Hippies don't attack religion food

[hippl5]

Why won't hippies/vegetarians/vegans/animal rights bastards attack religious food laws? Such as Halal and Kosher?

They go on and on how there's suffering and cruelty in slaughter houses. "oh the animal is suffering!". The non-religious way of slaughter involves stunning the animal using bolt guns, gas, or electricity. Yes, some animals aren't completely stunned and can still feel pain, but the method does knock them out for a painless death. And hippies still whine.

Now, in Halal laws, the animal must be fully conscious, and the killing method is bleeding to death from a slit throat. Now, which is more "Humane"? Getting knocked the fuck out before you die, or being fully conscious while bleeding to death upside down?

Not once have I heard anyone bitch about religious food laws. It's always something religion-neutral like "The animals suffer in cages".

Beef jerky kicks ass.

[SmilezRoyale]

The point of kosher isn't to be humane, i think it's based on ancient sanitation methods.

Anywho... the humanity of eating animals doesn't concern me, i don't know of any Animals that consider using a Coup De Grace on their prey, ever.

[bobomajo]

When snakes hunt small animals their venom kills them almost instantly. Most prey dies fast. I've got nothing against eating animals but that method of slaughter is quite brutal and pointless just to serve religious purposes. If we are going the eat an animal the least we can do is make it quick and least painfully as possible.

[evilXbanana]

At 5/9/08 09:42 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The point of kosher isn't to be humane, i think it's based on ancient sanitation methods.

Bingo. You get a yellow sticker for applying logic within the first 5 posts of a thread.

[dySWN]

At 5/9/08 09:42 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: i don't know of any Animals that consider using a Coup De Grace on their prey, ever.

Some of us humans do.

But that's about it.

[Sajberhippien]

At 5/9/08 09:18 PM, hippl5 wrote: Why won't hippies/vegetarians/vegans/animal rights bastards attack religious food laws? Such as Halal and Kosher?

We do. Just some days ago, I wrote this on another forum:
"Well, if Halal IS legalized here, I*ll be the to join you in a street protest. However, I don't think it will pass, it's TOO outrageous and there's too many people opposing it, for example, the whole animal rights movement."

I don't know much about kosher, but we don't have many jews here in Sweden. We have many muslims though, and they're trying to legalize Halal, which is illegal right now. Observe trying, there's no way they're getting that.

[Earfetish]

Some of them make a big deal of how well they treat the animal and that it's all free range.

It seems like cultural snobbery to me to denigrate their way of killing without actually observing all of them.

[Christopherr]

The argument against eating animals at all is flawed from every rational viewpoint possible.

Religious: Animals were created for us to eat.
Evolutionary: We evolved to eat animals, so we should eat them.
Moral: The animals widely eaten for food show little or no intelligence or ability to think, so they really don't care much whether they live or die.
Nutritional: Meat is a vital source of nutrients that are harder to obtain through other means.

on the other hand...

Vegetarian: It's just immoral. It just is wrong to kill animals (even though we evolved to be able to eat them) for food.

[Earfetish]

At 5/10/08 10:33 AM, Christopherr wrote: The argument against eating animals at all is flawed from every rational viewpoint possible.

I hate to do this, but I kinda had to

Religious: Animals were created for us to eat.

you mean 'Judeo-Christian'. I think you'll find Hare Krishnas will have a differing viewpoint to you.

Evolutionary: We evolved to eat animals, so we should eat them.

We apparently evolved to scavenge food from other predators and eat bugs. Anyway, there's nothing natural about factory farming.

Moral: The animals widely eaten for food show little or no intelligence or ability to think, so they really don't care much whether they live or die.

Does this apply to people who kick cats? If someone had their pet dog in a cage for life, would you still feel the same? Factory farming, again - the only argument I really feel passionate about, and the one argument meat-eaters love to avoid.

Nutritional: Meat is a vital source of nutrients that are harder to obtain through other means.

You have an excess of protein. You should really only eat meat once a week or once every few days, not for three meals a day, if you're going to eat it at all. If you eat a lot of meat, it'll probably cause a heart attack in older age. Or bowel cancer.

on the other hand...

Vegetarian: It's just immoral. It just is wrong to kill animals (even though we evolved to be able to eat them) for food.

Do you take all your morals from evolution? Social Darwinism much? I take my morals from humanity - evolution has nothing to say about morality, as far as I'm concerned.

[Sajberhippien]

At 5/10/08 10:33 AM, Christopherr wrote: The argument against eating animals at all is flawed from every rational viewpoint possible.

Religious: Animals were created for us to eat.

I'm not religious, but many religions wouldn't agree, such as Buddhism and Christianity.

Evolutionary: We evolved to eat animals, so we should eat them.

We also evolved to rape and murder each other. Should we do that too?

Moral: The animals widely eaten for food show little or no intelligence or ability to think, so they really don't care much whether they live or die.

The animals widely eaten definately has the ability to think, and of course they care if they live or die. Cows, pigs, monkeys, chickens, dogs & cats, and most other eaten animals, even fish, show definate signs of intelligence. Animals that can learn can think. Sure, they don't discuss Nietche, but that hardly matters.
The exception to this would probably be insects and the kind of animal that shrimps and crabs are (don't know the name in english).

Nutritional: Meat is a vital source of nutrients that are harder to obtain through other means.

Vegetarians suffer less from obesity, diabetes, Alzheimers, and cancer. We also have lower cholesterol. On an average, they live longer and have higher IQ.
Everything that can be found in meat can be found in vegan food, and is easy to find if one drinks milk or/and eats eggs.
Show me one singly reliable study proving that vegetarians more often suffer from lack of nutrients. Sure, some do, but some meat-eaters also do, right?

on the other hand...

Vegetarian: It's just immoral. It just is wrong to kill animals (even though we evolved to be able to eat them) for food.

First off, yes, it is, as we don't need too. It's wrong to kill humans to steal their food to, even though we've evolved to be able to do that.
It's the naturalistic fallacy all over again. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS NATURAL DOESN*T MEAN IT'S RIGHT.

But you miss a main point, that to me is the single most important: Meat is a total waste of resources. For every pound of protein you get from beef, you can with the same space and less time and water get 4 pounds of protein from Soya beans. Plus, soya beans contain a lot of other important nutrients that meant don't.
There are few things that a vegetarian has a hard time getting. The once most often mentioned are:
Proteins, found in all kinds of beans and peas. There's also a lot of Quorn and Soya products that's easy to cook and contain these things, as well as Tofu. Not to forget Potatoes, which also contains a notable amount.
Vitamin B12, which is found in milk (a glass of milk provides your whole recommended daily intake). If you don't drink milk, there are lots of vegetables which each may provide not very much, but since you don't really need more than about half your recommended daily intake (unless you're physically weak, for example have lowered immunity system).
Iron, which is found in many beans and peas, as well as many different other sorts of food. Black beans, raisins, spinach, and cashew nuts all contain iron.

That's about it.
http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada /hs.xsl/advocacy_933_ENU_HTML.htm

[SolInvictus]

At 5/10/08 10:40 AM, Earfetish wrote:

Evolutionary: We evolved to eat animals, so we should eat them.

We apparently evolved to scavenge food from other predators and eat bugs. Anyway, there's nothing natural about factory farming.

actually the evolutionary connection to meat is debatable. given our physiological particularities we seem to have evolved not only to walk long distances but to actually run these distances in extreme heat with limited ill effect whereas most animals cannot keep a sustained run for long. in essence it is possible we evolved for persistence hunting, i.e.; chasing an animal until it collapses from fatigue.

[Earfetish]

At 5/11/08 10:29 AM, SolInvictus wrote: i.e.; chasing an animal until it collapses from fatigue.

prey, eg buffalo, antelope, can run for long distances. Predators, like cheetahs and lions, cannot.

[SolInvictus]

At 5/11/08 10:53 AM, Earfetish wrote:

At 5/11/08 10:29 AM, SolInvictus wrote: i.e.; chasing an animal until it collapses from fatigue.

prey, eg buffalo, antelope, can run for long distances. Predators, like cheetahs and lions, cannot.

and we can outrun them at a slower, but constant pace. bipedalism is much more efficient and geared towards endurance than quadrapeds.

[SouthAsian]

Dhab%u012B%u1E25ah (%u0630%u064E%u0628%u0650%u064A%u0652%u0 62D%u064E%u0629) is the prescribed method of ritual slaughter of all animals excluding fish and most sea-life per Islamic law. This method of slaughtering animals consists of a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides but leaving the spinal cord intact. The objective of this technique is to more effectively drain the body of the animal's blood, resulting in more hygienic meat, and to minimize the pain and agony for the animal.

Sounds pretty humane to me.

[Sajberhippien]

At 5/11/08 11:38 AM, SouthAsian wrote: Dhab%u012B%u1E25ah (%u0630%u064E%u0628%u0650%u064A%u0652%u0 62D%u064E%u0629) is the prescribed method of ritual slaughter of all animals excluding fish and most sea-life per Islamic law. This method of slaughtering animals consists of a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides but leaving the spinal cord intact. The objective of this technique is to more effectively drain the body of the animal's blood, resulting in more hygienic meat, and to minimize the pain and agony for the animal.

Sounds pretty humane to me.

If you wouldn't do it to a human, it's not humane. Halal wouldn't had been so much worse than other methods of slaughtering if it had allowed for tranquilizers and such things, but it doesn't. Any method of slaughtering that takes more than a second for the animal to die is VERY bad. Sure, 1400 years ago it wasn't that bad compared to the options, but today, we can kill them in a tenth of a second (or better yet, skip eating meat alltogether).
It's just another example of where religion creates unnecessary suffering.

At 5/11/08 11:04 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 5/11/08 10:53 AM, Earfetish wrote:

At 5/11/08 10:29 AM, SolInvictus wrote: i.e.; chasing an animal until it collapses from fatigue.

prey, eg buffalo, antelope, can run for long distances. Predators, like cheetahs and lions, cannot.

and we can outrun them at a slower, but constant pace. bipedalism is much more efficient and geared towards endurance than quadrapeds.

I don't know much about this, but I can't think of many prey animals that a normal person could outrun. The above mentioned buffalos and antelopes would outrun us quickly, as would horses, giraffes, rhinos and most other animals. I don't know how quick elephants are, but that's about the only of the larger I can think of.
I can't think of many predators that are endurable either, neither catlike and doglike animals can run far. Of the apes and monkeys, few are carnivorous in that sense, that they directly hunt, although many eat insects and I think a few eat cadavres from time to time. They mostly have a focus on fruits though...

[SolInvictus]

At 5/11/08 12:01 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: I don't know much about this, but I can't think of many prey animals that a normal person could outrun. The above mentioned buffalos and antelopes would outrun us quickly, as would horses, giraffes, rhinos and most other animals. I don't know how quick elephants are, but that's about the only of the larger I can think of.
I can't think of many predators that are endurable either, neither catlike and doglike animals can run far. Of the apes and monkeys, few are carnivorous in that sense, that they directly hunt, although many eat insects and I think a few eat cadavres from time to time. They mostly have a focus on fruits though...

it isn't that we can keep such animals in sight, but at a constant pace the animal can be tracked and forced to run until it tires itself out. the animal can generally outrun a human and find a place to rest while the human catches up but the amount of time it has to rest is usually much to short to do it much good. so even though the human runs along at a comparativley slow pace he can keep running at that pace without dehydration and heat exhaustion (due to the fact that we sweat and have other processes that increase temperature regulating abilities) while the animal cannot.

[Earfetish]

Do you take all your morals from evolution? Social Darwinism much? I take my morals from humanity - evolution has nothing to say about morality, as far as I'm concerned.

[homor]

because they have no right to attack other peoples religous beilfes.

you fucking idiot.

[homor]

At 5/11/08 12:33 PM, Earfetish wrote: Do you take all your morals from evolution? Social Darwinism much? I take my morals from humanity - evolution has nothing to say about morality, as far as I'm concerned.

evolution doesn't even really disprove that theres a god.

[Sajberhippien]

At 5/11/08 12:26 PM, SolInvictus wrote: it isn't that we can keep such animals in sight, but at a constant pace the animal can be tracked and forced to run until it tires itself out. the animal can generally outrun a human and find a place to rest while the human catches up but the amount of time it has to rest is usually much to short to do it much good. so even though the human runs along at a comparativley slow pace he can keep running at that pace without dehydration and heat exhaustion (due to the fact that we sweat and have other processes that increase temperature regulating abilities) while the animal cannot.

One learns everyday. Very interesting.

At 5/11/08 01:25 PM, homor wrote: because they have no right to attack other peoples religous beilfes.

you fucking idiot.

You know, I started a new religion yesterday. It's about raping women, and keep them tied down until they give birth to your child, and then fucking the babies, finishing it all of by driving the head of the baby in through the mouth of the women so the child's cranium is crushed and the woman chokes to death.
You object? Hey! Freedom of religion!
Freedom of religion is a law that should be put after all other kinds of laws. You shouldn't be able to hurt any living thinking being in the name of religion and get away with it. Actually, you shouldn't be able to hurt any living thinking being for any reason and get away with it.
And yes, I consider animals thinking, living beings. That's because they ARE living, thinking, beings.

At 5/11/08 01:27 PM, homor wrote: evolution doesn't even really disprove that theres a god.

What the fuck has that to do with anything?

[n64kid]

Saj, for being in AI, you sure don't understand other cultures. Go take an anthropology course or something.

At 5/11/08 01:52 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

The animals widely eaten definately has the ability to think, and of course they care if they live or die. Cows, pigs, monkeys, chickens, dogs & cats, and most other eaten animals, even fish, show definate signs of intelligence. Animals that can learn can think. Sure, they don't discuss Nietche, but that hardly matters.

Except fish have been shown to be so stupid they don't even know that they are alive. Every other animal that you listed have been shown that they can't form thoughts, but can be trained through operant conditioning. It's like confusing animals to do what you want, not teaching them. There's almost no intelligence in animals that we eat- except for dolphin. MMM I could sure go for some right about now.

On an average, they live longer and have higher IQ.

Source me the IQ.

You object? Hey! Freedom of religion!

You have a lot to understand about the freedom of religion granted by the constitution. The religion must be recognized first. You can't claim a religion that promotes killing, kill someone, and expect to be exempt from the law. It doesn't work like that.

Freedom of religion is a law that should be put after all other kinds of laws. You shouldn't be able to hurt any living thinking being in the name of religion and get away with it. Actually, you shouldn't be able to hurt any living thinking being for any reason and get away with it.

You're pulling a poxpower, taking something to the extreme where it loses original meaning.

[Sajberhippien]

At 5/11/08 02:19 PM, n64kid wrote: Saj, for being in AI, you sure don't understand other cultures. Go take an anthropology course or something.

At 5/11/08 01:52 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

The animals widely eaten definately has the ability to think, and of course they care if they live or die. Cows, pigs, monkeys, chickens, dogs & cats, and most other eaten animals, even fish, show definate signs of intelligence. Animals that can learn can think. Sure, they don't discuss Nietche, but that hardly matters.

Except fish have been shown to be so stupid they don't even know that they are alive.

Source?

Every other animal that you listed have been shown that they can't form thoughts, but can be trained through operant conditioning.

Huh? First off, source? Secondly, how do you define thought? Abstract thinking may be impossible, but that's also impossible for children.

It's like confusing animals to do what you want, not teaching them. There's almost no intelligence in animals that we eat- except for dolphin. MMM I could sure go for some right about now.

How is teaching a dog things different than teaching a kid things? Learing is always stimuli-response, no matter what species you are. Also, have you checked out monkeys (especially, although not only, apes), which are eaten? They seem to have the ability of abstract thinking, can solve communication problems (for example by inventing new words for things, one example is a female gorilla that speaks sign language and when she didn't know the word for ring, she said "finger-bracelet" to refer to it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligenc e_in_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_intelli gence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_%28gor illa%29
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/200 0-04/955599153.Zo.r.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_intelli gence

On an average, they live longer and have higher IQ.

Source me the IQ.

Hmm... Saw now that I remembered it a bit wrong. Vegetarians are usually people with higher IQ AS CHILDREN. Sorry for the error, my bad.
http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.
asp?id=72823-vegetarian-iq

The religion must be recognized first.

Then it's not freedom of religion, it's freedom of "okay" religions. Sure, you can choose between a select few, but you're not really free to choose on your own. It's like saying "yeah, you have freedom of speech, as long as you only use these, these, and these words".

You can't claim a religion that promotes killing, kill someone, and expect to be exempt from the law. It doesn't work like that.

I know it doesn't, and I'm goddamn happy it doesn't. I objected to the person saying that we shouldn't keep away from criticizing the usage of brutal slaughtering methods because of freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion is a law that should be put after all other kinds of laws. You shouldn't be able to hurt any living thinking being in the name of religion and get away with it. Actually, you shouldn't be able to hurt any living thinking being for any reason and get away with it.

You're pulling a poxpower, taking something to the extreme where it loses original meaning.

No, I'm not. While I know this isn't what's happening right now, and that the law isn't that way right now, it was in response to that STUPID post. But, as for note, you shouldn't be able to take the law to it's extreme so to speak. The law must be very clear so it can't be abused. Here in Sweden we have problems with freedom of religion leading to people like Åke Green getting allowed to say that gays are a cancer upon the body of society; had he not been religious, he would have lost his case (hate speech is illegal in Sweden), but since he's religious, he can just say "I promoted christianity!" and go free to continue those effed up things.

[Sajberhippien]

At 5/11/08 02:19 PM, n64kid wrote: Saj, for being in AI, you sure don't understand other cultures. Go take an anthropology course or something.

What cultures don't I understand? I in no way claim to perfectly know all cultures, but I don't understand what that has to do with animal rights and brutal ways of slaughter?

[n64kid]

At 5/11/08 03:17 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

What cultures don't I understand? I in no way claim to perfectly know all cultures, but I don't understand what that has to do with animal rights and brutal ways of slaughter

The cultures that feast on animals and feel that their methods do treat the animal with rights. You seem to claim that they are all bad and don't treat them humanely.

Huh? First off, source? Secondly, how do you define thought? Abstract thinking may be impossible, but that's also impossible for children.

Children under 4 maybe, but my source lies with operant conditioning. If you know what it is, and how it's been tested, you shouldn't ask for a source.

How is teaching a dog things different than teaching a kid things? Learing is always stimuli-response, no matter what species you are.

It's just much different with humans, hence the differences in lifestyle. I don't see a dog going into space in a spaceship he built.

Humans learn and UNDERSTAND. Animals develop relfexive responses with conditioning.

Also, have you checked out monkeys (especially, although not only, apes), which are eaten?

Monkeys are known to be intelligent. I have no argument with that, and to be consistent, I'm against monkeys being eaten. But chickens aren't monkeys. Chickens are bird-brains =D

Hmm... Saw now that I remembered it a bit wrong. Vegetarians are usually people with higher IQ AS CHILDREN. Sorry for the error, my bad.

Everyone makes mistakes.

Then it's not freedom of religion, it's freedom of "okay" religions. Sure, you can choose between a select few, but you're not really free to choose on your own. It's like saying "yeah, you have freedom of speech, as long as you only use these, these, and these words".

It's a definition of whether something is a religion. If it's not established and recognized as a religion, it doesn't fall under the first amendment. It's kind of confusing if you don't study it in whole, but it is incorrect to make the assumption that it's not freedom of "okay" religions.

I know it doesn't, and I'm goddamn happy it doesn't. I objected to the person saying that we shouldn't keep away from criticizing the usage of brutal slaughtering methods because of freedom of religion.

I know you were making the example, but you were misusing the first amendment.

No, I'm not. While I know this isn't what's happening right now, and that the law isn't that way right now, it was in response to that STUPID post. But, as for note, you shouldn't be able to take the law to it's extreme so to speak.

But not to an extreme where it loses original meaning. You made a jump that isn't part of it.

The law must be very clear so it can't be abused. Here in Sweden we have problems with freedom of religion leading to people like Åke Green getting allowed to say that gays are a cancer upon the body of society; had he not been religious, he would have lost his case (hate speech is illegal in Sweden), but since he's religious, he can just say "I promoted christianity!" and go free to continue those effed up things.

So you're against a nutjob holding a horrible opinion? The American ideal would be to ignore these people, not force them to not speak their mind. If he uses a loophole to say hurtful things, then who cares if the majority sees him as a loser anyways, right?

[Sajberhippien]

At 5/11/08 03:50 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 5/11/08 03:17 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

What cultures don't I understand? I in no way claim to perfectly know all cultures, but I don't understand what that has to do with animal rights and brutal ways of slaughter

The cultures that feast on animals and feel that their methods do treat the animal with rights. You seem to claim that they are all bad and don't treat them humanely.

What has understanding a culture to do with supporting it? Many cultures cut of parts of the women's pussy, do you think I shouldn't be against that too, just to be "understanding"?
And I claim that you shouldn't use the word "humane" on an action that you would never dream of doing on a human.

Huh? First off, source? Secondly, how do you define thought? Abstract thinking may be impossible, but that's also impossible for children.

Children under 4 maybe, but my source lies with operant conditioning. If you know what it is, and how it's been tested, you shouldn't ask for a source.

Children under 13 rather. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_devel opment_%28psychology%29
Operant condition IS in a way learning, and is used all the time on humans. If I put my hand in the oven and burn myself, and therefore not do it again, it's operant conditioning. It's intelligence at work.
Also, many animals, at least most mammals, have the ability of abstract thinking. If a dog gets scared by a volvo, chances are good he'll keep a healthy distance to all cars, busses and trucks. That's abstract thinking.

It's just much different with humans, hence the differences in lifestyle. I don't see a dog going into space in a spaceship he built.

Straw man. I haven't built a space ship, but I have some measure of intellince anyway.
Just that we are more HIGHLY intelligent doesn't mean they can't be intelligent at all. It's like saying "No, human's can't affect things physically since elephants are stronger".

Humans learn and UNDERSTAND. Animals develop relfexive responses with conditioning.

How do you mean? A human learns that "if I put the hand in the oven, I'm going to get fried". A dog learns, for all we know, that "If I run into the oven, I'm going to get fried".
What's the difference? That we can calculate the exact degree the oven has to be for us to burn ourselves? There's lots of people who can't do that either.
Also, according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understandi ng
This is understanding:
# A person understands a command if he/she knows who gave it, what is expected by the issuer, and whether the command is legitimate, and whether one understands the speaker (see 4).
# One understands a reasoning, an argument, or a language if one can consciously reproduce the information content conveyed by the message.
Both those things can be observed in animals.

So you're against a nutjob holding a horrible opinion? The American ideal would be to ignore these people, not force them to not speak their mind. If he uses a loophole to say hurtful things, then who cares if the majority sees him as a loser anyways, right?

Yes, I'm against it. Especially since the night after him being freed by the court, two homos where assaulted by people claiming it to be okay now and it being gods will. A person trying to convince other people that some humans are like a cancer (which strongly suggests that it would be better removed), especially when in that position (he is a pastor; I wouldn't have cared if it was some 15-yearold skinhead), should clearly not be allowed to continue. I don't care what opinions he has, but when he stands in the pulpit saying that homosexuals are a disease, it's starting to sound very much 1939. Had he not been religious, he would have gotten at least a fat fine, if not a month or two in prison. Hate Speech can give up to 4 years of prison in Sweden, and while those punishments are reserved for EXTREME cases, I don't doubt he'd would've had a good chance of prison.

[n64kid]

At 5/11/08 04:39 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 5/11/08 03:50 PM, n64kid wrote:

What has understanding a culture to do with supporting it? Many cultures cut of parts of the women's pussy, do you think I shouldn't be against that too, just to be "understanding"?

To take consideration to what people have been doing for thousands of years like the Eveny and Hmong is vital in understanding why you should not just impose on their actions to sacrifice and eat animals.

And I claim that you shouldn't use the word "humane" on an action that you would never dream of doing on a human.

That's your claim, but humane is defined by webster as:
1. showing kindness and sympathy
2. inflicting as little pain as possible

Shooting a deer in the head and eating it is humane. Shooting a deer a bunch of times in various places is not. I wouldn't do either to a human, but the former is humane.

Children under 13 rather. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_devel opment_%28psychology%29

I'm not even going to bother to find an internet source.
Child Development - Karen Caplovitz. It's a text book. I find it better than the wiki article.
"Although once widely accepted, Piaget's stages of cognitive development has been shown to underestimate formal operational development of abstract cases developing in early childhood."

Along with a nice study comparing abstract thought with 3 and 4 year olds showing that 4 year olds grasp the subject and can form abstract thoughts, whereas 3 year olds cannot. Even Piaget's model, although proven incorrect, states 11.

Operant condition IS in a way learning, and is used all the time on humans. If I put my hand in the oven and burn myself, and therefore not do it again, it's operant conditioning. It's intelligence at work.
Also, many animals, at least most mammals, have the ability of abstract thinking. If a dog gets scared by a volvo, chances are good he'll keep a healthy distance to all cars, busses and trucks. That's abstract thinking.

That's not abstract thinking. There's no "formal operational thought", there's no understanding. It's just cars scare me, I'll avoid it. You describe conditioning with a dog, I have seen conditioning with pigeons, there is no understanding, though.

Just that we are more HIGHLY intelligent doesn't mean they can't be intelligent at all. It's like saying "No, human's can't affect things physically since elephants are stronger".

I was trying to prove that we are the only forms of life, excluding dolphins and monkeys, who have been shown to have higher thought processes. There's almost no understanding demonstrated by animals that Americans eat, and that's what I'm claiming.

How do you mean?

You see the definition, you know the cases, you should see the difference.

Yes, I'm against it. Especially since the night after him being freed by the court, two homos where assaulted by people claiming it to be okay now and it being gods will. A person trying to convince other people that some humans are like a cancer (which strongly suggests that it would be better removed), especially when in that position (he is a pastor; I wouldn't have cared if it was some 15-yearold skinhead), should clearly not be allowed to continue. I don't care what opinions he has, but when he stands in the pulpit saying that homosexuals are a disease, it's starting to sound very much 1939. Had he not been religious, he would have gotten at least a fat fine, if not a month or two in prison. Hate Speech can give up to 4 years of prison in Sweden, and while those punishments are reserved for EXTREME cases, I don't doubt he'd would've had a good chance of prison.

If this happened in America, I'd put the blaim on those who assaulted the gays, and not the nut who said God hates fags. And please don't pull a Reductio ad Hitlerum, there's too much of that shit in the BBS already.

[fli]

Kosher is better for human compassion... at least.
It pays more to the people who create and bring the food to you.

[ThePretenders]

At 5/11/08 11:38 AM, SouthAsian wrote: Sounds pretty humane to me.

It atleast Halal is better than stunning an animal and leaving it to die.

[Sajberhippien]

At 5/11/08 05:52 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 5/11/08 04:39 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 5/11/08 03:50 PM, n64kid wrote:

What has understanding a culture to do with supporting it? Many cultures cut of parts of the women's pussy, do you think I shouldn't be against that too, just to be "understanding"?

To take consideration to what people have been doing for thousands of years like the Eveny and Hmong is vital in understanding why you should not just impose on their actions to sacrifice and eat animals.

Well, up here in the north we sacrificed humans for thousands of years. If I start doing that again, is it bad to tell me not to because you're not being "understanding"?

That's your claim, but humane is defined by webster as:
1. showing kindness and sympathy
2. inflicting as little pain as possible

Shooting a deer in the head and eating it is humane. Shooting a deer a bunch of times in various places is not. I wouldn't do either to a human, but the former is humane.

You don't inflict as little pain as possible by shooting a deer in the head. You'd inflict less pain if you didn't shoot it, right?

I'm not even going to bother to find an internet source.
Child Development - Karen Caplovitz. It's a text book. I find it better than the wiki article.

Well then, I'll have to look more into it. Anyways, in what way is a dog's abstract thinking different from a humans?

Operant condition IS in a way learning, and is used all the time on humans. If I put my hand in the oven and burn myself, and therefore not do it again, it's operant conditioning. It's intelligence at work.
Also, many animals, at least most mammals, have the ability of abstract thinking. If a dog gets scared by a volvo, chances are good he'll keep a healthy distance to all cars, busses and trucks. That's abstract thinking.

That's not abstract thinking. There's no "formal operational thought", there's no understanding. It's just cars scare me, I'll avoid it. You describe conditioning with a dog, I have seen conditioning with pigeons, there is no understanding, though.

Abstract thinking is, according to this, abstract thinking is the following:
"Abstraction is the process or result of generalization by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically in order to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose. For example, abstracting a leather soccer ball to a ball retains only the information on general ball attributes and behaviour."

In this case, the dog abstracts that specific car to all cars.

Just that we are more HIGHLY intelligent doesn't mean they can't be intelligent at all. It's like saying "No, human's can't affect things physically since elephants are stronger".

I was trying to prove that we are the only forms of life, excluding dolphins and monkeys, who have been shown to have higher thought processes. There's almost no understanding demonstrated by animals that Americans eat, and that's what I'm claiming.

You see the definition, you know the cases, you should see the difference.

Still, what do you mean with understanding? If you mean any of these , you really can't observe understanding in another human more than in a dog (or pig). Sure, you could get him to talk about it, but still, talking may very well be without "formal operational thought", just repeating what the person has been told about it. How can you check if someone understands the word "sit" in russian more than a dog do? Both can react by sitting down, and the human can respond with "it means to sit down", but both of these can be conditioned. You claim that animals don't have thoughts, but you can in no way support that as long as you claim that other humans than yourself has thoughts. There is a clear difference between how insects respond, but humans and other mammals (and birds for that matter) react in about the same way.

Yes, I'm against it. Especially since the night after him being freed by the court, two homos where assaulted by people claiming it to be okay now and it being gods will. A person trying to convince other people that some humans are like a cancer (which strongly suggests that it would be better removed), especially when in that position (he is a pastor; I wouldn't have cared if it was some 15-yearold skinhead), should clearly not be allowed to continue. I don't care what opinions he has, but when he stands in the pulpit saying that homosexuals are a disease, it's starting to sound very much 1939. Had he not been religious, he would have gotten at least a fat fine, if not a month or two in prison. Hate Speech can give up to 4 years of prison in Sweden, and while those punishments are reserved for EXTREME cases, I don't doubt he'd would've had a good chance of prison.

If this happened in America, I'd put the blaim on those who assaulted the gays, and not the nut who said God hates fags. And please don't pull a Reductio ad Hitlerum, there's too much of that shit in the BBS already.

Well, in this case mentioning the nazis where well grounded, as that is one of the things the german nazis stood for. I wouldn't mind if someone mentioned the nazis in response to someone saying "gas all jews!", so I don't get the problem here?
Also, of course they are to blame, directly. They should get a nice number of years. However, there's a thin line. If someone hires a killer, he breaks the law. If someone tells someone to kill someone, he breaks the law. But where goes the limit? To me, it should be illegal to say stuff like "Those people deserve to die, I hope someone kills them". Of course, after that the line is more diffuse, but I think Green's speech was way over that line.
Of course you take individual responsibility of your actions, but you are an individual only in a society and you affect the people around you.

[n64kid]

At 5/12/08 04:25 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

Well, up here in the north we sacrificed humans for thousands of years. If I start doing that again, is it bad to tell me not to because you're not being "understanding"?

Yes, it would be bad to tell you to stop. If it's a tradition that's been going on for thousands of years, still important to your culture, and you used the example of sacrificing animals as I was, then let them be.

You don't inflict as little pain as possible by shooting a deer in the head. You'd inflict less pain if you didn't shoot it, right?

So there is only one humane thing to do in a situation, and that is to never inflict pain. Great logic and definition. If shoot a deer in the head for food, it is humane.

Well then, I'll have to look more into it. Anyways, in what way is a dog's abstract thinking different from a humans?

I don't care because Americans don't eat dogs. As far as a chicken go.
http://www.upc-online.org/thinking_like_
a_chicken.html

"Evidence that chimpanzees possess such a mind is a primary reason why many are now insisting that they should be granted "human rights." Human rights for chimpanzees? Yes. Human rights for chickens? Meaningless."

In this case, the dog abstracts that specific car to all cars.

In your case, there is a generalization, but conditioning (Little Albert case) shows that there is generalization without abstract, or as I like to call it, formal operant thinking. However, it's just a conditioned response to a stimulus, and hardly what we'd call intelligence. There's just no understanding that has been established.

Still, what do you mean with understanding? If you mean any of these , you really can't observe understanding in another human more than in a dog (or pig).

Except with brain scans, we can. And the videos I've seen (brain scans on cats and cows) they do not understand what it going on and only have concrete thoughts.

Well, in this case mentioning the nazis where well grounded, as that is one of the things the german nazis stood for. I wouldn't mind if someone mentioned the nazis in response to someone saying "gas all jews!", so I don't get the problem here?

The thing is that the blame is on those who committed the act, not the preacher.

Also, of course they are to blame, directly. They should get a nice number of years. However, there's a thin line. If someone hires a killer, he breaks the law. If someone tells someone to kill someone, he breaks the law. But where goes the limit?

The limit is established according to our justice system. Whether there is coercion or not. I don't know how it works where you live, but the fine line has a place.

To me, it should be illegal to say stuff like "Those people deserve to die, I hope someone kills them". Of course, after that the line is more diffuse, but I think Green's speech was way over that line.

To me, that's an ignorant opinion but they have a RIGHT to hold it. It goes back to freedom of speach, and you are in favor of limiting that.