Political Crossfire Forums

X-Shocker · Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 167 Location: All around you

Man is not the only animal which kills for pleasure.

There are ways to kill animals without inflicting pain: a shot to the brain or a wacking off of the head will instantly disconnects the mind from the body and, thus, all feelings disappear. Note: A twitching, jumping body does not indicate pain.

PETA could never bring anything logical to the table during a civilized discussion because peta does not know the meaning of logics and facts.

forthegreatergood · Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Posts: 366

John Galt wrote: forthegreatergood wrote: John Galt wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: John Galt wrote: because they are animals we are talking about, not humans.

Wrong again John. Sorry to damage you superiority complex but Humans are animals.

Quote: In the physical sense we are the highest animal ever

***Giraffes are taller than humans physically[/u]

Quote: This does not deserve comment.

***You do not have to comment, but it is true.

Quote:
, but of course we are now completely above all of them because we have morals and they are amoral.

***Are you sure? What about meat eating "humans" and vegetarian "animals"

I do not follow. Morals come from the ability to reason. A serial killer is still a moral being, which is why we execute him, since he knows what he does is wrong.

***You can still do something good without knowing it is good.

From http://www.sus4.com/thoughts/files/2001/7-19-01.html:

"Let me tell you about an experiment I saw once. Someone had constructed a model of a room. They would show a chimp (or some such higher primate) a model of a piece of food, or a prize, or whatnot. They would show the chimp that they were putting the food model in a certain place in the model, like in a cabinet or under a sofa cushion or behind a
shelf or whatever. Then they would take the chimp into the real room.
The chimp went straight to where the food was hidden. This is 100%
representationalizm. It requires reasoning. It requires the ability to
understand abstract ideas and forms."

Quote: I attribute morals and reason to being human, while things that don't have them we'll call "animals."

***So in your viewpoint, a tiger that saves a thousand innocent lives is an "amoral animal?", while a human who kills a thousand innocent lives is a "moral human"? That is not logical and is incorrect.

Quote: I'm sorry, did you just say something about a tiger saving a thousand lives? That aside, myt postion is objectively correct. Saying something is moral makes no judgement as to it's goodness or wickedness, it only is dealing with it's capacity to know good and evil.

***Morality is being in accord with GOODNESS, Immorality is being in accord with evil. You do not have to know what GOOD is to be good. For instance an elephant could sit on a terrorist about to do an evil deed, and that would be considered good, whether the elephant was aware of the deed done or not.

Quote: When one thinks of "animals" one thinks of lions and tigers and bears -- not humans. We've been over this. Besides, what do you care here? You eat animals and are a walking hypocracy.

***Don't be duped. Think about semantics(meanings) of words. Beings can have different forms. Do you not think you are being racist, or a bigot. Is that GOOD or evil? Do you not think that a being in another form besides one that is considered human can do good deeds? Of course they can!

Quote: A lion is not evil when it kills a man and a dog is not virtuous for saving a man, as both are amoral. They just are.

***That is wrong. In my opinion, a gorilla vegetarian could be more moral than you, if you are a creature-eater. The gorilla would be a saint compared to the thousands and thousands of creatures killed to fill your belly over the course of twenty or so years of your life. According to your logic, a human is evil in killing a good human, while a lion is not evil when killing a good human. According to your logic, a dog is not virtuous for saving a good human, while a human is virtuous for saving a good human. That is wrong and illogical. You could be considered a species bigot. Meaning you are a human racist, thinking all non-humans are inferior. Maybe in your next life you will be some other kind of creature. Will you still be a species bigot? Creatures can have different forms. Here is a scenario. Say there are aliens from another planet with 100 times your intelligence. But their form is completely different than yours. Consider what they would think of you? Also, creatures you call animals are smarter than you think. They can network, they can tough things out and survive in ways better than you in some instances, they have language abilities (just because you don't comprehend it doesn't mean they can't have language), they have abilities such as using "sonar" or "radar", heat sensing, they can have better senses than you, etc.
You call animals inferior. A dog has superior smelling abilities. You could say your senses are inferior to the dog, or you could say you just smell things differently. A hawk could have better eyesight. A gorilla superior strength. Get the message?

ieatfood · Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 6505

I love the dancing at the end--nice touch.

If you listen to what he is actually saying, every statement he makes is true.

So there's nothing wrong with the commercial. I think its a fun commercial.

Animal rights activists run similar commercials, except they use boobies to sell their moral position (Pam anderson anyone?)

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21579 Location: Minnesota

John Galt wrote: forthegreatergood wrote: John Galt wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: John Galt wrote: because they are animals we are talking about, not humans.

Wrong again John. Sorry to damage you superiority complex but Humans are animals.

Quote: In the physical sense we are the highest animal ever

***Giraffes are taller than humans physically[/u]

Quote: This does not deserve comment.

***You do not have to comment, but it is true.

It's also perhaps the most asinine comment I have ever read here, and I have read many posts.

Also, could you please NOT make it seem as if I said such garbage, and use the correct coding?

Quote: Quote:
, but of course we are now completely above all of them because we have morals and they are amoral.

***Are you sure? What about meat eating "humans" and vegetarian "animals"

I do not follow. Morals come from the ability to reason. A serial killer is still a moral being, which is why we execute him, since he knows what he does is wrong.

***You can still do something good without knowing it is good.

From http://www.sus4.com/thoughts/files/2001/7-19-01.html:

"Let me tell you about an experiment I saw once. Someone had constructed a model of a room. They would show a chimp (or some such higher primate) a model of a piece of food, or a prize, or whatnot. They would show the chimp that they were putting the food model in a certain place in the model, like in a cabinet or under a sofa cushion or behind a
shelf or whatever. Then they would take the chimp into the real room.
The chimp went straight to where the food was hidden. This is 100%
representationalizm. It requires reasoning. It requires the ability to
understand abstract ideas and forms."

More gibberish. Morals come from a capacity to reason. Just because a chimp canremember something doesn't mean it can reason anything. Since rights are self-realized and reasoned, only beings that can reason can possibly have rights. Animals are rightless things, of no more moral significance than a rock or a shurb or a left sock.

Quote: Quote: I attribute morals and reason to being human, while things that don't have them we'll call "animals."

***So in your viewpoint, a tiger that saves a thousand innocent lives is an "amoral animal?", while a human who kills a thousand innocent lives is a "moral human"? That is not logical and is incorrect.

Quote: I'm sorry, did you just say something about a tiger saving a thousand lives? That aside, myt postion is objectively correct. Saying something is moral makes no judgement as to it's goodness or wickedness, it only is dealing with it's capacity to know good and evil.

***Morality is being in accord with GOODNESS, Immorality is being in accord with evil. You do not have to know what GOOD is to be good. For instance an elephant could sit on a terrorist about to do an evil deed, and that would be considered good, whether the elephant was aware of the deed done or not.

Just because you can make stuff up about what moral are, or have illusionary knowledge of the subject, does not mean you are objectively correct. In fact, you are far from it.

Quote: Quote: When one thinks of "animals" one thinks of lions and tigers and bears -- not humans. We've been over this. Besides, what do you care here? You eat animals and are a walking hypocracy.

***Don't be duped. Think about semantics(meanings) of words. Beings can have different forms. Do you not think you are being racist, or a bigot. Is that GOOD or evil? Do you not think that a being in another form besides one that is considered human can do good deeds? Of course they can!

Quote: A lion is not evil when it kills a man and a dog is not virtuous for saving a man, as both are amoral. They just are.

***That is wrong. In my opinion, a gorilla vegetarian could be more moral than you, if you are a creature-eater. The gorilla would be a saint compared to the thousands and thousands of creatures killed to fill your belly over the course of twenty or so years of your life.

I killed them as well, and skinned them and gutted them. So a lion is evil?

Quote: According to your logic, a human is evil in killing a good human, while a lion is not evil when killing a good human. According to your logic, a dog is not virtuous for saving a good human, while a human is virtuous for saving a good human. That is wrong and illogical. You could be considered a species bigot. Meaning you are a human racist, thinking all non-humans are inferior.

Yes, because it is objectively true. They are of no moral consequence because they have no morals. Amoral creatures are not important to a moral being, morally speaking. Sure they might give us joy, or fill our bellies with delight, but they are not morally imporant. A lion, as I said, is not evil for being a lion. YOU HOLD THAT THEY ARE. I can help you on your psudeomoralistic vendetta against "Creature killers" and launch a preemptive species eratication of all preadators besides humans so as to save the poor precious mice from their evil cat nemesis, if you like. Just need some bankrolling on ammunition and flame throwers and we'll be set.

Quote: Maybe in your next life you will be some other kind of creature. Will you still be a species bigot?

Spare me the religious hogwash.

Quote: Creatures can have different forms. Here is a scenario. Say there are aliens from another planet with 100 times your intelligence. But their form is completely different than yours. Consider what they would think of you?

How could I fathom it -- they are supposedly 100 times smarter than me. But it does not matter. We're talking about capacity to reason, not intellegence. Keep up.

Quote: Also, creatures you call animals are smarter than you think. They can network, they can tough things out and survive in ways better than you in some instances, they have language abilities (just because you don't comprehend it doesn't mean they can't have language), they have abilities such as using "sonar" or "radar", heat sensing, they can have better senses than you, etc.
You call animals inferior. A dog has superior smelling abilities. You could say your senses are inferior to the dog, or you could say you just smell things differently. A hawk could have better eyesight. A gorilla superior strength. Get the message?

Yeah, sure, but they cannot reason. Theyare amoral creatures who have no rights because by definition only moral creatures have rights. And only reasoning beings have morals. So there you have it, animals don't matter, it's why I tend tokill many of them and fill my belly. Just like a lion does, and other top predators. Meat is good for you -- 3 to 4 times a week red meat helps keep you in good shape. So says the commerical. I'm done with this now.

mathurin · Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:07 am Post subject: Re: .

X-Shocker wrote: Man is not the only animal which kills for pleasure.

There are ways to kill animals without inflicting pain: a shot to the brain or a wacking off of the head will instantly disconnects the mind from the body and, thus, all feelings disappear. Note: A twitching, jumping body does not indicate pain.

PETA could never bring anything logical to the table during a civilized discussion because peta does not know the meaning of logics and facts.

shooting the brain or chopping off the head destroys nerve tissue, meaning pain

current practice is to stun the cow with a hammer to the head or a captured bolt pistol, then slit its throat letting it bleed out, basically it gets knocked senseless, then dies from blood loss, feels very little pain

mathurin · Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:15 am Post subject:

forthegreatergood

perhaps you are misunderstanding galt, by moral he means capable of understanding moral relationships, he is not implying that a serial killer is in some way better (or more moral) than a lion, he is saying that the lion does not understand right from wrong, or anything much beyond "mmmm, tasty"
while the serial killer has the ability to understand concepts of right and wrong

Kindred · Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:12 am Post subject: Re: .

mathurin wrote: X-Shocker wrote: Man is not the only animal which kills for pleasure.

There are ways to kill animals without inflicting pain: a shot to the brain or a wacking off of the head will instantly disconnects the mind from the body and, thus, all feelings disappear. Note: A twitching, jumping body does not indicate pain.

PETA could never bring anything logical to the table during a civilized discussion because peta does not know the meaning of logics and facts.

shooting the brain or chopping off the head destroys nerve tissue, meaning pain

current practice is to stun the cow with a hammer to the head or a captured bolt pistol, then slit its throat letting it bleed out, basically it gets knocked senseless, then dies from blood loss, feels very little pain

Would you deem it acceptable to do the same thing to a human with the same awareness, intelligence etc. as a cow? If not, why not?

forthegreatergood · Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Posts: 366

Quote: but of course we are now completely above all of them because we have morals and they are amoral.

***Are you sure? What about meat eating "humans" and vegetarian "animals"

Quote: I do not follow. Morals come from the ability to reason. A serial killer is still a moral being, which is why we execute him, since he knows what he does is wrong.

***You can still do something good without knowing it is good.

From http://www.sus4.com/thoughts/files/2001/7-19-01.html:

"Let me tell you about an experiment I saw once. Someone had constructed a model of a room. They would show a chimp (or some such higher primate) a model of a piece of food, or a prize, or whatnot. They would show the chimp that they were putting the food model in a certain place in the model, like in a cabinet or under a sofa cushion or behind a
shelf or whatever. Then they would take the chimp into the real room.
The chimp went straight to where the food was hidden. This is 100%
representationalizm. It requires reasoning. It requires the ability to
understand abstract ideas and forms."[/quote]

Quote: More gibberish. Morals come from a capacity to reason. Just because a chimp canremember something doesn't mean it can reason anything. Since rights are self-realized and reasoned, only beings that can reason can possibly have rights. Animals are rightless things, of no more moral significance than a rock or a shurb or a left sock.

***Well, what if I said you are being unreasonable? Make clear what you mean by reason. If it is logic, then maybe you are an animal by not using correct logic, therefore you do not reason. Morals do not come from the capacity to reason, but from the ability to use reason ethically and correctly from the capacity.

Quote: I attribute morals and reason to being human, while things that don't have them we'll call "animals."

***So in your viewpoint, a tiger that saves a thousand innocent lives is an "amoral animal?", while a human who kills a thousand innocent lives is a "moral human"? That is not logical and is incorrect.

Quote: I'm sorry, did you just say something about a tiger saving a thousand lives? That aside, myt postion is objectively correct. Saying something is moral makes no judgement as to it's goodness or wickedness, it only is dealing with it's capacity to know good and evil.

***Morality is being in accord with GOODNESS, Immorality is being in accord with evil. You do not have to know what GOOD is to be good. For instance an elephant could sit on a terrorist about to do an evil deed, and that would be considered good, whether the elephant was aware of the deed done or not.

Quote: Just because you can make stuff up about what moral are, or have illusionary knowledge of the subject, does not mean you are objectively correct. In fact, you are far from it.

***There is your ability to reason incorrectly, because logically, the statements are correct. You can use objectivism to say it is phenomena or "illusion", but I object, because that would mean that objectively, you are perceiving the object's meaning that I intended as the object is not intended to be.

Quote: When one thinks of "animals" one thinks of lions and tigers and bears -- not humans. We've been over this. Besides, what do you care here? You eat animals and are a walking hypocracy.

***Don't be duped. Think about semantics(meanings) of words. Beings can have different forms. Do you not think you are being racist, or a bigot. Is that GOOD or evil? Do you not think that a being in another form besides one that is considered human can do good deeds? Of course they can!

Quote: A lion is not evil when it kills a man and a dog is not virtuous for saving a man, as both are amoral. They just are.

***That is wrong. In my opinion, a gorilla vegetarian could be more moral than you, if you are a creature-eater. The gorilla would be a saint compared to the thousands and thousands of creatures killed to fill your belly over the course of twenty or so years of your life.[/quote]

Quote: I killed them as well, and skinned them and gutted them. So a lion is evil?

***Yes, and killing the creatures that you did and skinning the creatures that you did and gutting the creatures that you did is evil. You can be objective or be in denial, and say it is not, but you are still subject to the laws of cause and effect.

***According to your logic, a human is evil in killing a good human, while a lion is not evil when killing a good human. According to your logic, a dog is not virtuous for saving a good human, while a human is virtuous for saving a good human. That is wrong and illogical. You could be considered a species bigot. Meaning you are a human racist, thinking all non-humans are inferior.

Quote: Yes, because it is objectively true. They are of no moral consequence because they have no morals.

*** Whose to say they have no morals? Did you ask them and they responded by saying that they have no morals? Are you their representative? A being can be moralistic if they do morally good things that are defined as moral.

Quote: Amoral creatures are not important to a moral being, morally speaking. Sure they might give us joy, or fill our bellies with delight, but they are not morally imporant.

***To you, apparantly an immoral being in this aspect, another creature may not be morally important to you, because you are being selfish and objective, in the sense that you are denying the being's suffering while that being could be more moral than you, because that is how you justify it so you do not feel suffering. So is it true or not that you make others suffer for your pleasure?

Quote: A lion, as I said, is not evil for being a lion. YOU HOLD THAT THEY ARE.

*** A lion is only evil if the actions it does are evil.

Quote: I can help you on your psudeomoralistic vendetta against "Creature killers" and launch a preemptive species eratication of all preadators besides humans so as to save the poor precious mice from their evil cat nemesis, if you like. Just need some bankrolling on ammunition and flame throwers and we'll be set.

***cats and mice can coexist peacefully.
Maybe in your next life you will be some other kind of creature. Will you still be a species bigot?

Quote: Spare me the religious hogwash.

***Oh, okay, maybe you will think about that in your next life experience.
Hogwash...Hmm, maybe that was a Freudian slip....hogs can be good creatures, yet some people slaughter them, dismember them for their flesh. Is that moral or amoral?

***Creatures can have different forms. Here is a scenario. Say there are aliens from another planet with 100 times your intelligence. But their form is completely different than yours. Consider what they would think of you?[/quote]

Quote: How could I fathom it -- they are supposedly 100 times smarter than me. But it does not matter. We're talking about capacity to reason, not intellegence. Keep up.

***Did you reason in your mind's capacity to make those statements or did you use your intelligence?

***Also, creatures you call animals are smarter than you think. They can network, they can tough things out and survive in ways better than you in some instances, they have language abilities (just because you don't comprehend it doesn't mean they can't have language), they have abilities such as using "sonar" or "radar", heat sensing, they can have better senses than you, etc.
You call animals inferior. A dog has superior smelling abilities. You could say your senses are inferior to the dog, or you could say you just smell things differently. A hawk could have better eyesight. A gorilla superior strength. Get the message? [/quote]

Quote: Yeah, sure, but they cannot reason. Theyare amoral creatures who have no rights because by definition only moral creatures have rights. And only reasoning beings have morals. So there you have it, animals don't matter, it's why I tend tokill many of them and fill my belly. Just like a lion does, and other top predators. Meat is good for you -- 3 to 4 times a week red meat helps keep you in good shape. So says the commerical. I'm done with this now.

***Justification for your immoral tendencies? How can I communicate to you, possibly an unreasonable person, about other creatures' abilities to reason? So you are saying any creature that is not human does not have rights? That is an immoral statement, as opposed to a moral statement. Of course other creatures have rights. How selfish and evil to think that others creatures besides humans do not have rights; Do you know the sacrifices that these creatures make for you so that you can exist, for what, to say that these creatures don't have rights? These creatures give their lives (while they do not want to), they give their eggs, their milk, their companionship, their music, their entertainment, seeing eye dogs can help lead the blind, etc...Shame on you.....And you think they are inferior to your superiority, while you are inferior in not even recognizing their specific super talents and attributes and sacrifices they have made.

Warmonger · Joined: 26 Mar 2005 Posts: 345 Location: North Carolina

Quote: ...you are a human racist, thinking all non-humans are inferior

Don't you get it? They ARE inferior. If they were superior, wouldn't they be running the show instead of humans?

Achilles The Myrmidon · Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 4649 Location: Hellas

A.D wrote: mathurin wrote: X-Shocker wrote: Man is not the only animal which kills for pleasure.

There are ways to kill animals without inflicting pain: a shot to the brain or a wacking off of the head will instantly disconnects the mind from the body and, thus, all feelings disappear. Note: A twitching, jumping body does not indicate pain.

PETA could never bring anything logical to the table during a civilized discussion because peta does not know the meaning of logics and facts.

shooting the brain or chopping off the head destroys nerve tissue, meaning pain

current practice is to stun the cow with a hammer to the head or a captured bolt pistol, then slit its throat letting it bleed out, basically it gets knocked senseless, then dies from blood loss, feels very little pain

Would you deem it acceptable to do the same thing to a human with the same awareness, intelligence etc. as a cow? If not, why not? He doesnt taste good...

mathurin · Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject: Re: .

A.D wrote: mathurin wrote: X-Shocker wrote: Man is not the only animal which kills for pleasure.

There are ways to kill animals without inflicting pain: a shot to the brain or a wacking off of the head will instantly disconnects the mind from the body and, thus, all feelings disappear. Note: A twitching, jumping body does not indicate pain.

PETA could never bring anything logical to the table during a civilized discussion because peta does not know the meaning of logics and facts.

shooting the brain or chopping off the head destroys nerve tissue, meaning pain

current practice is to stun the cow with a hammer to the head or a captured bolt pistol, then slit its throat letting it bleed out, basically it gets knocked senseless, then dies from blood loss, feels very little pain

Would you deem it acceptable to do the same thing to a human with the same awareness, intelligence etc. as a cow? If not, why not?
good question
no, i would not
merely for sentimental reasons, we feel differently towards our own species, for no rational reasons
besides, its rhetorical question, i seriously doubt you could find anyone as dumb as a cow, even mental retards have more brainpower, and the next step down would be comatose

would i mind this kind of death as punishment for convicted criminals, no, id rather see them hang but it would do

what method would you use?

mathurin · Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:11 pm Post subject: Re: .

A.D wrote: mathurin wrote: X-Shocker wrote: Man is not the only animal which kills for pleasure.

There are ways to kill animals without inflicting pain: a shot to the brain or a wacking off of the head will instantly disconnects the mind from the body and, thus, all feelings disappear. Note: A twitching, jumping body does not indicate pain.

PETA could never bring anything logical to the table during a civilized discussion because peta does not know the meaning of logics and facts.

shooting the brain or chopping off the head destroys nerve tissue, meaning pain

current practice is to stun the cow with a hammer to the head or a captured bolt pistol, then slit its throat letting it bleed out, basically it gets knocked senseless, then dies from blood loss, feels very little pain

Would you deem it acceptable to do the same thing to a human with the same awareness, intelligence etc. as a cow? If not, why not?
good question
no, i would not
merely for sentimental reasons, we feel differently towards our own species, for no rational reasons
besides, its rhetorical question, i seriously doubt you could find anyone as dumb as a cow, even mental retards have more brainpower, and the next step down would be comatose

would i mind this kind of death as punishment for convicted criminals, no, id rather see them hang but it would do

what method would you use?

tictactactical · Joined: 15 Sep 2005 Posts: 511 Location: West Virginia

X-Shocker wrote: PETA could never bring anything logical to the table during a civilized discussion because peta does not know the meaning of logics and facts.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

forthegreatergood · Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Posts: 366

Warmonger wrote: Quote: ...you are a human racist, thinking all non-humans are inferior

Don't you get it? They ARE inferior. If they were superior, wouldn't they be running the show instead of humans?

If they are so inferior, then why do you rely on them for your body to exist?

Who says we run the show? Didn't humans also think they ran the show show years ago when we thought the world was flat and earth was the center of the universe? Or was it when Europe and Asia didn't know about the Americas? I could go on with examples...

Inferior? Read the below...

What other creatures on this planet have world wars to kill masses of their own species in the name of religion, politics, etc?

Inferior?
Hawks have better vision than you...
Dogs have better scent detection than you...
Gorillas are much stronger than you...
Cheetahs are much faster than you...
Giraffes are much taller than you...
Crocodiles jaw strengh is much stronger than yours...
Birds can use their bodies to fly, you cannot...
Bats have infrared senses...
Dolphins have sonar abilities
Fish can live underwater, you cannot...
Cats have better night vision...
etc, etc,......

mathurin · Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject:

and humans have intelligence and the ability to create and use tools

that trumps all, like bringing a claw to a gun fight animals are generally inferior to our ability to adapt through the use of tools

perhaps you missed it, so ill mention it again, when galt talks about moral, he is not implying moral vs immoral, like good vs evil, he is implying moral being vs amoral being

moral being: has the ability to understand concepts of wrong and right, some would consider as the origin of said concepts, example, a human murderer is a moral being, because they have the ability to understand that they have one wrong

amoral being: being with no knowledge of right or wrong, or even any understanding that such concepts exist, to the lion killing an animal is not right or wrong, it just is, and it cannot be anyother way

Warmonger · Joined: 26 Mar 2005 Posts: 345 Location: North Carolina

Quote: Inferior?
Hawks have better vision than you...
Dogs have better scent detection than you...
Gorillas are much stronger than you...
Cheetahs are much faster than you...
Giraffes are much taller than you...
Crocodiles jaw strengh is much stronger than yours...
Birds can use their bodies to fly, you cannot...
Bats have infrared senses...
Dolphins have sonar abilities
Fish can live underwater, you cannot...
Cats have better night vision...
etc, etc,......

Idiocy.

For each of these individual animals that trump humanity in one or two traits, I can list a single human that trumps them in a dozen or more. Reasoning skills, mathematics, analytical thinking... the list goes on... and on... and on.

Quote: If they are so inferior, then why do you rely on them for your body to exist?

Could my body flourish without animal meat? I don't know. I've not looked at the studies on what you can suplement animal nutrients with.
I'll say, for your sake, that my body could be completely healthy without animal meat. I would STILL eat them, even if I did not depend on them for sustenance. Why? Because they taste good.

Quote: Who says we run the show? Didn't humans also think they ran the show show years ago when we thought the world was flat and earth was the center of the universe? Or was it when Europe and Asia didn't know about the Americas? I could go on with examples...

Do you see gorillas putting out fires in our cities? Do you see giraffes finding cures for disease? Do you see fish developing the longer-lasting lightbulb? Humanity is the highest form of life on this planet. This is a completely uncontested fact. I don't know what you are babbling about. When we were still discovering that the world was not flat, and learning more about astronomy, we were still the top dogs, so I fail to see your point there, either. Now, if a kangaroo came back to Europe and proclaimed that HE discovered the world was not flat first, then you might have a leg to stand on.....

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9365

forthegreatergood wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: John Galt wrote: because they are animals we are talking about, not humans.

Wrong again John. Sorry to damage you superiority complex but Humans are animals.

But don't you get it... meat eating humans like to delude themselves by this justification: we are given higher domain over the animals, so it is okay, and it is not wrong. Just as serial killers can do the same thing.

I eat meat. I am not deluded either in to thinking that I somehow owe anything to any other animal to not eat them.

If I want chicken, I'll eat chicken. Sorry, but the "humans are animals" argument doesn't help until you can convince the rest of the animal kingdom to become vegitarians.

BTW....Good ad. Now, if you will excuse me, I have some KFC to eat.

social · Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:12 pm Post subject: Re: Red meat ad

A.D wrote: http://www.themainmeal.com.au/evolution.mpg

This ad is being played on Australian T.V. Given this, do you think it would be okay for animal rights organisations to put across their moral view-point in a similar vain? (For example, they might point out the capacity of many higher animals to fell pain as showed through scientific studies, or perhaps they might show images from a modern factory farm.)

Why/Why not?

As always I find your posts interesting A.D, though this time I'm inclined to lower the standard of discourse by branding this advert a load of horsesh*t! It implies that red meat is the only way to acquire certain natural proteins, when in actual fact white meat - chicken, but more importantly, fish - provides far more protein than red meat, gives omega 3s (essential for the brain), and is lower in fat than red meat (unless you eat the skin). Also, I recently read of a study that suggested excessive consumption of red meat actually increases the liklihood of bowel/intestinal cancer. White meats are better.

Right, onto the real issue at hand here. I think animal rights groups should be able to put thier message across just as, for example, health organisations put thier message across. There've been some really succesful, if a little graphic adverts here in the UK that warn of the dangers of drink-driving and smoking and over-drinking. It made me think: should the medium of advertising be used to promote things that benefit society, and not just to promote consumerism and the mindless pursuits it creates?

Of course it should, though I'm a little sceptical of this ever taking effect because these organisations haven't the money to advertise day in, day out. Perhaps a certain amount of time each day should be reserved for these orgnisations and advertisers forced to accept reduced (or no) fees for more ethically grounded 'products'. Whaddya think?

forthegreatergood · Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Posts: 366

social wrote: A.D wrote: http://www.themainmeal.com.au/evolution.mpg

This ad is being played on Australian T.V. Given this, do you think it would be okay for animal rights organisations to put across their moral view-point in a similar vain? (For example, they might point out the capacity of many higher animals to fell pain as showed through scientific studies, or perhaps they might show images from a modern factory farm.)

Why/Why not?

As always I find your posts interesting A.D, though this time I'm inclined to lower the standard of discourse by branding this advert a load of horsesh*t! It implies that red meat is the only way to acquire certain natural proteins, when in actual fact white meat - chicken, but more importantly, fish - provides far more protein than red meat, gives omega 3s (essential for the brain), and is lower in fat than red meat (unless you eat the skin). Also, I recently read of a study that suggested excessive consumption of red meat actually increases the liklihood of bowel/intestinal cancer. White meats are better.

Right, onto the real issue at hand here. I think animal rights groups should be able to put thier message across just as, for example, health organisations put thier message across. There've been some really succesful, if a little graphic adverts here in the UK that warn of the dangers of drink-driving and smoking and over-drinking. It made me think: should the medium of advertising be used to promote things that benefit society, and not just to promote consumerism and the mindless pursuits it creates?

Of course it should, though I'm a little sceptical of this ever taking effect because these organisations haven't the money to advertise day in, day out. Perhaps a certain amount of time each day should be reserved for these orgnisations and advertisers forced to accept reduced (or no) fees for more ethically grounded 'products'. Whaddya think?

forthegreatergood · Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Posts: 366

social wrote: A.D wrote: http://www.themainmeal.com.au/evolution.mpg

This ad is being played on Australian T.V. Given this, do you think it would be okay for animal rights organisations to put across their moral view-point in a similar vain? (For example, they might point out the capacity of many higher animals to fell pain as showed through scientific studies, or perhaps they might show images from a modern factory farm.)

Why/Why not?

As always I find your posts interesting A.D, though this time I'm inclined to lower the standard of discourse by branding this advert a load of horsesh*t! It implies that red meat is the only way to acquire certain natural proteins, when in actual fact white meat - chicken, but more importantly, fish - provides far more protein than red meat, gives omega 3s (essential for the brain), and is lower in fat than red meat (unless you eat the skin). Also, I recently read of a study that suggested excessive consumption of red meat actually increases the liklihood of bowel/intestinal cancer. White meats are better.

Right, onto the real issue at hand here. I think animal rights groups should be able to put thier message across just as, for example, health organisations put thier message across. There've been some really succesful, if a little graphic adverts here in the UK that warn of the dangers of drink-driving and smoking and over-drinking. It made me think: should the medium of advertising be used to promote things that benefit society, and not just to promote consumerism and the mindless pursuits it creates?

Of course it should, though I'm a little sceptical of this ever taking effect because these organisations haven't the money to advertise day in, day out. Perhaps a certain amount of time each day should be reserved for these orgnisations and advertisers forced to accept reduced (or no) fees for more ethically grounded 'products'. Whaddya think?

Sources say that other sources of proteins are casein, whey, soy, etc...