healthy? Hyperbole. Please don't waste my time. Vegetarians point to health metrics that are used for the omnivorous population and say "hey look at use we have lower risks factors for those" Big whoop. Just because the standard health metrics are based around an omnivorous diet does not mean that a vegan/vegetarian diet does not have problems of its own. Sure you may be less likely to develop clogging of the arteries(mind you its less than 1%) but you are more likely to have damage ot your nurvious system of years and years of depriving your nervous system fo the nutrients it needs, which can stop your heart just as easy as a blockage.

Thanks for that one.

Quote:
You know damn well that vegans and vegetarians tend to be deficient in many nutrients. Got to any vegan website and just look at all the hoops you have to jump through to get that diet to even come close working.

Prove it.

Quote: Someone could eat the perfect omnivore diet and get 100% of the nutrition they need. But that probably isn't going to happen. However, someone cannot eat a perfect vegan diet. You will be deficient in some the the nutrients you need no matter how hard you try and supplement. You simple cannot get EPA and certain other fatty acids from anything other than meat products. But just like omnivore the odds are that the average vegan isn't going to eat a perfect diet either. So in the end which is worse?

You are going to have to prove that fatty acid thing.




Quote: Not all fatty acids come from Wheat and rice. Some are only found in animal products.

You know man, you can just prve this fatty acide case of yours instead of preaching about it with no facts.

Quote:

When was I getting aggressive. I just wanted to have a debate. If anything you are proving my point for me.

That fact that you are on the offensive demonstrates agression. All I am doing is defending a lifestyle.

[revolution_reversal]

GTTofAK wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: GTTofAK wrote:
But you cant get all your fatty acids and there is the rub.

Are you serious?

Food Sources:
Whole wheat
Brown Rice
Soy
Fresh Seeds
Salmon
Cod

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art3221.asp

Salmon and cod are not part of a vegan diet. It is a fact that certain fatty acids are absent in the vegan diet. Most notably DHA and EPA. Blood levels of both are low in both vegetarians and vegans.

Gogo Yubari wrote: Quote: But millions of people think a vegan diet is healthy.

That's becasue it is healthy.

You know what rhymes with healthy? Hyperbole. Please don't waste my time. Vegetarians point to health metrics that are used for the omnivorous population and say "hey look at use we have lower risks factors for those" Big whoop. Just because the standard health metrics are based around an omnivorous diet does not mean that a vegan/vegetarian diet does not have problems of its own. Sure you may be less likely to develop clogging of the arteries(mind you its less than 1%) but you are more likely to have damage ot your nurvious system of years and years of depriving your nervous system fo the nutrients it needs, which can stop your heart just as easy as a blockage.

Gogo Yubari wrote: Quote: Someone made an interesting case once that vegans, and vegetarians are so annoying because their bodies are starving for meat, or more specifically the nutrients found in meat.

Vegans are annoying because they prove that you don't need to eat meat, and people that do eat meat can do nothing but throw baseless claims and insults at them without being able to back them up.

You know damn well that vegans and vegetarians tend to be deficient in many nutrients. Got to any vegan website and just look at all the hoops you have to jump through to get that diet to even come close working.

Someone could eat the perfect omnivore diet and get 100% of the nutrition they need. But that probably isn't going to happen. However, someone cannot eat a perfect vegan diet. You will be deficient in some the the nutrients you need no matter how hard you try and supplement. You simple cannot get EPA and certain other fatty acids from anything other than meat products. But just like omnivore the odds are that the average vegan isn't going to eat a perfect diet either. So in the end which is worse?


Gogo Yubari wrote: Quote: Now before you pipe up remember that despite the possibility of supplementing many of these few do. In most studies I have read the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are deficient in B-12, and various fatty acids. Basically while its possible to travel back in time its not easy.

The studies are full of it. I have just prven that fatty acides come from Wheat and rice, something that vegans eat a lot of.

Not all fatty acids come from Wheat and rice. Some are only found in animal products.

Gogo Yubari wrote: Quote: The standard response of any predator when they are deficient in the nutrients is aggression.

Umm, it is the people who eat meat that are agressive. Look at this thread and see for yourself.

When was I getting aggressive. I just wanted to have a debate. If anything you are proving my point for me.

Info on fatty acids from plants:
http://www.andrews.edu/NUFS/essentialfat.htm
http://www.cyberlipid.org/fa/acid0001.htm
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n6/full/nbt0604-680.html
http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/omega3s_from_plants.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11997456&dopt=Citation
for more sources in google type "fatty acids from plants"

Okay, here's a point of logic for you, Omnivores means we CAN eat both plants and animals, it doesn't mean we have to, nor need to. As I have shown with the above, your only specific claim has been rebuttaled by an academic source.

You didn't even know which "meat" that claim was in reference to, the old claim was about fish, however the above proves it is not true. So quit this game. Do a little f***ing research before you post.

[Canada_Rocks]

I am pretty sure GTTofAK will be back with proof.....

maybe not.

[GTTofAK]

revolution_reversal wrote:
Info on fatty acids from plants:
http://www.andrews.edu/NUFS/essentialfat.htm
http://www.cyberlipid.org/fa/acid0001.htm
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n6/full/nbt0604-680.html
http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/omega3s_from_plants.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11997456&dopt=Citation
for more sources in google type "fatty acids from plants"

Perhaps you should read your own links.

First Link wrote: Vegetarians and vegans have no direct sources of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (long chain omega-3 fatty acids) in the diet

Second Link wrote: Several hundreds of forms have been identified but the number occurring frequently in the common lipids is much fewer (from 10 in plants to about 20 in animal tissues).......

Third Link wrote: Long-chain (LC) polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) are vital for human health. Until now, fish and other marine oils have been the only dietary source of LCPUFAs.

All higher plants synthesize the main C18-PUFAs, linoleic acid and -linolenic acid, and in some cases stearidonic acid (C18:4), but none are able to further elongate and desaturate these to produce arachidonic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid.

Of course what I like best about this one is that it is an argument for GM foods. In other words introducing animal DNA into plants. To get the plants to process linoleic acid.

Of course they don't mention that these have to be animal genes. Scients cannot engineer genes. They have to take them from nature and the only genes that can do this come from animals. So this article is playing on your ignorance to begin with.

Of course this is all mute because there is no way in hell vegans are going to go for GM food. They hate it right now.

Link 4 is more of the same trying to pass off the bodies ability to synthesize some long chain fatty acids from short chains is more smoke in mirrors. Everyone knows that the body simply does not conver enough.

Link 5 more GM food.

revolution_reversal wrote: Okay, here's a point of logic for you, Omnivores means we CAN eat both plants and animals, it doesn't mean we have to, nor need to. As I have shown with the above, your only specific claim has been rebuttaled by an academic source.

No omnivores cannot. If it wasn't for modernscinece vegan diets would be suicide. It is only modern science that makes the diet even tolerable. You admit this yourselves.

revolution_reversal wrote: You didn't even know which "meat" that claim was in reference to, the old claim was about fish, however the above proves it is not true. So quit this game. Do a little f***ing research before you post.

Wrong Long-chain fatty acids are found in all meat including DHA and EPA. You should be able to infer this from the links you posted. But your brain must not working at its best due to its lack fatty acids.

[jasonireland]

Demonic Spoon wrote: I am against animal cruelty...but my view is this. If an animal can furfill the responsabilities that come with rights, they can get them. Since they cannot, they have little/no rights.

stop recycling yesterdays thrash and start coming up with an original idea that has not been already disproved through thorugh philosophical investigation in many, many books you have yet to read.

[forthegreatergood]

Wayne L. wrote: Former Baywatch babe Pamela Anderson will be making a fool out of herself again in the name of PETA on FNC like most animal rights activists because she's not going back to the Kentucky Derby since it's asssociated with KFC. Anybody who takes what PA says seriously has got to be an idiot in the first place when it comes to her trying to save chickens & trying to ruin Kentucky Fried Chicken since her last big moment as a star & sex symbol was when she was married to Motley Crue drummer Tommy Lee. Extreme animal rights activists like Anderson, Sir Paul McCartney & others who support PETA are out of their minds mentally since I don't care if they want to be vegatarians & love animals because I love animals as well but I eat meat along with my vegetables & proud of it so eat at KFC for freedom of choice & for animal lovers everywhere.

Yeah, you love animals, thats why you contribute to their murder and eat them.

[forthegreatergood]

Demonic Spoon wrote: I am against animal cruelty...but my view is this. If an animal can furfill the responsabilities that come with rights, they can get them. Since they cannot, they have little/no rights.

Responsibilities that come with rights...Such as vegetarian animals, like gorillas, who do not eat flesh? Or a human who eats creatures when they can survive very well without killing, such as 9 time olympic athlete and past world record holder Carl Lewis?

[forthegreatergood]

VBach37 wrote: Humans are omnivores. We are metabolically and physiologically designed to eat meat. 'Nuff said.

Of course, if you eat meat for a long enough time, your body will adapt. That does not mean it is the correct thing to do.

Do you know the organ called the appendix? That organ is used to metabolize vegetable cellulose, but since humans decided to not choose the vegetarian lifestyle and instead kill their fellow creatures, that organ has become dormant in many humans. That is just one example among many.

[forthegreatergood]

[quote="GTTofAK"] Gogo Yubari wrote: VBach37 wrote: Humans are omnivores. We are metabolically and physiologically designed to eat meat. 'Nuff said.

We are omnivores by definition. WHen it comes down to it, we only require certain things like protein that come from meat and you can get the protien elsewhere.

Quote: But you cant get all your fatty acids and there is the rub.

Wrong, you can get fatty acids(such as omega-3 from sources such as Flax, and Soybeans, among others....so you are wrong.

[forthegreatergood]

Quote: Whats the difference between eating an animal and a plant? Both are sentient because they feel. You are just practising speciation.

***Which can dodge a bullet, an animal or a plant?


Quote: While I do think there is no need to treat animals badly just because we eat them.

***Eating animals is treating them badly, because they are slaughtered, and you devour their flesh. Do you even know what ethical treatment is?

Quote: This should not affect our morals, because the fact is we kill something whether it be animal or vegetable to live.

*** What about Thou Shall Not Kill?