At 12/20/05 10:17 AM, red_skunk wrote:

They are an animal rights group. They are not interested in fighting deforestation or enacting environmental protection. You seem to be confused on what the purpose of a group like PETA is suppose to accomplish. :

Stop being obtuse. If you think 'animal rights' or 'rights' in general is nothing more than how things should be treated then you are an idiot. All the things I mentioned go hand and hand. We will treat you nicely, but to hell if you think you deserve a home!

As far as supporting veterinarian (or, to put it in your pig English -- "vetINArian ResEErch") research? They routinely do that. :

"They support veterinarian research."

***LOOKS FOR PROOF****

Provide a link and prove me wrong.

So you deny that PETA has actually supported and expressed sympathy toward domestic terrorist groups like ALF and ELF? Are you this stupid?

I never denied that. Your reading comprehension is pretty poor there, bucko. Or maybe you're just acting stupid so that you would have something to respond to me about. Either way, you're not doing me or yourself any favors. :

I accept your concession. PETA is full of idiots and not just the two quacks this thread is about. In fact, the actions of the two morons who killed the kittens is just a microchasm of how far PETA as a whole will go to justify their ends.

So it begins that you argue yourself into a corner. Cute how you didn't response at all to what PETA has supported in the past and continues to do so.

I condemn the actions. It was wrong. There. PETA doesn't support it now. Huh. How about that, huh? The president of an organization with more than 750,000 members is not the end-all. :

Again, I accept your concession. Until the leadership of PETA condemns these actions, then it currently appears that PETA as a whole supports the murder of animals.

Haha, I see the great debating techniques of Damien are rubbing off on our impressionable nubs. Great. When you respond to me next, actually figure out a line of debate, and then follow it. Because right now what you're doing is the equivalent of sputtering and stuttering, making an ass out of yourself, and then declaring "teh win" like it's the special olympics or something. :

I asked for Ingrid Newkirk's condemnation of these actions which would help support your idea that the actions of these two idiots are not a reflection on PETA as a whole. She didn't say a word.

Concession accepted for the third time.

At 11/21/05 05:59 PM, red_skunk wrote:

I have yet to contradict myself in this thread. I have not said killing animals is entirely unjust, I have said that unnecessary killing is unjust. :

It is sad that you have and you cannot see it. How do you reconcile your point of view? Animals are slaughtered regardless of diet for the exact same purpose: food.

Unfortunately, your position is rather silly:

Slaughtering animals for meat serves a purpose; food, yet it is claimed to be 'unncessary.'

Slaughtering animals for no reason in regards to a vegetarian diet serves no purpose, yet it is claimed to be 'necessary.'

Hardly worth arguing. You are arguing over a philosophical justification rather than the practical reality of the situation. Animals are killed as the result of either diet.

There is simply not a case where you kill something for food to avoid unnecessary suffering. :

Unfortunately, a ridiculous position to take. Depending on where one lives in the world, various kinds of foods would be readily available. Is some areas, where land is ideally fertile, a vegetarian diet may and make a meat eating diet unnecessary; however, where fertile land is scarace, a culture's dietary needs would need to be supplemented by necessary sources of meat.

Your position, as unfortunate as it is, is rather moot. A wishful ideal.

Ghetto edit:

Talk about a lot of typos!

At 11/21/05 05:30 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

I don't want to pick up skunk's argument, but I would like to point out that few people here are taking you seriously. There is no undeniable contradiction, at least if it is, you've yet to demonstrate it.

Although AlphaSigma is 'rubbing it in' so-to-speak, Red_Skunk does contradict himself. Animals are slaughtered direcly and intentional (meat and poultry industry) or indirectly and unintentional (havesting and fishing) for our needs when it comes to food. So to claim more high ground is rather ridiculous.

At 11/15/05 10:35 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:

And yes the US is a Christian state no matter what the Atheist Baath's say. :

Not true at all. The DoI does not meantion Christ nor the BoR. The Treaty of Tripoli states that the USA was not founded upon Christianity.

At 11/16/05 12:27 AM, Vercades wrote: -My last post and view of this thread.-

Lastly, I love the over blowing of redefining science argument, as science is far more diverse to be governed by one concept, saying that science isn't limited to natural explanation,. :

The Philosophy of Science deals with observation of the natural world. ID incorporates a supernatural designer which is beyond empircal evidence and physical observation. The supernatural designer cannot be observed, quantified, or tested...crucial elements of science.

If ID could explain everything as good as ToE, ToE by default wins since it explains the same mechanics with less components; i.e., no God. Simple. Elegant.

This is freedom to know, and giving students the freedom to decide. :

Students do not have the expert knowledge or skills to weigh the scientific evidence. Experts in their respective fields do.

At 11/15/05 10:52 PM, TimeFrame wrote:

However, with either of these being taught, the class should at least be required to point out their flaws. :

The insidious underpinning to this is that people who support ID are trying to do exactly this bu try to say that these flaws constitute a designer.

Unfortunately for them, all scientific theories have some work still to be done. The theory of gravity has its perils. On the macroscopic scale you can use classical physics; at speeds closer to light speed you need to use relativity; at the sub atomic level you need to use quantum mechanics...and none of them are interchangable.
ID supporters would declare these flaws as evidence pointing to an omnipotent designer because there is no unifying theory of gravity. "Oops, this theory can explain this yet! Oops, we are just pointing out the flaws!"

Of course there are answers still remaining Their answer? The old adage 'God in the gaps'.

If ID supporters were really serious about "pointing out the flaws" in theories; i.e., declare naturalistic explanations impossible or improbable as in the case for evolution, then they have to do this for all theories. Logic demands it.

Question is, why do they only harp on evolution? Can any ID proponent answer that question? Hell no.

At 11/13/05 08:16 PM, Vercades wrote:

Do you even know what objective means without looking it up on the internet? On a side note, go look at any ID site and see that it is not an emotional belief, it's an unbaised approach to explaining our origins. :

I see you have yet to answer the "designer" question. You claim that ID is free from religious bias and I call bullshit because you know and every other IDer knows that the "designer" is 'god.' You cannot and will not answer this question because you know as soon as you define this "designer" ID is blown out of the water.

This is to be expected. IDers are afraid of actually proposing a REAL theory because as soon as they do, it will be blasted for what is truly is...Creationism in a clownsuit.

IDer's have a big problem with the science behind evolution. They claim that it is "humanistic or atheistic" because science keeps its business with natural explanations and automatically rejects supernatural explanations. "No fair!" some cry.

But you know what? That is the way it should be. In fact, EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC THEORY is based on this so-called "humanistic or atheistic" model that seeks natural explanations.

If you are going to go after evolution on these grounds then logic demands that you do the same for EVERY theory.

Gravity
Plate Techtonics
Solar Fusion
Germs
The Heliocentric Model of the Solar System

The list goes on.

At 9/8/05 01:53 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

At 9/8/05 12:40 AM, Solamnus wrote: <crying even MORE that he can't find a shred of evidence behind his arguments> :

"I cannot support my own, let me appeal to mockery."

lol you're too pathetic. Hey n00b, like I said before, if you're wanting evidence behind my arguments (which by the way dumbass, we're on the internet "

Apparently, you cannot read. You post shitty "evidence". A picture of dead animals does exactly nothing and I explained why. The BBC link doesn't help with "Veal R Bad!" and I also agreed with its not-so-suprising results with linking meat to cancer and explained why.

Oh that's right, you wanted a textbook. Funny how you haven't addressed it yet.:

This lends credence to "Veal R Bad!" how exactly?

Could this mean that you're really not a Knight after all? That would break my heart Sol, it really would. :

"I do not read so let me make more appeals to mockery."

Answer my direct question, or I accept your concession.

(I love this bit... "my concession"... lol. Same old Sol using the same old tricks.:

"I will continue to make appeals to mockery and deflect as long as I can."

SNIPPED :

You say veal is "uncessary suffering" because we do not need to eat it for our survival. You are correct that we do not need to eat veal specifically for our instrinsic survival; however, you fail to provide a link that justifies that this delicacy causes "prolonged, uncessary suffering." Or for that matter, argue why anything that is not for our intrinsic survival is uncessary. Which makes your bullshit argument a slippery slope.

Now, post a well thought out argument as to why the veal industry is not a cruel, vicious and heinous (all your words buddy) means of producing food, with scientific evidence to back it up. I want YOU to give me good reasons why the morality is justified (with a means, other than Googling). :

There are no "Veal is morally incorrect!" or "Veal is morally correct!" arguments.

I fail to see why one could call it "cruel, heinous and vicious" in the first place. They are raised as food and they are slaughtered for food and consumed by human beings. They are not raised to be neglected, abused, or tortured for twisted pleasures. They are raised for food; albeit a luxury foodstuff. Calves rasied for veal suffer no more than other animals being raised for slaughter. If your bullshit argument only hinges on the idea that "we do not need it to survive" then that means eating any kind of meat is uncessary because people can survive without any of it. They are called Vegans. But I am sure you are not arguing for that, right?

So far you are 0 - 2.

At 9/8/05 12:17 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

At 9/7/05 09:27 PM, Solamnus wrote: <crying more over the fact that he can't find a shred of evidence to support his arguments>

I've provided evidence behind my claims, anywhere from the "lowly ignorant" folks at PETA, to the "lowly ignorant" people at the BBC. :

You are an intellectual fraud and you know it. You provide flimsy bullshit and slap a label named "evidence."

You harp about the evils of veal yet the very similar if not the same kinds of treatments occur all across the meat and poultry industry. You cannot provide a simple justification why the small percentage of deaths in the veal industry makes it more heinous than the small percentage of deaths all across the industry.

PETA will argue the same damn thing with poultry industry by posting pictures of dead and maimed chickens. They do the same with veal. What is the difference? This is all the flimsy evidence that PETA has which is not suprising. There will be dead chickens, there will be dead cows in the veal industry and the "normal" meat and poultry industry.

Given this fact, how is the veal industry anymore cruel than your typical farm rasied cattle or packed chicken coop? What makes one worse than the other?

Again, a more reasonable argument would be to ensure the cleanliness, decent treament, care, and the least stressfull environment as possible given the fact that these animals are FOOD. You cannot answer that, can you?

Either put up or shut up.

everything I bring to the table.

You have brought virtually nothing to the debate table. You are intellectually dishonest and an outright liar at worst. You claim that you do not Goolge much, and both threads that you have posted in presents nothing but Google searches. You claim that I ignore evidence which is bullshit. You posted a PETA link and a vegetarian link which is hardly objective and based on science. I am not suprised by the links and still they do nothing to bolster your argument that veal is horrible. It is no different than the normal industry.

The only scientific evidence you posted is from the BBC which stated that there was a link to meat and bowel cancer. You claimed that I hand waved it and ignored it. Again, you are an outright liar.

If you paid attention, I said that that didn't suprise me either. The very article that you posted said there is a link and to reduce the chances of cancer is MODERATION and a BALANCED DIET. No shit, you think Sherlock? I stated that before you posted your "evidence." Eating meat in of itself is not the problem, is it?

The simple fact is, you don't argue. You post a website and want that to argue for you. Piss poor job there chief. "Waaa, I posted a link waaaa therefore my argument is strong!" Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

So far, you have come up completely short.

Answer my direct question, or I accept your concession.

At 9/7/05 11:15 PM, Xuljester wrote:

At 9/7/05 09:51 PM, Solamnus wrote:

At 9/7/05 01:24 PM, Xuljester wrote: Charles Darwin denied his own work, claiming it was all a farce, while lying in his death bed. :

Fundamentalist Christian Myth.

Is it really? Or do people not want to believe it? It'd be quite convenient to wave off something like that. :

The only websites that I have seen that say that Darwin recanted are Fundamentalist Christian websites. Even in light of this, AnswersinGenesis.org and ChristianAnswers.net even dispel this myth as a likely fabrication by Lady Hope.

The problem is that Darwin's family (whom would have been by his bedside) have denied the death bed conversion.

I just feel that I'd rather have been created this way rather than have come from some ape :

We do not come from apes. Human and apes have a COMMON ancestor. It amazes me that people really have no problem with common ancestry concerning other animals but God forbid with human beings.

But evolution isn't exactly synonimous to adaptation, natural selection, or anything else. Evolution did start off as something quite different than what it has become today. The theory has been sanded down over time to fit new findings. :

Which shows the strength of science over dogmatic religious bullshit.

At 9/5/05 10:02 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

yet does not contain the unneccessary pain as the method we are using. :

Yet you have no convincing evidence that raising calves causes "unecessary pain" anymore so than how cows are raised for the slaughter of typical beef... even if it is a "luxury" foodstuff.

What you do provide is bullshit "evidence" that you simply scraped up from the bowels of the Internet at the very last minute to save face in a debate. PETA presents deaths in the veal industry and it is "horrible and cruel." Even though you fail to realize that deaths and maimed animals happens across the food industry regardless of "luxury" foodstuffs.

A reasonable argument would be to limit needless deaths, injury and flagrant neglect/abuse while they are being raised as food.

Again, point blank, post a well thought out argument why the veal industry is any more cruel, vicious and heinous in respect to the typical slaughter industry. Maybe a focused quesiton will help your brain this time.

At 9/7/05 01:24 PM, Xuljester wrote: Charles Darwin denied his own work, claiming it was all a farce, while lying in his death bed. :

Fundamentalist Christian Myth.

At 9/5/05 05:26 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

I'm going to go by the sites that state that the courts have made Atheism a religion, as being correct. :

This is typical of you. You cannot formulate your own argument so you cut and paste links and hand wave a well thought out explanation to bolster the cut and paste. "I will just say these courts are right" without a second thought of looking into it.

Has it ever occured to you that a court could be wrong? So much for your critical thinking skills.

Atheism cannot be a religion by virute of what it stands for. No scripture, no ritual, no central dogma based on revelation or spiritual influence, no deity etcetera.

However, if they don't adamently pursue the fact that no God exists, then they should really be known as Agnostics (which is what I am). I don't fully believe that a God exists, nor do I fully believe that a God does not exist. :

Incorrect as usual. "Weak atheism" is the simple belief that diving beings do not exist. "Strong atheism" is the positive assertion, "Divine beings do not exist." Agnostics are fence sitters, they argue that it is impossible to know either way. THAT is the fundamental difference between atheism and agnositicism.

There is none/I don't believe there is VS It is impossible to know.

A - gnostic. Root word from the Greek, gnosis meaning knowledge.

An atheist, weak or strong will look at the knowledge that we can obtain and actively or passively deny the existence of dieties. An agnostic will likely claim hubris and that our knowledge is limited so it is impossible to actively or passively deny the existence of a deity.

Once you start "preaching" that no God exists, that's when you enter the realm of Atheism, which has been ruled to be classified as a religion. :

Wrong yet again. To actively deny the existence of a diety on the grounds of logic, reasoning, natural explanations etcetera is hardly "preaching a religion."

At 9/5/05 03:00 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

<snipped soap box rant>

Until you can provide a well thought out argument, there is no point in slamming your head against the wall.

First you say you are done then you post a long diatribe and complain. Your argument is weak and unfounded.

At 9/5/05 04:05 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

Pssst, Elfer... ignore Solemnus. No matter what evidence you provide to him, he will ignore it and repeat himself. :

Trolling in other threads is not becoming.

At 9/5/05 12:25 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 9/5/05 12:02 AM, Solamnus wrote: Atheism is not a religion. The simple act of saying, "I do not believe that god exists" does not make atheism a religion.

Yeah, but a lot of atheistsa aren't saying "I do not believe that god exists," they're saying "I believe that god does not exist"

That's the difference. That's also a form of having faith in the unverifiable. :

No, it's not. Strong atheism; i.e., "I believe god does not exist" is not a form of faith. It is based off of (what they consider) a total lack of evidence for the existence of a diety. The evidence of lack thereof, is meaningless to the religious view of faith.

If you would like to argue this point, it is best that you define the terms "belief" and "faith" so I know where you are trying to come from.

At 9/5/05 01:22 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

I sometimes wonder if I'm talking to a three year old here sometimes... CONTEXT! Go back and find out how the whole biological tangent began. :

In otherwords, a pointless tangent on your part. Next.

I'm saying that purposefully making them life a life of constant restraint and isolation should be prevented. :

You have yet to say why this is so heinous and horrible, albeit, from an emotional point of view. Next.

"putting a creature through a prolonged and painful process is no justification for our pleasure". :

Read above. Next.

Some communities need fish to support themselves. However, wherever veal is present, the society does not need veal to sustain them, given that it is a luxary. :

Support themselves? No they don't. You can set up a one world government and make people eat one kind of food to "limit the suffering" of animals. Ridiculous isn't it? Maybe eating fish eggs is an abomination, right?

http://www.britishmeat.com/veal.html
http://www.veg.ca/issues/animals.html
and yes,
http://www.peta.org/..t_display.asp?ID=102

:

Are you fucking kidding me? Let me post why the Bible is the True and ONLY word of God by linking to Fundamenatlist Christian websites.

You are really reaching for straws now. I have no doubts that there have been needless deaths in the veal industry, but bullshit "animal rights" websites are nothing more than biased "opinions" and will do ANYTHING to put a stop to what *they* think is animal cruelty.

Animals *raised for food*, even in sanitary conditions, will always face some kind of stress and "pain." You post links to fucking PETA? A moronic organization that compares the slaughter of chickens to the Holocaust of WW2? Unfuckingbelievable!

The only thing you are doing now is trolling the Internet and finding the slightest bullshit to help your failing argument. Maybe it is my fault that you are reaching for the lowest common denominator for "evidence." Maybe I should have clarified that you provide evidence to show that these "atrocities" are widespread to argue that the veal industry needs to be shut down. Or maybe you believe that even a single death is an argument for this. Holy ballsacks. I weep for the poultry industry when you are on the job.

If you would argue for better care of animals in the veal industry; i.e., to ensure that they are clean, disease free, fed properly, and are not needlessly abused, I would agree. However, you are whining about the horrendous treatment of these animals and I have yet to see it besides a small percentage. PETA and other bullshit orgainizations latch onto these small percentages and raises hell to high water. I am not impressed.

The sites are plentiful my friend. :

Oh I know. There are plenty of websites that say that the Bible is the only Word of God too.

It's actually both. :

Again, it goes well beyond the bullshit simplicity "meat can cause cancer." Even your links you provide below will show this.

Wait... could you spell that out for me? But slowly please, I ain't too smarts. :

I know, and that is the problem.

Bloody hell...
http://news.bbc.co.u..i/health/4088824.stm

Happy? No?
http://www.bupa.co.u..05redmeatcancer.html

Not quite there yet?
http://www.newstarget.com/007024.html :

I am not suprised. Know the key word in all of your articles? Moderation. Balanced diet. God damn.

I am wondering now, are you just now Googling these? Do better. Try Google Scholar next time.

I'm not even a vegetarian dumbass, I've said this about half a dozen times now. :

Ah, the point flew right passed you. If you are as intelligent as you try to imply, then you know that the simple act of eating meat is not the sole reason of poor health. Horrible diet, lack of exercise etcetera.

I.E. research done by scientists which is then taught in University. :

Sadly, it is not shining through.

*sigh* don't nitpick my arguments. I am not backpeddling, I still have a belief that dolphins MAY pose a higher IQ than humans, but that has yet to be determined.

The latest: Cognition, Fourth edition. Mark H. Ashcraft. Copyright 2006, 2002 (very latest as you can see). Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN: 0-13-155271-6 :

*Snicker*, nitpicking? Or calling out your backpedalling? I report, you decide!

Dude, it's the fucking internet. How the hell am I going to prove to you that I'm in Psychology? I'm done humouring you. Most of the rest of your text are just a lame attempt to slam me. Well, I don't have to prove my intelligence to a "Knight of the Realm"... dork. :

I.E., "I have never heard of the terms."

Funny, I am not a student of Psychology and even I am aware of the terms. Maybe I am being too harsh. Maybe you will get to that class later in your academic career. :-)

In other words (seeing as I have to spell every word out to you), either provide evidence from your position, or take a seat. :

I accept your concession.

BTW, this is your argument, I am just trashing your "evidence."

At 9/4/05 05:20 PM, fedges wrote:

At 9/4/05 01:59 PM, Elfer wrote:

Atheism is only a religion if you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a god of some sort might exist.

Atheism IS believing that no god of any sort might exist. If i thought a god of some sort might exist I would then by agnostic and not an atheist. :

Atheism is not a religion. The simple act of saying, "I do not believe that god exists" does not make atheism a religion.

People get hung up on the word "belief." If I said, "I believe the repairs to my Mustang's engine will fix it" does that mean I am a follower of Fordism?

Please.

At 9/4/05 04:05 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

I was speaking purely of our physical being. :

To no avail, obviously. Still wondering how and *if* you are actually trying to tie this into "Veal R bad!" diatribe.

Now, in having this great power, there comes responsibility. :

Ok, Peter Parker.

Therefore, we should aim to reduce the amount of pain we cause, simply because it is irrational to needlessly cause pain, when it is not necessary. :

Again, should we offer the animals we eat a silk pillow?

Face it, animals will ALWAYS go through *some* kind of pain and discomfort when they are *raised as food*. You act as if the calf is lonely and wants its mommy ergo, horrible pain and suffering.

People eat food to live and for pleasure. Where is the moral, ethical, and philosophical justification on your part that suggests eating food for pleasure is so heinous and vicious?

This is exactly why this is a dangerous slippery slope argument. I like fish, do I NEED to eat fish? No. I can get my nutrition elsewhere. Hell, does anyone NEED to eat fish? no, they can get their nutrition elsewhere and save the damn Ocean.

It is a simple matter of pain. :

This BBS needs an eyeroll smiley. Again, give them a silk pillow. Animals being raised as food will ALWAYS be in some kind of stressful environment and be exposed to pain. What is your point? You have posted absoltuely no evidence showing that the calves raised for veal experience the pain, stress, or terrible feelings that you imply. You are projecting yourself into the same situation and are using that as your starting point.

Processing is part of the industry. It cannot stand without it. Hence, why I argue that eating meat is not the issue, it's in the system itself. :

I call bullshit. You specifically said that eating meat is the problem. So either you are a liar or you are changing your mind.

In either case, I can agree with this part of your so-called argument. Better standards means reduced health risks for eating meat.

As you said: "Keep your silly analogies to yourself". :

A slippery slope is not an analogy.

Okay, so you demand scientific evidence, yet you link to people who have no scientific evidence to support their claims that purely breathing can be a means of living. :

Read carefully:

S.A.R.C.A.S.M

Ummm, the statement, "Meat-eating has been linked with cancer, heart disease, strokes, diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis, kidney stones, and many other devastating diseases." Can you refute that arguement? :

A statement by whom? What are their credentials? I saw none. Besides, it is not an argument, it is a statement. Know the difference, chief.

Meat causing the varoius ailments that vegans and vegetarians claim goes well beyond the simple act of eating meat. You posted a link to a non-scientific website chalked full of half truths, lies, and misinformation in my opinion.

People gorge themselves, people are lazy and do not exercise, people constantly eat processed foods...the list goes on. Golly gee, do you think that would also have an effect on a person's health? No, couldn't be. You rather be a vegan apologist.

Nothing is better than a well balanced diet, period.

The scientific evidence I brought to the table came from my own learnings at University. :

I.E., opinion.

we have found that dolphins posses a very high level of intelligence, one beyond any other animal we have encountered. My evidence comes from the latest books on Psychology, mostly textbooks provided to us through school. Sorry, but I don't Google my evidence very often, given that it isn't always trustworthy. Pick a book and you might find out for yourself. :

You earlier said that they may be more intelligent than we are. Are you backpedalling? Furthermore, if you are a student of Psychology, then post the titles of the books you are using or their ISBN numbers and I will look them up myself.

Funny, I figured you would have mentioned something about fluid or crystal intelligence. Do you even know what they are without Googling?

Intelligence comes in many forms. Perhaps their existential understanding far surpasses ours, so they do not have a need for calculus to find answers to solutions or questions that they can answer through another means. :

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

I need not say anymore to this quackery.

BTW, since you are a psychology student, let me know when you get your PhD.

Heh, I'd like to see your credentials buddy. "Eating Dorito's 101"?

That hit a little to close to home didn't it? The truth is, you ARE a nobody in your chosen field until you get a PhD.

Perhaps they are presenting us with a means of communication, yet we are not intelligent enough to understand it yet. :

Again, more quackery.

Maybe, just maybe...dolphins are the descendents of the ancient Atlantians! Their sins of hubris and gluttony of high technology from outer space transformed them into dolphins. Yes, they are intelligent, more intelligent than our human geniuses, BUT!!!! They are cursed forever in their fishy bodies!

LOL!!!!!!

Okay, so you want me to answer a question of ethics, through another means other than emotion... So, what, you want me to write down a mathematical equation that proves eating veal is wrong? Is this what you're expecting?

Morals can't be defined in numbers and laboratory tests nimrod. :

Holy Mary Mother of God.

It is called logic and reasoning. Are you aware that you can use these tools to formulate arguments?

Why not start with a logical syllogism and build from there. DUH.

At 9/4/05 02:26 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

Hope the long version sifts through a little more easily for you. :

Not really. You are basically arguing that a human being is so utterly helpless, which is bullshit. Intelligence is a part of our biological aptitude, and although there is a grain of truth regarding human survival via our social nature, a single human can take care of himself in the natural world.

BTW, keep your silly analogies to yourself.

Well for one thing, although these "lesser beings" are not as intelligent as we are, it does not mean they posses no intelligence whatsoever. I think to deny them of this, and treat them simply as property, is very pompous and ignorant of us. :

Denying an animal our realization that they are intelligent is ignorant? Maybe so, but what is your point? Animals are conscious too.

Would it be so heinous, cruel, vicious, and revolting if we didn't eat meat? After all, when you look at the health risks related to eating meat, it would make sense to find an alternative if it has been shown that the alternative is healthier for us, and if that alternative exists and is available... which, it is. :

(1) You did not answer me. I asked *specificall* how raising a young calf for the purposes of veal "is so heinous, cruel, vicious, and revolting." You are deflecting.

(2) Seriously. Lame. Argument.

Meat itself is not a health risk. The process of creating meat (feeding, slaughter, packing, storage, cooking) is what makes meat a health risk. Do you see the difference? It would make sense to ensure the viability of meat during the process.

(3) Again, a slippery slope. Why not have everyone eat fish, fruits and vegetables because "eating veal is so mean!" Which, of course, you have yet to justify. Hell, let us continue down the absurd slippery slope and say that the earth cannot handle 6 billion humans turned vegetarians. Then you have the quacks that say eating at all is not spiritual and that it is below us. We can get all of our nutrition from the simple act of breathing !

Really? I do believe I have provided scientific evidence to support my arguments along with the ethical issues... how odd... maybe your computer has a glitch or something. I would advise you go back and look at some of the links I provided, along with any Psychological knowledge that I have given. If you still don't see it, I think it would be in your own best interest to either have your computer checked or to contact Tom or Wade about the problem, so you don't make similar unfounded comments. :

Where? In your posts? Let me get my microscope.

Be that as it may, your lame sarcasm will not save your "argument." Scrolling back through your retardese, I noticed two links. One link was to the Church of Euthenasia, and the other was to a Vegetarian site offering a spiel about the benefits of vegetarianism.

If this is what you call "scientific evidence" then please excuse me for a few minutes as I pull myself off the floor because of hysterial laughter.

I will not repeat all the bullshit from your link, but the thing that made me lose it and fall on the floor in the first place is, "Humans are designed to be vegetarians." Yeah, good job denying millions of years of evolution. Nevermind the fact that humans are omnivores.

Yeah, you're right. Just continue to ignore the scientific evidence that researchers have provided on the intelligence levels of animals such as the dolphin and your hubris will remain undamaged and intact. After all, what do those silly scientist and psychologists know anyhow. Knowledge can be so over-rated sometimes. :

You hear that? The sound of crickets. To make them go away, post your evidence. Besides, I never implied that there are some animals that show a much greater intelligence than we thought. Ravens are smart, and so are pigs. But are we talking about fluid intelligence? Crystal intelligence? You are a pyschology student, you should know this.

Let's go back to your orginal statement that woefully implied that there is a possibility that an animal (the dolphin in this case) could be more intelligent than a human. Present the dolphin with several calculus equations. Samples should include basic derivatives and integrals of the transcendental functions.

BTW, since you are a psychology student, let me know when you get your PhD. That will signify that you are a somebody in your chosen field of pseudoscience. Ahhh, sorry, cheap shot. :-)

*If* it is just as intelligent as us, it should be able to find someway to communicate the answers. Afterall, mathematics is the language of the universe (music too).

Well, I suppose they are allowed to lay down, so it can't be all bad. Actually, it does sound more like a paradise vacation the more I think about it. Laying down, standing, getting fed regularly... and you don't even have to take a step in any direction to achieve it! Though, it's not like there's much of a choice there. :

Translation:

"Boo hoo hoo. It is so mean!" Next...

Why is my example of companionship :

Snipped emotional rant.

Until you show why eating meat for pleasure is somehow wrong, refrain from your lame crybaby "For the baby cows!" diatribe. Get to the point.

At 9/3/05 05:22 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

The only thing that makes us higher is our intelligence, and possibly the aposible thumb. Aside from that, we're a pretty pathetic species biologically. If we weren't a social being, we'd be long extinct. :

I have no idea what you are getting at. If we are pathetic biologically, then why is the human species have dominion over the earth?

I meant it is unnecesary to our well-being, functioning, survival, etc etc. The only thing veal serves is our gluttony (not hunger, gluttony). :

This becomes a dangerous slippery slope. You could make this argument against any meat. How is rasing a calf in a small box for 20 weeks of its life wrong? Exactly what is so heinous, cruel, vicious, and revolting about it?

So far all I seen you do is argue SOLEY from emotion.

Who knows, dolphins could actually be more evolved/intelligent than we are. :

Excuse my hubris, but there will never be any animal will ever compare to the comprehensive intelligence that humans possess.

I'm just saying that if we are wise enough to realize that we are inflicting pain on other creatures (reguardless of how intelligent they may be), than we should be wise enough to prevent the amount of pain they need to go through. Especially if the pain they endure is directly caused by us. :

I agree but not in this context. Calves raised in "veal farms" are hardly tortured.

Take a dog. :

Snipped the rest of the false analogy. The cow is being rasied as food. Your analogy *might* have better suited you if the young calves were being treated in the same manner as your dog.

If you are an atheist, what symbol would you endorse to represent atheism?

TheFlying Spaghetti Monster ?
The Invisible Pink Unicorn ?

Or on a more serious note, the Atomic atheist logo?

Nice sarcasm.

At 8/29/05 09:21 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

1) The animals get checked twice a day.
- okay, so within a time span of 24 hours, the calf has interaction with another species for a few minutes, twice a day. The rest of the time they are to spend laying down or standing in their "living space" :

They are bread for food. So what? Stop projecting your human emotions on an animal that is nothing more than a pattie between two slices of bread.

2) Each animal has thier own pen to live in to prevent the spread of disease in case of an infection.
- So, these animals are blessed with a space approximately 3 feet by 6 feet to live in for their entire lives... well, up to the slaughter that is (as the website indicates, they get to live for about 18-20 weeks before killed). They don't get to go outside, they don't get to interact with the other cattle or their mother (given that as the website illustrates, they are separated at birth). They are to just stand or lay down in a space that they can't even turn around in, for their time on Earth. ahhhh, the life of luxary. :

Would you prefer they have silk pillows?

At 9/3/05 12:10 PM, MagicPrincessSCHALA wrote:

I would like to start by saying that, despite there being much to loosely suggest the Darwinian theories of evolution, there is still no concrete evidence to prove that they are true. :

I weep for the future. You simply repeat the same old tired arguments. "Evolution has not been absolutley proven." "There is no concrete evidence."

It's all bullshit that stems from your lack of understanding. You are gunning for absolutes and Science does not deal with absolutes so your argument is moot. There are plenty of places on the Internet (TalkOrigins is one) and plenty of books by QUALIFIED scientists in the library. Richard Dawkins comes to mind.

The ID theories, on the other hand, are supported by documentation of thousands of years in age. I will not be so biased as to use my personal Christian beliefs as weight in this debate, but may I suggest that the beliefs held by generations upon generations of people the world over, beliefs which can fit around the ID theories, hold more weight than a theory barely over a century old. :

Ah, I see what you are saying. "Thousands of years of religious texts shows that there is more evidence for creation via a divine being than a 100 years of rigorous scientific inquiry based on empirical evidence, logic, theory falsification, demonstratable predictions, and rational reasoning."

Oh I don't know...appeal to tradition perhaps?

Again, if a person wants to believe that God created man from dust so be it. Be stupid and teach this horse crap in the proper places; i.e., home and Church. NOT in a science class.

I hereby feel that it is perfectly fair and reasonable that, both the ID theories (both the more conventional beliefs, and the up-and-coming FSM theory) and the Darwinian views, can be given equal amounts of time and attention in the American educational system. :

At 8/28/05 10:08 PM, NothingSpecial wrote: Yesh you can. According to Creationism we came from Adam and Eve. According to Evolution, We came from a single celled organism.
You really want me to make a list of why you can't believe in both? :

One is based on rigorous scientific inquiry, and the other is bullshit. Don't go through the trouble with posting.

At 8/28/05 09:36 AM, NothingSpecial wrote:

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. :

Bullshit. This is nothing more than a myth.

http://www.infidels...rrell_till/myth.html

The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.:

Funny the Constitution NEVER mentions "Jesus", "Bible", or "Christianity" isn't it? Why don't we just scoot the Treaty of Tripoli under the rug. Nothing to see there! Complete with the lies of the Christian Right Wing!

http://www.positivea..rg/writ/founding.htm

That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. :

And 85% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? :

Because, in this country, there will be no established religion by the government. Unless you mean that people who are religious vote by their beliefs. This is the ONLY way that the "Church" can influence the State.

People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and state", which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. :

Whose moral values? Fifty years ago, people read the Bible and said God hated blacks That was considered "moral." Now, fifty years later, they read the Bible AGAIN and realize God loves blacks, he just hates queers now. That is Biblical Morality.

Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. :

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. This is found the world over in countless religions not to mention ccommon sense. Damn, it must suck for you to be stuck in the Christian Worldview.

Here is a link discussing a SPATIAL fouth dimension:

http://tetraspace.alkaline.org/

At 8/24/05 11:17 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

Wait, where the proof for that statement? :

It's in the entire article that YOU quoted. But you said "proof." Are you going to whine about an absolute again?

Wait, where the empirical evidence for synthesis? :

I am speaking in terms of empirical evidence being utilized throughout the body of science. Empirical meaning that we obtain it from postpriori experience...which *GASP* would be gather from facts! Theories would be formulated to explain those facts based off of empirical evidence. OMG LOL OMG!

Besides, follow the cute links that explain synthesis.

Wait, what part of macroevolutin has been observed? :

Shall I post links and explain it to you? Or what would be the point since you practically ignore everything I post anyway and casually brush it aside.

String theory? Who cares about that. That is so contreversial now its stupid. And much less proof for it. :

It served as an anology to quiet your insistant bitching implications that there are numerous theories of evolution and somehow that leads to some magic bullet to debunk it. And there you go with your "proof" word again. Always with the absolutes!

No. You seem to be having trouble seeing what I am saying. Evolution, as the idea of new creatures coming into being. I am arguing the mechanics, which everyone seems to take as fact. We have nothing in the way of "facts" of this. :

What is this hideous strawman you have built? Before I go any further, post the correct definition of evolution and what YOU mean by "new creatures coming into being." I will wait for Teh Funny response.

Futhermore, only now have you clarified that you are aruging against the theory of evolution and not the fact that it occurs. Personally, I think you are full of it and have to back pedal a bit and start a new argument. Apparently, you are beginning to do so.

And so what? There are numerous theories of how evolution occured. I will leave the competing SCIENTIFIC theories to the scientists.

And stop fucking insulting me douchebag. Maybe its possible I do know a thing or two of biology. :

Given the obvious notion that it has take two pages of posts to explain "fact" and "theory" of evolution makes me wonder.