Bonus for running contests is 1-shot, SP, to encourage other clans to step up for the point, + I gave it to us for the 1st contest this year already. . . if the mafia game could grant an additional point, there might be a rush on running it. . . + I guess I'm not really willing to relinquish control of the annual mafia game yet
ah...gotcha. I knew that you had said you were thinking about retroactively giving us the point for the first one, but I wasn't aware that you actually had; my bad.
There are unsavory practices in every industry, that doesn't mean that said industries should just be cut out of our lives. Should we stop buying houses just because the finance industry spent a few years being crooked?
Why not? That is the entire point to several facets of vegetarianisms, boycotts, and ways of life. Some company or industry performs something utterly unethical then don't partake in it. It's a legit reason and if the pain from enough people withholding their cash is big enough the industry may change. Or else new industries'll form to accommodate the standards of those people. There's a huge vegan restaurant industry in Portland, or.
@Daggs: I was just specifically referring to cellulite with that first bit. When I said supplements, I was referring to things that you can't get naturally if you don't eat meat. Like Omega-3. Actually, even most people that eat meat don't eat much fish, so they should take Omega-3 capsules anyway, but w/e.
In that case cellulite consumption only refers to a handful of herbivores. Plenty that can't digest it. Omega-3 can be found in several seeds and nuts.
I'm not as educated in the specifics of this as any of you guys, and I would never try to say otherwise. But I do know a little bit. And I know how to look things up. And I have never found any objective evidence supporting the notion that humans are, or ever were, herbivores.
Blod's an herbivore. Shouldn't that be proof that some humans are herbivores? Sure, nobody in the human race "must" be a herbivore, but that doesn't preclude herbivory from existing. I've also mentioned that cows and chickens are fed...well cows and chicken...and they're suppose to be herbivores. Also, several herbivores, when nutritionally stressed, will behave oddly including eating dirt, flesh, and perform cannibalism. There are also plenty of societies that don't eat meat, or rarely eat meat due to scarcity, and they survive just fine.
Quote from cyan »
Also, if it is in our nature to be omnivores, why would we ever want to not be them?
That has been answered multiple times. When ethical, environmental, and health beliefs are strong then diets can change. I don't drink soda...I like soda...but I don't drink it with two exceptions...it's alcoholic or I need the caffeine fix. I've also boycotted McDonalds for the past ten years or so...For ethical, moral, and environmental reasons...and they were rude to me a few times and when I worked there it was nasty. Nobody is saying don't eat anything...there is a variety of food in the world where people can choose not to eat specific foods for allergic reasons, because they don't like the taste, or because they have standards the preclude such food. Say you can only eat at restaurants...you can look at all the resturants out there...you can ban all fast foods and several sit in diners and you still wont starve.
Quote from cyan »
That argument doesn't make sense to me at all. That would be like arguing that, even though it is in people's nature to be homosexual, they should force themselves into a heterosexual lifestyle, because it is safer and less detrimental to them. We are what we are.
I agree with Ria that this is a poor comparison. There are a million reasons to change your diet and you can mix and match over and over again. You have plenty of experience choosing specific diets and manipulating them to fit you and your family's taste...especially since your daughters tend to be a little on the picky side. How many ways can you manipulate sexuality and still have sex...well I suppose you could include beastiality...in which case the example works a little better cause then you have access to all sorts of diversity, ban some while praising others, while still having sex...but seriously now your getting kinky.
Asside from that, are you saying that you don't know gay people who married, had kids, then came out? Kinda ruined their relationships...though I know of one couple that remained best friends after their breakup.
Quote from ria »
What does us never being herbivores have to do with the fact that we have the know-how to be ones now? It's not long before someone brings up the fact that the grainbelt produce of the US that is fed to livestock could feed the entire population of the US, as well as another billion people. . . hm, guess I did.
Well you weren't suppose to mention that. However that is simply the product of our industrialized meat process. There are ways to raise beef without those hyped up food pens and without harming the environment. In fact much of the landscape of the US had heavy grazing for 10,000 years and much much heavier grazing with the mega fauna for millions of years before. Many of these areas are semi-arid and don't produce a strong stand of crops without irrigation, thus running a few heads of cattle across the landscape in some places may not only be environmentally sustainable, but necessary to maintain the historical ecological status of the area.
Cheers,
Daggertooth
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
***Official Rune Master and Rational Extremest of The Called***
************************From Sound to Sea**********************
And I guess that I'm a lucky one for the truth of what I know. For my heart had not denied me and I have somewhere to go. I shall never be a prisoner of steel and glass and stone. If I leave, I will return again to my Rocky Mountain home.
Well you weren't suppose to mention that. However that is simply the product of our industrialized meat process. There are ways to raise beef without those hyped up food pens and without harming the environment. In fact much of the landscape of the US had heavy grazing for 10,000 years and much much heavier grazing with the mega fauna for millions of years before. Many of these areas are semi-arid and don't produce a strong stand of crops without irrigation, thus running a few heads of cattle across the landscape in some places may not only be environmentally sustainable, but necessary to maintain the historical ecological status of the area.
You're right about this. However, if you stopped feeding most of the nearly unending supply of corn we grow in the US to factory farm animals, you'd quickly realize that the number of animals that could be raised in a manner such that the animals live in a way not unlike how they might in the wild would yield about 50 gallons of milk per person in the US per year. That sounds like a lot until you realize that that milk would need to supply all the liquid milk, cheese, yogurt, ice cream, etc. And you wouldn't have much room to raise other animals or to raise cows for beef.
Long story short, there are bits of land where it is ecologically sound to raise some animals. But those animals wouldn't be able to provide anywhere near the amount of meat or dairy that the average American wants to consume.
But I'd advise you stop trying to argue with Nick. I think it's clear at this point that he isn't open to new ideas anymore than a teabagger is.
"I want to be a complete nerd with extra nerd sauce on top. I'm a nerd. Infinite nerd!"
-rancored_elf
:teach:If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything.:teach:
-Fred Menger
Fleeting is this world
Growth and decay its very nature
Things spring to being and again they cease
Happy the marvel of them and the peace.
-Nidana Vagga
What little to you know. Chris and I constantly have lengthy conversations regarding ecology etc, and I always listen to what he has to say. I don't always understand it, but I've learned alot from him, and it has changed alot of my perspectives.
Honestly, I thought that maybe you had grown up some over the years, and was giving you a fair chance. But you blew that the moment that you said that you're better than us because you made the decision not to eat meat. Or the part where you decided that it's so terrible to be this way towards animals, but it's okay to do it towards nature.
There is so much that I want to say to you here, but I don't, because I know I would probably deserve an infraction, and I don't want to put Brian in a tough spot.
@Chris: I really don't think the two things are all that different, but I don't care enough to keep arguing about it. It's not really that important.
Because the quote tags are long and tedious, I'm going to use the non-bold to indicate the quoted text, and we'll take this bit by bit.
Not liking meat doesn't make you better than everyone else, no matter how much you want it to. It just makes you different.
(stuff)
But while we're on the topic, I think that my decision not to eat meat (remember, this is different than not liking it) does make me better.
I would say he's doing more than just alluding to it.
Oh come now people, we can have a fun conversation without throwing a tissy fit now can't we? I haven't had this much fun in a clan debate in a while. Just because there are a few moral impasses is no reason to get all uppity.
You're right about this. However, if you stopped feeding most of the nearly unending supply of corn we grow in the US to factory farm animals, you'd quickly realize that the number of animals that could be raised in a manner such that the animals live in a way not unlike how they might in the wild would yield about 50 gallons of milk per person in the US per year. That sounds like a lot until you realize that that milk would need to supply all the liquid milk, cheese, yogurt, ice cream, etc. And you wouldn't have much room to raise other animals or to raise cows for beef.
Meh, milk doesn't really apply here as even without mass production you'd probably not be able to get much of a milk yield ranching cattle. As far as meat production goes, well we would be able to get a significant amount from sustainable ranching practices...just not as much as now. The industrialized process is efficient if it is anything, turning over a cow in one year what it naturally took five and we do have an insatiable appetite for cow.
Long story short, there are bits of land where it is ecologically sound to raise some animals. But those animals wouldn't be able to provide anywhere near the amount of meat or dairy that the average American wants to consume.
I'll concede this point. There is a lot of land and it would go a long way, but probably not enough to meet demand. We do consume a substantial portion of meat both produced in America and imported. But then I think we've all conceded the point that the average American eats too much meat anyway. When arguing the spectrum of vegetariansim or meat moderation I'd think that we could hold our own sustainably without becoming vegans. There are also indirect effects associated with removing ranching practices...without these efforts the landscape could grow decadence, many plants requiring some form of herbivory for rigorous growth. Landscapes could become more fire prone since herbivory reduces fire's ability to grow. And most importantly without an interest in preserving the land for use it gets sold and turned to condos. This has proven to be a large problem surrounding national forests and some national parks. Rules and regulations followed by an increasing fees have made ranching more a burden and as more and more private land owners retire and move on their land is sold to developers, resulting in natural areas being surrounded by higher end condos, farther fragmenting habitats.
Quote from kpaca »
However, in no way are you better, more logical, more enlightened, doing more for the environment, etc, than people who eat meat.
In a way I can kind of understand this mindset. Oh I can disagree with it, but I can understand. When someone's definition of morality is set to a perceived higher standard then its only natural to perceive those who don't meet that standards as...well less standardful. Growing up in Utah I saw a lot of this. First of all they perceived themselves superior just cause I wasn't Mormon and condemned to hell by default. Then it was cause I had no problem drinking alcoholic beverages. They'd try to convert me and move me away from my wicked ways...but you could tell they had a bit of snobby "I'm better than you" about them.
I can see how some people, who take these standards of veganisms and environmentalism as an ethical and moral priority, can perceive others as inferior. They take what they perceive as an intellectual and sophisticated approach. Higher class, filled with high valued refined socialites who believe they are making a difference. We all perceive ourselves in one way or another compared to others...thats natural, if not a bit frustrating.
I like to perceive myself as more feral. In a pinch I'll eat anything that moves, I sleep on the ground, ten second rule is a way of life, and my ecological responsibility is to burn it. More complex, but that's it in a nutshell.
Quote from nick »
@Chris: I really don't think the two things are all that different, but I don't care enough to keep arguing about it. It's not really that important.
Meh...it's all in good fun anyhow. You still talking about sexual orientation compared to dietary alignment? The big difference is that diets are varied. You can have a strict vegan diet; a vegetarian diet excluding most meat; vegetitarian diet including fish; vegetarian diet including fish, chicken, and eggs; well balanced diet with the recommended portions of the food pyramid; well balanced diet with the recommended portions of that new food thing that I know nothing of; Atkins diet; south beach diet; protein diet; preservative and dust diet; one orange a day diet; beans and potato diet; or any mix and match of these combinations and others resulting in an endless array of diets. There are a lot of different reasons to pick one diet over another, vegans have their reasons which have been discussed. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is typically less about choice. However, if you were to add in a little open mindedness and the karma sutra then you may have a perfect comparison. A wide array of eclectic options available to try, mix and match, and experience. Some might be a little too hinky, some tantalizingly kinky, some just plain wrong. Your choices could revolve around ethical, environmental, or health concerns. Sure in many cases the human body shouldn't bend that way...but if you train yourself you can do whatever you want despite evolutionary trends and historical preferences...just like veganism.
***Official Rune Master and Rational Extremest of The Called***
************************From Sound to Sea**********************
And I guess that I'm a lucky one for the truth of what I know. For my heart had not denied me and I have somewhere to go. I shall never be a prisoner of steel and glass and stone. If I leave, I will return again to my Rocky Mountain home.
I don't really care about the current convo, but I am glad it has people posting.
However I don't think it is right for people to believe they are better than others. Unless you are talking about the Called, because lets face it, we are badass.
*Dux hands Kp a beef burrito to stuff in BD's mouth after he pins him*
I don't think it is right for any group or clique to think they are better than another. Unless you are talking about the Called, because lets face it, we are badass.
A fact that will proven when we become the first clan on MTGS to win clan of the year twice.:teach:
I guess it's easier to feel righteous about the environment, because I don't have to change my lifestyle to agree with all of it.
I don't know enough about being a vegetarian to know whether or not it is actually healthier. I suppose it makes sense that it would be, but oh well. I can't see myself ever willingly giving up eating meat and dairy. Especially ice cream. The moral aspect of it will simply never be a concern for me. In my mind, animals will always be a lesser species than us. Survival of the fittest, etc. I fully expect that eventually some alien species will come along eventually that is much more advanced than us, and then we won't be 'the fittest' anymore. Hopefully they'll be enlightened/passive, and won't eat us/turn is into slave labor. If not..meh.
*Dux hands Kp a beef burrito to stuff in BD's mouth after he pins him*
Wow, that one didn't even have to be edited to look perverted and gay.
I really hate that my font gets all stupid after I quote something someone else said that is in an abnormal font.
In a way I can kind of understand this mindset. Oh I can disagree with it, but I can understand. When someone's definition of morality is set to a perceived higher standard then its only natural to perceive those who don't meet that standards as...well less standardful. Growing up in Utah I saw a lot of this. First of all they perceived themselves superior just cause I wasn't Mormon and condemned to hell by default. Then it was cause I had no problem drinking alcoholic beverages. They'd try to convert me and move me away from my wicked ways...but you could tell they had a bit of snobby "I'm better than you" about them.
I can see how some people, who take these standards of veganisms and environmentalism as an ethical and moral priority, can perceive others as inferior. They take what they perceive as an intellectual and sophisticated approach. Higher class, filled with high valued refined socialites who believe they are making a difference. We all perceive ourselves in one way or another compared to others...thats natural, if not a bit frustrating.
I like to perceive myself as more feral. In a pinch I'll eat anything that moves, I sleep on the ground, ten second rule is a way of life, and my ecological responsibility is to burn it. More complex, but that's it in a nutshell.
At least someone gets it. The fact is, each of us can be rated in any number of categories; athleticism, ethics, trustworthiness, motivation, leadership abilities, etc. And we can use those ratings to compare two or more people. This is undebatable. The consequence of these comparisons is that in whatever aspect we are measuring, someone will be better than you, and someone will be worse than you. You guys don't seem to like it, but it's true. If Chris thought that he was better than me in survival, I would agree with him, just as I'm better than him in ethical considerations. Now, we can debate whether or not my moral code is justified, or needed, or rational, or even sane. But you can't tell me that you do a better job about caring for life with your moral code than I do. Thus I am better in that aspect.
And I should also point out, even though it shouldn't need to be said, that this does not mean I think I am better than everyone. There are many, many people in the world who are better than me. Some are better with their ethical code than I am. There are those who don't have my moral code, but who are better than me in so many other ways they they are better people on the whole. Making a logical observation that there are people who aren't as good as you in some manner in no way requires one to have a "holier than thou" attitude or be arrogant. Sure, a lot of people are like that, but I assure you I am not one. I've never thought badly about someone because they eat meat, or whatever else they may have done. If I look down on someone, it will only be because they partake in willful ignorance and/or they have no desire to better themselves (those in this state due to medical conditions are of course exempt from this).
Hopefully they'll be enlightened/passive, and won't eat us/turn is into slave labor.
I'm truly impressed that you haven't yet gone deaf, what with the unbearably loud ringing of cognitive dissonance in that statement. You hope that more a advanced race would not treat you as a mere thing, yet you are not only unwilling to extend the same courtesy to animals that you hope would be granted to you, you are unwilling to even consider it as an option. I am honestly floored by your ability to have internalized both ideas simultaneously.
On a more pedantic note, in reply to Chris's latest post, there is no such thing as a vegetarian that eats fish. They have their own name, pescetarian. One who eats only birds is a pollotarian. Neither are vegetarian. The more you know.
"I want to be a complete nerd with extra nerd sauce on top. I'm a nerd. Infinite nerd!"
-rancored_elf
:teach:If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything.:teach:
-Fred Menger
Fleeting is this world
Growth and decay its very nature
Things spring to being and again they cease
Happy the marvel of them and the peace.
-Nidana Vagga
Hopefully they'll be enlightened/passive, and won't eat us/turn is into slave labor.
I'm truly impressed that you haven't yet gone deaf, what with the unbearably loud ringing of cognitive dissonance in that statement. You hope that more a advanced race would not treat you as a mere thing, yet you are not only unwilling to extend the same courtesy to animals that you hope would be granted to you, you are unwilling to even consider it as an option. I am honestly floored by your ability to have internalized both ideas simultaneously.
I was tempted to go here, but I tangle with Cyan enough as it is :sweat::D
On a more pedantic note, in reply to Chris's latest post, there is no such thing as a vegetarian that eats fish. They have their own name, pescetarian. Neither are vegetarian. The more you know.
I prefer the term 'vegaquarian'
eds - Cyan, the font thing is a dysfunction of the WYSIWYG editor, the same reason some people's tags go psycho . . . stupid thing resets tags after line breaks, or puts tags in weird places, such as outside quote boxes so your post gets all fuchsia'd.
I guess it's easier to feel righteous about the environment, because I don't have to change my lifestyle to agree with all of it.
It's actually easy to be stuck up on anything and everything. You don't have to be an environmentalist or vegan and be stuck up. Helps if you actively change your lifestyle though, then you have action and words backing a perceived superiority. Ever see that south park episode with the hybrids and the killer smug?
I don't know enough about being a vegetarian to know whether or not it is actually healthier. I suppose it makes sense that it would be, but oh well. I can't see myself ever willingly giving up eating meat and dairy. Especially ice cream. The moral aspect of it will simply never be a concern for me. In my mind, animals will always be a lesser species than us. Survival of the fittest, etc. I fully expect that eventually some alien species will come along eventually that is much more advanced than us, and then we won't be 'the fittest' anymore. Hopefully they'll be enlightened/passive, and won't eat us/turn is into slave labor. If not..meh.
Actual health is debatable, since a normal diet of a vegan and omnivore isn't much different. Assuming the omnivore intakes a proper amount of veggies. The unhealthiness of the respective diets revolve around the type of food, concentrations of that type, and location of where they are processed. An omni eating pure organic food and suplimenting his/her diet with free range animals and even wild game will be healthy. vegan wouldn't be healthier. Blod might disagree with me here, but then I'll just adjust the amount of meat allowable in that scenario so nyeh. It's all about how careful you are about selecting your diet and how much you are willing to spend. Industrialized food, both animal and plant, are chock full of chemicals, hormones, and other unhealthy aspects. Unhealthy for people and unhealthy for the environment. We've even genetically altered plants in a way to be their own pesticide and to keep longer shelf lives. Tomatoes are genetically altered to have a long shelf life by turning red early. That is to say a natural tomato would be green on the vine accumulating nutrients as it matures, then be ripe, red, and delicious for it's short existence. Green tomatoes are lacking, but since they are red early they can sit on the shelf for weeks. That's the reason why higher end restaurants will advertise vine ripened tomatoes. That's the health of our food...both vegetarian and meat have had the quality sucked out of them in the industrialized process. Our society is too hung up on quantity to care any more than that.
At least someone gets it. The fact is, each of us can be rated in any number of categories; athleticism, ethics, trustworthiness, motivation, leadership abilities, etc. And we can use those ratings to compare two or more people. This is undebatable. The consequence of these comparisons is that in whatever aspect we are measuring, someone will be better than you, and someone will be worse than you. You guys don't seem to like it, but it's true. If Chris thought that he was better than me in survival, I would agree with him, just as I'm better than him in ethical considerations. Now, we can debate whether or not my moral code is justified, or needed, or rational, or even sane. But you can't tell me that you do a better job about caring for life with your moral code than I do. Thus I am better in that aspect.
Oh this last point could be debatable. But at this point we are at a moral impasse. From what I understand, you define morality as individualistic. That is the individual species has value. I hold true that the individual does not matter, but the species as a whole has value, and that to maintain the species survival the ecosystem needs to be preserved. You also maintain that all individuals have an inherent equal value...which I would disagree with merely because I already disagree with the value of the individual.
It does astonish me that your moral code seems to abhor the mistreatment of a gnat, but could care less at the complete extinction of...say...tigers. It is really hard for me to wrap my head around that.
I also have a hard time seeing how applicable your moral code is. It would seem that the guilt from indirect killing of individuals would be overwhelming. I know if I indirectly killed something I viewed as an equal, like another human, I would be incredibly guilt-torn. Beyond that, every conservation, restoration, and preservation project would pose ethical dilemmas. Re-introduction of wolves would cause the death of numerous individual herbivores, but no reintroduction causes excess loss of vegetation and deaths of several other individuals of other species. Allowing herbivores to overpopulate without control will indirectly cause the deaths of thousands of individuals when the population crashes. Doing nothing causes individualistic deaths, doing something causes deaths....what can you do? How can you function?
I'm truly impressed that you haven't yet gone deaf, what with the unbearably loud ringing of cognitive dissonance in that statement. You hope that more a advanced race would not treat you as a mere thing, yet you are not only unwilling to extend the same courtesy to animals that you hope would be granted to you, you are unwilling to even consider it as an option. I am honestly floored by your ability to have internalized both ideas simultaneously.
Oh come now. Nick obviously doesn't hold that non-human life has human like value and if he doesn't view a technologically superior race as innately superior then at the very least he's acknowledging that there's little we could do to stop them. Cognitive dissonance would only ring if he viewed it as a moral issue...which apparently he does not.
Quote from blod »
On a more pedantic note, in reply to Chris's latest post, there is no such thing as a vegetarian that eats fish. They have their own name, pescetarian. One who eats only birds is a pollotarian. Neither are vegetarian. The more you know.
Bah! Semantics. Probably something "hard core" vegetarians and vegans made up to differentiate from those beneath them. I'd bet those who ate fish or chicken by and large would say they were vegetarians. Just like Mormons would argue till they were blue in the face that they are Christians while Christains would deny Mormons a place within their ranks.
Cheers,
Daggertooth
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
***Official Rune Master and Rational Extremest of The Called***
************************From Sound to Sea**********************
And I guess that I'm a lucky one for the truth of what I know. For my heart had not denied me and I have somewhere to go. I shall never be a prisoner of steel and glass and stone. If I leave, I will return again to my Rocky Mountain home.
It's actually easy to be stuck up on anything and everything. You don't have to be an environmentalist or vegan and be stuck up. Helps if you actively change your lifestyle though, then you have action and words backing a perceived superiority. Ever see that south park episode with the hybrids and the killer smug?
Actual health is debatable, since a normal diet of a vegan and omnivore isn't much different. Assuming the omnivore intakes a proper amount of veggies. The unhealthiness of the respective diets revolve around the type of food, concentrations of that type, and location of where they are processed. An omni eating pure organic food and suplimenting his/her diet with free range animals and even wild game will be healthy. vegan wouldn't be healthier. Blod might disagree with me here, but then I'll just adjust the amount of meat allowable in that scenario so nyeh. It's all about how careful you are about selecting your diet and how much you are willing to spend. Industrialized food, both animal and plant, are chock full of chemicals, hormones, and other unhealthy aspects. Unhealthy for people and unhealthy for the environment. We've even genetically altered plants in a way to be their own pesticide and to keep longer shelf lives. Tomatoes are genetically altered to have a long shelf life by turning red early. That is to say a natural tomato would be green on the vine accumulating nutrients as it matures, then be ripe, red, and delicious for it's short existence. Green tomatoes are lacking, but since they are red early they can sit on the shelf for weeks. That's the reason why higher end restaurants will advertise vine ripened tomatoes. That's the health of our food...both vegetarian and meat have had the quality sucked out of them in the industrialized process. Our society is too hung up on quantity to care any more than that.
Oh this last point could be debatable. But at this point we are at a moral impasse. From what I understand, you define morality as individualistic. That is the individual species has value. I hold true that the individual does not matter, but the species as a whole has value, and that to maintain the species survival the ecosystem needs to be preserved. You also maintain that all individuals have an inherent equal value...which I would disagree with merely because I already disagree with the value of the individual.
It does astonish me that your moral code seems to abhor the mistreatment of a gnat, but could care less at the complete extinction of...say...tigers. It is really hard for me to wrap my head around that.
I also have a hard time seeing how applicable your moral code is. It would seem that the guilt from indirect killing of individuals would be overwhelming. I know if I indirectly killed something I viewed as an equal, like another human, I would be incredibly guilt-torn. Beyond that, every conservation, restoration, and preservation project would pose ethical dilemmas. Re-introduction of wolves would cause the death of numerous individual herbivores, but no reintroduction causes excess loss of vegetation and deaths of several other individuals of other species. Allowing herbivores to overpopulate without control will indirectly cause the deaths of thousands of individuals when the population crashes. Doing nothing causes individualistic deaths, doing something causes deaths....what can you do? How can you function?
Oh come now. Nick obviously doesn't hold that non-human life has human like value and if he doesn't view a technologically superior race as innately superior then at the very least he's acknowledging that there's little we could do to stop them. Cognitive dissonance would only ring if he viewed it as a moral issue...which apparently he does not.
Bah! Semantics. Probably something "hard core" vegetarians and vegans made up to differentiate from those beneath them. I'd bet those who ate fish or chicken by and large would say they were vegetarians. Just like Mormons would argue till they were blue in the face that they are Christians while Christains would deny Mormons a place within their ranks.
Let's go backwards, for fun. I'd say the definition of a Christian, as apparent in the name, is anyone who believes in the divinity of Christ. So ya, Mormons are Christians, but not all rectangles are squares.
The distinction is important. Words have meaning for a reason; to facilitate communication. If a restaurant advertises a dish as vegetarian, and it has fish in it, then clearly the language has failed in its purpose. Can you really say that this is a fine outcome? To go to an admitted extreme, would you be ok if a doctor told you he'd be removing your appendix but instead took out a kidney or liver? Would that just be "semantics?"
As for the guilt, it is there, but it's not a problem. If you spend enough time philosophizing, you come to realize that there is a certain ebb and tow of nature; and that sometimes it's ok for sad things to happen. Death is a part of life, and while it is rarely desirable, one should not feel guilty about it if it was not caused due to willful disregard for the life.
As for the individual versus the species, I think that might be best to have at another time. I think it's a fantastic topic to discuss, but I worry that the thread is already overloaded tenfold with good topics, and I'd hate to have it not get the time or attention it deserves because we are getting distracted with other topics.
"I want to be a complete nerd with extra nerd sauce on top. I'm a nerd. Infinite nerd!"
-rancored_elf
:teach:If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything.:teach:
-Fred Menger
Fleeting is this world
Growth and decay its very nature
Things spring to being and again they cease
Happy the marvel of them and the peace.
-Nidana Vagga
At least someone gets it. The fact is, each of us can be rated in any number of categories; athleticism, ethics, trustworthiness, motivation, leadership abilities, etc. And we can use those ratings to compare two or more people. This is undebatable. The consequence of these comparisons is that in whatever aspect we are measuring, someone will be better than you, and someone will be worse than you. You guys don't seem to like it, but it's true. If Chris thought that he was better than me in survival, I would agree with him, just as I'm better than him in ethical considerations. Now, we can debate whether or not my moral code is justified, or needed, or rational, or even sane. But you can't tell me that you do a better job about caring for life with your moral code than I do. Thus I am better in that aspect.
And I should also point out, even though it shouldn't need to be said, that this does not mean I think I am better than everyone. There are many, many people in the world who are better than me. Some are better with their ethical code than I am. There are those who don't have my moral code, but who are better than me in so many other ways they they are better people on the whole. Making a logical observation that there are people who aren't as good as you in some manner in no way requires one to have a "holier than thou" attitude or be arrogant. Sure, a lot of people are like that, but I assure you I am not one. I've never thought badly about someone because they eat meat, or whatever else they may have done. If I look down on someone, it will only be because they partake in willful ignorance and/or they have no desire to better themselves (those in this state due to medical conditions are of course exempt from this).
Here's the deal champ, even if I thought I was better than you because I ate meat, I wouldn't rub it in your face. Furthermore, I don't think I'm better than you, I would say we are equal. However, it is you who feels the need to be pompous and stuck up about your lifestyle choice. And your whole "it's okay for me to be a douche nozzle because we all rate each other" spiel is a load of crap. Is it okay if I talk about how I'm better than you because you are fat? If so, can we please jump to that topic.
And I would appreciate in the future you not call me ignorant or state I don't have a desire to better myself because I eat meat. If I am ignorant about ethics relating to food, then you are certainly ignorant about how to be socially adept.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official Moderator of The [Gutter]
Think the MtgStaff is just swell? Join today! You too can be involved in an 8 year grudge and delete nearly 9000 of kpaca's posts!
I wanted players to have a chance to see who's going to be playing before the game thread is up, so I thought that was a better way to go about it. Perhaps even get the DATBF out of their system early
I still say we should get a point for this contest since it takes so much time and effort to maintain.
Official Deschanel Stalker of The Called
Official Deschanel Stalker of The Called
Why not? That is the entire point to several facets of vegetarianisms, boycotts, and ways of life. Some company or industry performs something utterly unethical then don't partake in it. It's a legit reason and if the pain from enough people withholding their cash is big enough the industry may change. Or else new industries'll form to accommodate the standards of those people. There's a huge vegan restaurant industry in Portland, or.
In that case cellulite consumption only refers to a handful of herbivores. Plenty that can't digest it. Omega-3 can be found in several seeds and nuts.
Blod's an herbivore. Shouldn't that be proof that some humans are herbivores? Sure, nobody in the human race "must" be a herbivore, but that doesn't preclude herbivory from existing. I've also mentioned that cows and chickens are fed...well cows and chicken...and they're suppose to be herbivores. Also, several herbivores, when nutritionally stressed, will behave oddly including eating dirt, flesh, and perform cannibalism. There are also plenty of societies that don't eat meat, or rarely eat meat due to scarcity, and they survive just fine.
That has been answered multiple times. When ethical, environmental, and health beliefs are strong then diets can change. I don't drink soda...I like soda...but I don't drink it with two exceptions...it's alcoholic or I need the caffeine fix. I've also boycotted McDonalds for the past ten years or so...For ethical, moral, and environmental reasons...and they were rude to me a few times and when I worked there it was nasty. Nobody is saying don't eat anything...there is a variety of food in the world where people can choose not to eat specific foods for allergic reasons, because they don't like the taste, or because they have standards the preclude such food. Say you can only eat at restaurants...you can look at all the resturants out there...you can ban all fast foods and several sit in diners and you still wont starve.
I agree with Ria that this is a poor comparison. There are a million reasons to change your diet and you can mix and match over and over again. You have plenty of experience choosing specific diets and manipulating them to fit you and your family's taste...especially since your daughters tend to be a little on the picky side. How many ways can you manipulate sexuality and still have sex...well I suppose you could include beastiality...in which case the example works a little better cause then you have access to all sorts of diversity, ban some while praising others, while still having sex...but seriously now your getting kinky.
Asside from that, are you saying that you don't know gay people who married, had kids, then came out? Kinda ruined their relationships...though I know of one couple that remained best friends after their breakup.
Well you weren't suppose to mention that. However that is simply the product of our industrialized meat process. There are ways to raise beef without those hyped up food pens and without harming the environment. In fact much of the landscape of the US had heavy grazing for 10,000 years and much much heavier grazing with the mega fauna for millions of years before. Many of these areas are semi-arid and don't produce a strong stand of crops without irrigation, thus running a few heads of cattle across the landscape in some places may not only be environmentally sustainable, but necessary to maintain the historical ecological status of the area.
Cheers,
Daggertooth
For my heart had not denied me and I have somewhere to go.
I shall never be a prisoner of steel and glass and stone.
If I leave, I will return again to my Rocky Mountain home.
Moderator Helpdesk
You're right about this. However, if you stopped feeding most of the nearly unending supply of corn we grow in the US to factory farm animals, you'd quickly realize that the number of animals that could be raised in a manner such that the animals live in a way not unlike how they might in the wild would yield about 50 gallons of milk per person in the US per year. That sounds like a lot until you realize that that milk would need to supply all the liquid milk, cheese, yogurt, ice cream, etc. And you wouldn't have much room to raise other animals or to raise cows for beef.
Long story short, there are bits of land where it is ecologically sound to raise some animals. But those animals wouldn't be able to provide anywhere near the amount of meat or dairy that the average American wants to consume.
But I'd advise you stop trying to argue with Nick. I think it's clear at this point that he isn't open to new ideas anymore than a teabagger is.
A Webcomic of math, physics, and life as a geek in college.
Official Insomniac/Physics Addicted Uber Geek of The Called
"I want to be a complete nerd with extra nerd sauce on top. I'm a nerd. Infinite nerd!"
-rancored_elf
:teach:If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything.:teach:
-Fred Menger
Fleeting is this world
Growth and decay its very nature
Things spring to being and again they cease
Happy the marvel of them and the peace.
-Nidana Vagga
Honestly, I thought that maybe you had grown up some over the years, and was giving you a fair chance. But you blew that the moment that you said that you're better than us because you made the decision not to eat meat. Or the part where you decided that it's so terrible to be this way towards animals, but it's okay to do it towards nature.
There is so much that I want to say to you here, but I don't, because I know I would probably deserve an infraction, and I don't want to put Brian in a tough spot.
@Chris: I really don't think the two things are all that different, but I don't care enough to keep arguing about it. It's not really that important.
However, in no way are you better, more logical, more enlightened, doing more for the environment, etc, than people who eat meat.
If you are alluding to that you are just being stuck up tbh.
Well....
I would say he's doing more than just alluding to it.
Official Deschanel Stalker of The Called
Well I was trying to avoid directly calling someone stuck up and pompous but you won't let me I see
Meh, milk doesn't really apply here as even without mass production you'd probably not be able to get much of a milk yield ranching cattle. As far as meat production goes, well we would be able to get a significant amount from sustainable ranching practices...just not as much as now. The industrialized process is efficient if it is anything, turning over a cow in one year what it naturally took five and we do have an insatiable appetite for cow.
I'll concede this point. There is a lot of land and it would go a long way, but probably not enough to meet demand. We do consume a substantial portion of meat both produced in America and imported. But then I think we've all conceded the point that the average American eats too much meat anyway. When arguing the spectrum of vegetariansim or meat moderation I'd think that we could hold our own sustainably without becoming vegans. There are also indirect effects associated with removing ranching practices...without these efforts the landscape could grow decadence, many plants requiring some form of herbivory for rigorous growth. Landscapes could become more fire prone since herbivory reduces fire's ability to grow. And most importantly without an interest in preserving the land for use it gets sold and turned to condos. This has proven to be a large problem surrounding national forests and some national parks. Rules and regulations followed by an increasing fees have made ranching more a burden and as more and more private land owners retire and move on their land is sold to developers, resulting in natural areas being surrounded by higher end condos, farther fragmenting habitats.
In a way I can kind of understand this mindset. Oh I can disagree with it, but I can understand. When someone's definition of morality is set to a perceived higher standard then its only natural to perceive those who don't meet that standards as...well less standardful. Growing up in Utah I saw a lot of this. First of all they perceived themselves superior just cause I wasn't Mormon and condemned to hell by default. Then it was cause I had no problem drinking alcoholic beverages. They'd try to convert me and move me away from my wicked ways...but you could tell they had a bit of snobby "I'm better than you" about them.
I can see how some people, who take these standards of veganisms and environmentalism as an ethical and moral priority, can perceive others as inferior. They take what they perceive as an intellectual and sophisticated approach. Higher class, filled with high valued refined socialites who believe they are making a difference. We all perceive ourselves in one way or another compared to others...thats natural, if not a bit frustrating.
I like to perceive myself as more feral. In a pinch I'll eat anything that moves, I sleep on the ground, ten second rule is a way of life, and my ecological responsibility is to burn it. More complex, but that's it in a nutshell.
Meh...it's all in good fun anyhow. You still talking about sexual orientation compared to dietary alignment? The big difference is that diets are varied. You can have a strict vegan diet; a vegetarian diet excluding most meat; vegetitarian diet including fish; vegetarian diet including fish, chicken, and eggs; well balanced diet with the recommended portions of the food pyramid; well balanced diet with the recommended portions of that new food thing that I know nothing of; Atkins diet; south beach diet; protein diet; preservative and dust diet; one orange a day diet; beans and potato diet; or any mix and match of these combinations and others resulting in an endless array of diets. There are a lot of different reasons to pick one diet over another, vegans have their reasons which have been discussed. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is typically less about choice. However, if you were to add in a little open mindedness and the karma sutra then you may have a perfect comparison. A wide array of eclectic options available to try, mix and match, and experience. Some might be a little too hinky, some tantalizingly kinky, some just plain wrong. Your choices could revolve around ethical, environmental, or health concerns. Sure in many cases the human body shouldn't bend that way...but if you train yourself you can do whatever you want despite evolutionary trends and historical preferences...just like veganism.
Does that work?
Cheers,
Daggertooth
For my heart had not denied me and I have somewhere to go.
I shall never be a prisoner of steel and glass and stone.
If I leave, I will return again to my Rocky Mountain home.
Moderator Helpdesk
I don't really care about the current convo, but I am glad it has people posting.
However I don't think it is right for people to believe they are better than others. Unless you are talking about the Called, because lets face it, we are badass.
*Dux hands Kp a beef burrito to stuff in BD's mouth after he pins him*
.
.
.
Homebrew is creating Magic.
Are you a pilot or a creator??
A fact that will proven when we become the first clan on MTGS to win clan of the year twice.:teach:
huh...I thought you were talking about something else when you told me about your burrito and BD's mouth.:sneaky:
Official Deschanel Stalker of The Called
I don't know enough about being a vegetarian to know whether or not it is actually healthier. I suppose it makes sense that it would be, but oh well. I can't see myself ever willingly giving up eating meat and dairy. Especially ice cream. The moral aspect of it will simply never be a concern for me. In my mind, animals will always be a lesser species than us. Survival of the fittest, etc. I fully expect that eventually some alien species will come along eventually that is much more advanced than us, and then we won't be 'the fittest' anymore. Hopefully they'll be enlightened/passive, and won't eat us/turn is into slave labor. If not..meh.
Wow, that one didn't even have to be edited to look perverted and gay.
I really hate that my font gets all stupid after I quote something someone else said that is in an abnormal font.
At least someone gets it. The fact is, each of us can be rated in any number of categories; athleticism, ethics, trustworthiness, motivation, leadership abilities, etc. And we can use those ratings to compare two or more people. This is undebatable. The consequence of these comparisons is that in whatever aspect we are measuring, someone will be better than you, and someone will be worse than you. You guys don't seem to like it, but it's true. If Chris thought that he was better than me in survival, I would agree with him, just as I'm better than him in ethical considerations. Now, we can debate whether or not my moral code is justified, or needed, or rational, or even sane. But you can't tell me that you do a better job about caring for life with your moral code than I do. Thus I am better in that aspect.
And I should also point out, even though it shouldn't need to be said, that this does not mean I think I am better than everyone. There are many, many people in the world who are better than me. Some are better with their ethical code than I am. There are those who don't have my moral code, but who are better than me in so many other ways they they are better people on the whole. Making a logical observation that there are people who aren't as good as you in some manner in no way requires one to have a "holier than thou" attitude or be arrogant. Sure, a lot of people are like that, but I assure you I am not one. I've never thought badly about someone because they eat meat, or whatever else they may have done. If I look down on someone, it will only be because they partake in willful ignorance and/or they have no desire to better themselves (those in this state due to medical conditions are of course exempt from this).
I'm truly impressed that you haven't yet gone deaf, what with the unbearably loud ringing of cognitive dissonance in that statement. You hope that more a advanced race would not treat you as a mere thing, yet you are not only unwilling to extend the same courtesy to animals that you hope would be granted to you, you are unwilling to even consider it as an option. I am honestly floored by your ability to have internalized both ideas simultaneously.
On a more pedantic note, in reply to Chris's latest post, there is no such thing as a vegetarian that eats fish. They have their own name, pescetarian. One who eats only birds is a pollotarian. Neither are vegetarian. The more you know.
A Webcomic of math, physics, and life as a geek in college.
Official Insomniac/Physics Addicted Uber Geek of The Called
"I want to be a complete nerd with extra nerd sauce on top. I'm a nerd. Infinite nerd!"
-rancored_elf
:teach:If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything.:teach:
-Fred Menger
Fleeting is this world
Growth and decay its very nature
Things spring to being and again they cease
Happy the marvel of them and the peace.
-Nidana Vagga
I was tempted to go here, but I tangle with Cyan enough as it is :sweat::D
I prefer the term 'vegaquarian'
eds - Cyan, the font thing is a dysfunction of the WYSIWYG editor, the same reason some people's tags go psycho . . . stupid thing resets tags after line breaks, or puts tags in weird places, such as outside quote boxes so your post gets all fuchsia'd.
It's actually easy to be stuck up on anything and everything. You don't have to be an environmentalist or vegan and be stuck up. Helps if you actively change your lifestyle though, then you have action and words backing a perceived superiority. Ever see that south park episode with the hybrids and the killer smug?
Actual health is debatable, since a normal diet of a vegan and omnivore isn't much different. Assuming the omnivore intakes a proper amount of veggies. The unhealthiness of the respective diets revolve around the type of food, concentrations of that type, and location of where they are processed. An omni eating pure organic food and suplimenting his/her diet with free range animals and even wild game will be healthy. vegan wouldn't be healthier. Blod might disagree with me here, but then I'll just adjust the amount of meat allowable in that scenario so nyeh. It's all about how careful you are about selecting your diet and how much you are willing to spend. Industrialized food, both animal and plant, are chock full of chemicals, hormones, and other unhealthy aspects. Unhealthy for people and unhealthy for the environment. We've even genetically altered plants in a way to be their own pesticide and to keep longer shelf lives. Tomatoes are genetically altered to have a long shelf life by turning red early. That is to say a natural tomato would be green on the vine accumulating nutrients as it matures, then be ripe, red, and delicious for it's short existence. Green tomatoes are lacking, but since they are red early they can sit on the shelf for weeks. That's the reason why higher end restaurants will advertise vine ripened tomatoes. That's the health of our food...both vegetarian and meat have had the quality sucked out of them in the industrialized process. Our society is too hung up on quantity to care any more than that.
Oh this last point could be debatable. But at this point we are at a moral impasse. From what I understand, you define morality as individualistic. That is the individual species has value. I hold true that the individual does not matter, but the species as a whole has value, and that to maintain the species survival the ecosystem needs to be preserved. You also maintain that all individuals have an inherent equal value...which I would disagree with merely because I already disagree with the value of the individual.
It does astonish me that your moral code seems to abhor the mistreatment of a gnat, but could care less at the complete extinction of...say...tigers. It is really hard for me to wrap my head around that.
I also have a hard time seeing how applicable your moral code is. It would seem that the guilt from indirect killing of individuals would be overwhelming. I know if I indirectly killed something I viewed as an equal, like another human, I would be incredibly guilt-torn. Beyond that, every conservation, restoration, and preservation project would pose ethical dilemmas. Re-introduction of wolves would cause the death of numerous individual herbivores, but no reintroduction causes excess loss of vegetation and deaths of several other individuals of other species. Allowing herbivores to overpopulate without control will indirectly cause the deaths of thousands of individuals when the population crashes. Doing nothing causes individualistic deaths, doing something causes deaths....what can you do? How can you function?
Oh come now. Nick obviously doesn't hold that non-human life has human like value and if he doesn't view a technologically superior race as innately superior then at the very least he's acknowledging that there's little we could do to stop them. Cognitive dissonance would only ring if he viewed it as a moral issue...which apparently he does not.
Bah! Semantics. Probably something "hard core" vegetarians and vegans made up to differentiate from those beneath them. I'd bet those who ate fish or chicken by and large would say they were vegetarians. Just like Mormons would argue till they were blue in the face that they are Christians while Christains would deny Mormons a place within their ranks.
Cheers,
Daggertooth
For my heart had not denied me and I have somewhere to go.
I shall never be a prisoner of steel and glass and stone.
If I leave, I will return again to my Rocky Mountain home.
Moderator Helpdesk
Let's go backwards, for fun. I'd say the definition of a Christian, as apparent in the name, is anyone who believes in the divinity of Christ. So ya, Mormons are Christians, but not all rectangles are squares.
The distinction is important. Words have meaning for a reason; to facilitate communication. If a restaurant advertises a dish as vegetarian, and it has fish in it, then clearly the language has failed in its purpose. Can you really say that this is a fine outcome? To go to an admitted extreme, would you be ok if a doctor told you he'd be removing your appendix but instead took out a kidney or liver? Would that just be "semantics?"
As for the guilt, it is there, but it's not a problem. If you spend enough time philosophizing, you come to realize that there is a certain ebb and tow of nature; and that sometimes it's ok for sad things to happen. Death is a part of life, and while it is rarely desirable, one should not feel guilty about it if it was not caused due to willful disregard for the life.
As for the individual versus the species, I think that might be best to have at another time. I think it's a fantastic topic to discuss, but I worry that the thread is already overloaded tenfold with good topics, and I'd hate to have it not get the time or attention it deserves because we are getting distracted with other topics.
A Webcomic of math, physics, and life as a geek in college.
Official Insomniac/Physics Addicted Uber Geek of The Called
"I want to be a complete nerd with extra nerd sauce on top. I'm a nerd. Infinite nerd!"
-rancored_elf
:teach:If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything.:teach:
-Fred Menger
Fleeting is this world
Growth and decay its very nature
Things spring to being and again they cease
Happy the marvel of them and the peace.
-Nidana Vagga
Here's the deal champ, even if I thought I was better than you because I ate meat, I wouldn't rub it in your face. Furthermore, I don't think I'm better than you, I would say we are equal. However, it is you who feels the need to be pompous and stuck up about your lifestyle choice. And your whole "it's okay for me to be a douche nozzle because we all rate each other" spiel is a load of crap. Is it okay if I talk about how I'm better than you because you are fat? If so, can we please jump to that topic.
And I would appreciate in the future you not call me ignorant or state I don't have a desire to better myself because I eat meat. If I am ignorant about ethics relating to food, then you are certainly ignorant about how to be socially adept.
kpaca, there seems to be no opposition to you heading up the contest + Cyan being our backup? Sign us up!
Meanwhile, several other clans are metagaming against Cyan
Official Deschanel Stalker of The Called