"Meat is murder"

[Y2A]

I noticed this on your sig are you a vegitarian???

[cubist]

she is, and there is a thread regarding meat eating that you can't see just incase she doesn't reply to you bud,

are you a veggie? and why? may aswell debate it with the RESTRICTED too

[Y2A]

I have no problem with veggies though. Just "authoritarian" veggies that feel they need to impose their beliefs onto others, hopefully DA isn't one of those "evil" veggies.

[Individual]

Ah yes.

I certainly agree. No dictating vegetarians please!

See, the problem is, I need meat to live healthy. Humans are omnivorous, meaning we need both meat and greens. And to tell me that killing animals is wrong so that I can survive is one of those most hypocritical things I have heard.

To say that we need to save the animals is funny. Why aren't there vegetarians trying to boycott lions, bears, sharks, dogs, tigers, fish, and so on? These animals are killing animals for food? Yet humans are horrible for taking part in what nature is balanced for? Give me a break. This is nature, and the balance that has taken place since life's beginning.

So for the dictating vegetarians to tell me that killing animals is wrong. Why aren't you mad at the animals themselves? Everything is our fault. It's human's fault that nature happened this way. Is that what you want to tell us? As if we all had a choice to decide that "We are going to kill animals, and that's that!" Eating meat is part of nature. There are nutritions in meat that we must have in order to go on and be strong and healthy. I'm not going to eat/drink/and live on 'soy' products. I need protein, and I need it from natural, balanced, things such as meat.

I understand that you feel you can live your life eating nothing but soy, greens, beans, and rice. However I cannot, so please don't preach to me that I am participating in the slaughter of animals. It is human nature for christs sake. Go boycott the solely carnivorous animals that do nothing but kill. Do not patronize me for consuming a product that I am intended to consume by nature.

If you feel so strongly, please feel free to condemn the true killers; wild animals.

[Fidel Castro]

I'm happy to eat meat, and have no shame in doing so, as it is the most natural thing for a human to do. Just look at the human jaw and you can see that we have teeth designed for the consumption of both meat and greens.

Whilst I certainly do not support the killing of animals for leasure (fox hunting, bull fighting, cock fighting) I believe that the kulling of animals in a humane fashion is perfactly normal.

[Y2A]

I think that eatting meat is natural and should not be demoralized.

[cubist]

i respect my friends who are straight edge and vegans but they don't preach morality, they don't want to get in an open ended argument where there can be no winner they do it for theyre own personal principles,

meat is the basis of my diet, i don't really care but i don't see how eating meat is similar in anyway to murder, given that animals can't murder humans due to laws and a matter of conscious decision making, they are wild and live by the law of the jungle.

[Politrickian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 03:37 PM
i respect my friends who are straight edge and vegans
Straight edge and vegan/vegetarian don't have anything to do with eachother.

I'm straight edge and I eat meat.

[John Galt]

If god didnt want us to eat animals, he shouldnt have made them out of meat

[Regicidal Insomniac]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 4 2004, 03:49 AM
If god didnt want us to eat animals, he shouldnt have made them out of meat
Wow. Just...
Wow. I am truly in awe. I bow down to you good sir.


Hate to be a nitpick, but none of you here need meat to survive. I'm not really trying to "demoralize" it now, but a tribal powwow this ain't.


I'm living proof that one can live a perfectly healthy life with no meats or meat supplements.
So don't try to spring that crap about needing meat on me. :D

[el_profe]

Actually you do need to eat meat, athletes could not be athletes if they where vegeterians, im almost sure of that.

Anyway are you going to blame cavemen for hunting for meat? or how about people in Africa who cant farm anything because land is to dry and they need to hunt animals?

Or how about animals that eat other animals? you want to kill those animals?

Meat I think is essential of the body and if its not and we just like eating meat cause its good, who cares.

[Individual]

Hate to be a nitpick, but none of you here need meat to survive. I'm not really trying to "demoralize" it now, but a tribal powwow this ain't.


I'm living proof that one can live a perfectly healthy life with no meats or meat supplements.
So don't try to spring that crap about needing meat on me.

Did you forget the fact that we are omnivorous? Meaning that we need both meat and organics.

You may be able to 'slide by' on your soy products for protein. I on the other hand, can't stand 'soy' products. Let alone am I going to eat 'soy' products everyday for my protein supply. Neither am I going to take protein supplements.

You may not need meat, however I do. I need meat because I will not eat any other form of protein supplement everyday. This is due to the fact that I cannot stand them. Therefore I need meat, for I will not acquire the need for other protein supplements. Can you see what I am saying?

That is great that you feel you are 'saving' animals. However what about some of the animals you 'outcry' over, that are killing other animals themselves. It is literally nature taking course.

What is your answer to the animals for millions of years that have been killing eachother in order to survive? What about your ancient ancestors that relied on meat? Had they not eaten meat, I can personally guarentee you that you would not be here today.

What I find funny, is that 'animal lovers' have an outcry to 'save nature'. However in the meantime you are tampering with 'nature' itself by altering it's course. Do you not realize this? Before us human 'killers' were around, animals went extinct. It is nature taking course, so it is inevitable that animals will become extinct during our lifetime. Life goes on, nature will go on. If you truly 'cared' for nature, why would you not let it run it's course?

[synthesis]

Meat I think is essential of the body and if its not and we just like eating meat cause its good, who cares.

Do you support government regulation of the meat industry to ensure humane treatment of animals?

If yes, then why?

If no, then why not?

[Regicidal Insomniac]

You may not need meat, however I do. I need meat because I will not eat any other form of protein supplement everyday.

About that, I think I'll have to agree with ol' Leo Tolstoy -
"A human can be healthy without killing animals for food. Therefore if he eats meat he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral."
But I'll try not to be too "authoritarian" now and back off with the morals. :P


However what about some of the animals you 'outcry' over, that are killing other animals themselves.

You mean like the chickens crammed into a tiny battery cage that go mad and mutilate their inmates?
*ahem* Very... natural. :blink:
If you think factory farms are a depiction of nature and the "natural food chain," think again.



What is your answer to the animals for millions of years that have been killing eachother in order to survive? What about your ancient ancestors that relied on meat?

I doubt animals could understand english,
cause humans are alot smarter than animals.

Personally, I don't understand how what's "natural" is always what's "right."
And what's "unnatural" is always "crazy," "absurd," "sacrilegious."
It does have a tint of irony how vegeterianism has been accused of being a "religious cult" here, and yet we're the ones being condemned for "unnatural" behaviour.
The cappies do the exact same to all of us here -
Greed is "natural."
Violence is "natural."
You filthy pinko bastards are trying to defy nature!
Well, whatever the case may be, I think we can all agree
What's "natural," isn't always what's best.

And don't get me started on the stupid shit my ancestors did. :P

[Individual]

About that, I think I'll have to agree with ol' Leo Tolstoy -
"A human can be healthy without killing animals for food. Therefore if he eats meat he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral."
But I'll try not to be too "authoritarian" now and back off with the morals.

So humans are immoral by replacing the meat supply by very large numbers. However animals do not replace what they kill. Why are humans the murderers?

I'm sorry, however for me eating soy is not an option. I set my own morals, and I do not have the morals of Judaism. Therefore it is not immoral for me to eat meat. Under your morals, it may be immoral, however for myself, you do not set my morals. Isn't individuality great?


If you think factory farms are a depiction of nature and the "natural food chain," think again.

Ok. Now remember this next comment you wrote about un-natural things and how human's are smarter, and how that would relate to this previous comment.


cause humans are alot smarter than animals.
Personally, I don't understand how what's "natural" is always what's "right."
And what's "unnatural" is always "crazy," "absurd," "sacrilegious."

You answered your own question with perfection.

Besides your answer, my point was; where is your problem with the animals that are brutally killing other animals? Why are humans labelled as killers, when this is what has taken place since life's beginning?


he cappies do the exact same to all of us here -
Greed is "natural."
Violence is "natural."
You filthy pinko bastards are trying to defy nature!

This seems to be a common veggie reply. 'You cappies'.

I do not need to be capitalist to realize my need for meat. Not a vegetarian does not = Capitalist. Get that one straight, I hate being labelled capitalist because I do not have the same views as hippies.


And don't get me started on the stupid shit my ancestors did.

Talk all you want on what 'stupid shit' they did. That was not my point. What I was implying is that if your ancestors had not of killed animals for meat, you would surely not be alive today, for the human race would probably not have survived. So you should be thankful that your ancestors did kill for meat, or you wouldn't be around today to cry about it.


If you truly 'cared' for nature, why would you not let it run it's course?

[Regicidal Insomniac]

Factory farms aren't a realistic depiction of nature becase no animals operates naturally with it's surrounding.

I don't see how humans being smart
(to which no one said otherwise)
is a disprovement of that.

We've been "smart" enough to destroy the enviroment, steal animals from their natural habitat, rise them for slaughter, and dissolve all natural relations that occured between the creatures until we alone excerize a complete hegemony upon this food chain.

And never once did I say what's "natural" is always right. When it comes to the planet we're living on the creatures with whom we share it with and rely on for survival, a certain respect for what's natural should be expected.

I also never called you a cappie. I was contrasting debate tactics. Is that so offensive?
In any case, there's no need to feel offender. Cause I never called you a capitalist or anything.

I, however, don't appreciate being called a "hippy."
Let's skip the namecalling.


The current situations of mass meat production is anything but a manifestation of nature.
It's corperations exploiting the enviroment and workers, torturing animals, poisoning the world, and stealing the harvest of farmers to produce a spectacularly immense and unnecessary amount of meat. Meat that is given straight to the well-off consumer primarily in the First World. Meanwhile the poor can't afford all the meat and grain's running low because it's all shoved down the throats of animals for slaughter.

Surely you agree that the current situation of meat production and distribution needs to end.
One tiny little lifestyle choice we can make that push that along is refuse to participate in it.
This doesn't necesarily mean cutting meet completely out of your diet.
It can mean curbing your meat consumption, or as others here have pointed out, getting your meat locally.
I've made my choice. And I'm sure you've made yours. Whatever ticks your tock.

Quite frankly I think it's totally useless to debate what's "natural" and what's not.
As communists/socialists/anarchists/etc. we are guided by one relation - exploiter and exploited. And what's "natural" has nothing to do about it. All that matters is shattering the tools of exploitation. To me, factory farming as it is today, is one of those tools.
Like I just said, there are a numbers of ways you can dullen this tool. Or you can chose to use it.
Whatever you like, mate. Indivisualism is great.

[John Galt]

RI: Ill ammend my statement


If god didnt want us to eat animals, he shouldnt have made them so tasty

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 5 2004, 12:08 AM
RI: Ill ammend my statement


If god didnt want us to eat animals, he shouldnt have made them so tasty
...

[John Galt]

What do the following animals have in common? (http://maddox.xmission.com/animals.html)

For every animal you dont eat (http://maddox.xmission.com/sponsor.html)

[Y2A]

Maddox is God!

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 4 2004, 03:49 AM
If god didnt want us to eat animals, he shouldnt have made them out of meat
I disagree with your politics sir, but that was DAMN funny

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Lardlad95+Mar 6 2004, 01:09 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lardlad95 @ Mar 6 2004, 01:09 AM)
John [email protected] 4 2004, 03:49 AM
If god didnt want us to eat animals, he shouldnt have made them out of meat
I disagree with your politics sir, but that was DAMN funny [/b]
At least someone here understands humour

[Y2A]

Originally posted by John Galt+Mar 6 2004, 01:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Mar 6 2004, 01:23 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:09 AM

John [email protected] 4 2004, 03:49 AM
If god didnt want us to eat animals, he shouldnt have made them out of meat
I disagree with your politics sir, but that was DAMN funny
At least someone here understands humour [/b]
Yeah, Lardlad is one of the few rational ones.

[Michael De Panama]

I am a vegetarian as well.

[Loknar]

http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html



the people who choose to be vegan or vegetarian because of the cruelty to animals are hypocrites.


read the above article.

OSU scientist questions the moral basis of a vegan diet :
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.htm

The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet. :
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/anima...s/leastharm.htm (http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm)

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Y2A+Mar 6 2004, 01:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Mar 6 2004, 01:32 AM)
Originally posted by John [email protected] 6 2004, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:09 AM

John [email protected] 4 2004, 03:49 AM
If god didnt want us to eat animals, he shouldnt have made them out of meat
I disagree with your politics sir, but that was DAMN funny
At least someone here understands humour
Yeah, Lardlad is one of the few rational ones. [/b]
YEA&#33;????? :huh:

[RedCeltic]

Hmmm… I was reading the link on there to PETA’s response to the question of animals being killed in combines. It makes me really wonder about the real goal they have. I mean, if they would like to see a more humane meat industry.. well that’s one thing, and I would support that. However if it’s the elimination of the meat industry well there’s a big problem with that.

In PETA’s response to the combines they say that we would actually need less grain if we didn’t eat meat. Hmmmm…

So… what happens say hypothetically if say Monday morning everyone in the United States woke up and suddenly became vegetarians and the meat industry goes under? What would happen to the animals? Would people continue to feed them and care for them as before? Not according to PETA. Notice they say that there would be less need to grow as much grain if we ate less meat. That means that if everyone stopped eating meat… animals that aren’t able to care for themselves in the wild (like cattle) would starve to death. If you doubt me and think cattle can survive as wild animals, keep in mind that a cow is the type of creature that would die of thirst with it’s legs deep in snow.

These are the same people mind you that would rather see all the deer suffer from starvation than to let hunters lower the population.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 4 2004, 03:49 AM
If god didnt want us to eat animals, he shouldnt have made them out of meat
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Anyway:


To say that we need to save the animals is funny. Why aren&#39;t there vegetarians trying to boycott lions, bears, sharks, dogs, tigers, fish, and so on? These animals are killing animals for food? Yet humans are horrible for taking part in what nature is balanced for? Give me a break. This is nature, and the balance that has taken place since life&#39;s beginning.

So for the dictating vegetarians to tell me that killing animals is wrong. Why aren&#39;t you mad at the animals themselves? Everything is our fault. It&#39;s human&#39;s fault that nature happened this way. Is that what you want to tell us? As if we all had a choice to decide that "We are going to kill animals, and that&#39;s that&#33;" Eating meat is part of nature. There are nutritions in meat that we must have in order to go on and be strong and healthy. I&#39;m not going to eat/drink/and live on &#39;soy&#39; products. I need protein, and I need it from natural, balanced, things such as meat.

I agree with AQ here. Definately I think all this vegetarians are insane. Yes, I know it&#39;s not nice to be a cow who knows that the only way out of their jails is their unfair death penalty, I know it&#39;s a very capitalist thing, I know it&#39;s not fair, but unfortunately plants are still beings, humans are so developed thanks to their variety in their diet, and there will always be some conservative idiot who complains about the "tree-huggers" who will go around killing dogs to make nice barbeques. Unfortunately we have to eat each other, I don&#39;t think you will have a good life by eating stones, we (animals) have to hunt each other, which doesn&#39;t mean we have to resort to cruel things like capitalism and eating our own species.

After all worms will eat you as a punishment anyway.

[cubist]

policktrician, i know i have friends that are straite edge and not vegitarian i was just saying i respect them for there principals

[dopediana]

maddox is a twat. i only liked him when he dissed bill o&#39;reilly.

and if you must eat meat, eat organic free-range. it&#39;s better for you. you&#39;re also boycotting a crueler industry which raises animals in their own shit and feeds them bits of eachother since it&#39;s cheaper to recycle them than feed them on a purely vegetarian diet on which these animals ought to thrive. and have you heard about the salmon? eating farmed salmon often is about one of the worst things you can do to your health. free range is healthier and tastes better.

[SittingBull47]

don&#39;t see a problem in eating meat, as long as the animal doesnt suffer.

funny picture. *save*

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 03:34 PM
maddox is a twat. i only liked him when he dissed bill o&#39;reilly.

and if you must eat meat, eat organic free-range. it&#39;s better for you. you&#39;re also boycotting a crueler industry which raises animals in their own shit and feeds them bits of eachother since it&#39;s cheaper to recycle them than feed them on a purely vegetarian diet on which these animals ought to thrive. and have you heard about the salmon? eating farmed salmon often is about one of the worst things you can do to your health. free range is healthier and tastes better.
You know, I hear people talk about how bad these animals are treated, and I for one agree. But let&#39;s be serious, is there any other alternative? Small farms do produce healthier meat and treat their animals much better aswell but the simple fact is that they do not produce as much as the these industrial farms do. If there were only small farms it would be imposible to produce enough food to feed the entire U.S population.

Edit: Maddox rules&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 03:34 PM
maddox is a twat. i only liked him when he dissed bill o&#39;reilly.

and if you must eat meat, eat organic free-range. it&#39;s better for you. you&#39;re also boycotting a crueler industry which raises animals in their own shit and feeds them bits of eachother since it&#39;s cheaper to recycle them than feed them on a purely vegetarian diet on which these animals ought to thrive. and have you heard about the salmon? eating farmed salmon often is about one of the worst things you can do to your health. free range is healthier and tastes better.
Well if you&#39;re so concerned then why dont you harvest your own food? afterall a bunch of animals are being crunched up in combines to support your diet. at least we eat the amimals we kill and don&#39;t leave them flat in the dirt.




and how cold man have evolved without meat? you act as if farming always existed.


bottomline: I&#39;d rather eat a gyro (j/sause) than a shitty garden bugder. what is that anyway? it&#39;s bunched up shit in a soy patty.

[sparky44]

Humans are omnivores and don&#39;t actually need meat to survive as long as they replace meat with other protein sources. Two tablespoons of peanut butter has the same protein content as 3-5oz of meat. If someone wants to be a vegetarian or a meat eater that&#39;s their choice. I&#39;m not a big meat eater but I eat it occasionally. So what, does that make me a murderer??? As for animals that kill other animals......they&#39;re carnivores and require meat to survive. They get their vegetables when they eat the stomach of their prey as their prey is usually a herbivore.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 05:35 AM
Humans are omnivores and don&#39;t actually need meat to survive as long as they replace meat with other protein sources. Two tablespoons of peanut butter has the same protein content as 3-5oz of meat. If someone wants to be a vegetarian or a meat eater that&#39;s their choice. I&#39;m not a big meat eater but I eat it occasionally. So what, does that make me a murderer??? As for animals that kill other animals......they&#39;re carnivores and require meat to survive. They get their vegetables when they eat the stomach of their prey as their prey is usually a herbivore.
It&#39;s been proven that the most pure source of protein is meat.


Humans have always hunted animals, before there was farming we lived off the land (Hunters and gatherers). Meat was likely the primary source before farming started. In cold climates esecially, animal meat was needed to survive.

[sparky44]

Originally posted by Loknar+Mar 10 2004, 04:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Loknar @ Mar 10 2004, 04:47 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 05:35 AM
Humans are omnivores and don&#39;t actually need meat to survive as long as they replace meat with other protein sources. Two tablespoons of peanut butter has the same protein content as 3-5oz of meat. If someone wants to be a vegetarian or a meat eater that&#39;s their choice. I&#39;m not a big meat eater but I eat it occasionally. So what, does that make me a murderer??? As for animals that kill other animals......they&#39;re carnivores and require meat to survive. They get their vegetables when they eat the stomach of their prey as their prey is usually a herbivore.
It&#39;s been proven that the most pure source of protein is meat.


Humans have always hunted animals, before there was farming we lived off the land (Hunters and gatherers). Meat was likely the primary source before farming started. In cold climates esecially, animal meat was needed to survive. [/b]
That&#39;s true but when they were only hunters/gatherers they had no knowledge of farming. It may be the purest form of protein but it isn&#39;t the only one. Health wise....too much meat isn&#39;t good for your health, especially red meat that&#39;s why it&#39;s better to replace as much of the meat with other sources of protein.

[DarkAngel]

i didn&#39;t notice this thread. Yes I am a veggie. Not &#39;&#39;extreme&#39;&#39;, I don&#39;t convince people to do what they don&#39;t want. I just believe what I believe and I have no need to force my belifs onto the world.

Ohh and please please pleeease if your going to make an argument against me and my veggie ways don&#39;t give me that god shit. I don&#39;t believe in god, so your argument SUCKS&#33;

If you really want to know why I turned veggie, or atleast what influenced me:

MEAT YOUR MEAT (http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=mym2002)

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 08:48 PM
You know, I hear people talk about how bad these animals are treated, and I for one agree. But let&#39;s be serious, is there any other alternative? Small farms do produce healthier meat and treat their animals much better aswell but the simple fact is that they do not produce as much as the these industrial farms do. If there were only small farms it would be imposible to produce enough food to feed the entire U.S population.
Oh, so only americans deserve meat?

Rascist&#33;

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Mar 14 2004, 07:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Misodoctakleidist @ Mar 14 2004, 07:17 PM)
[email protected] 8 2004, 08:48 PM
You know, I hear people talk about how bad these animals are treated, and I for one agree. But let&#39;s be serious, is there any other alternative? Small farms do produce healthier meat and treat their animals much better aswell but the simple fact is that they do not produce as much as the these industrial farms do. If there were only small farms it would be imposible to produce enough food to feed the entire U.S population.
Oh, so only americans deserve meat?

Rascist&#33; [/b]


-If theres one country that doesn&#39;t deserve meat, its America.

[cubist]

I have no need to force my belifs onto the world

and your sig says
meat is murder

strange that

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 10:32 PM
Ah yes.

I certainly agree. No dictating vegetarians please&#33;

See, the problem is, I need meat to live healthy. Humans are omnivorous, meaning we need both meat and greens. And to tell me that killing animals is wrong so that I can survive is one of those most hypocritical things I have heard.

To say that we need to save the animals is funny. Why aren&#39;t there vegetarians trying to boycott lions, bears, sharks, dogs, tigers, fish, and so on? These animals are killing animals for food? Yet humans are horrible for taking part in what nature is balanced for? Give me a break. This is nature, and the balance that has taken place since life&#39;s beginning.

So for the dictating vegetarians to tell me that killing animals is wrong. Why aren&#39;t you mad at the animals themselves? Everything is our fault. It&#39;s human&#39;s fault that nature happened this way. Is that what you want to tell us? As if we all had a choice to decide that "We are going to kill animals, and that&#39;s that&#33;" Eating meat is part of nature. There are nutritions in meat that we must have in order to go on and be strong and healthy. I&#39;m not going to eat/drink/and live on &#39;soy&#39; products. I need protein, and I need it from natural, balanced, things such as meat.

I understand that you feel you can live your life eating nothing but soy, greens, beans, and rice. However I cannot, so please don&#39;t preach to me that I am participating in the slaughter of animals. It is human nature for christs sake. Go boycott the solely carnivorous animals that do nothing but kill. Do not patronize me for consuming a product that I am intended to consume by nature.

If you feel so strongly, please feel free to condemn the true killers; wild animals.
Many vegetarians (myself being a former vegetarian) don&#39;t have a problem killing animals per se. the problem is the fact that we are breeding animals to eat. we are caging livestock up and making them fatter... their only real purpose in this world is to feed humans.

now even when i was a veggie i would eat meat if i went out and killed it myself. if had gone hunting (and i think hunters with sites onguns and such are just macho people trying to prove they have balls) and killed a rabbit i would have no quams about eating it. but take for example veal. you know that the babies are chained up and never learn how to walk because they don&#39;t need to learn ... they&#39;re never going to do anything other than die and be fed to us.

thus, i have no problem with traditional lifestyles...in fact someday i&#39;mgonna move tonorthern canada and live off the land,hunting and gathering and growing my food. but the modern day world has gotten away from having to fight for our food and now we just have an endless supply of animals toeat whnever we feellike going to the grocery store.

[Vinny Rafarino]

the problem is the fact that we are breeding animals to eat. we are caging livestock up and making them fatter... their only real purpose in this world is to feed humans.



And?

It&#39;s a question of individual morality. Those that may describe this practise as "barbaric" or somehow morally wrong seem to be unable to psychologically disassociate themselves from their food. These food sources don&#39;t care that they are "kept in cages" and "fattened up". They don&#39;t cry due to emotional sadness. they don&#39;t "miss" their families. They dont love or hate. They are not even aware of their own existence. Their lives are irrelevant.


but take for example veal. you know that the babies are chained up and never learn how to walk because they don&#39;t need to learn ... they&#39;re never going to do anything other than die and be fed to us

Once again, these animals do not care if they ever learn to walk. They have no "social aspirations".



but the modern day world has gotten away from having to fight for our food

You do realise there is a reason for this yes? We are no longer a primative species.


now we just have an endless supply of animals toeat whnever we feellike going to the grocery store

With the help of economic certainty, eventually we will not only have this beautiful supply of meat to consume whenever we choose but we will also not have to pay for it.

Isn&#39;t life swell?

[Nickademus]

have you ever had a pet? if you have then you should know that animals have some level of emotion .. otherwise why do cats beg for attention and purr ... why do dogs wag their tails and howl? they may not be conscious of their emotions like humans, but i do believe that animals have feelings.

but the other point is that these animals should at least be given a chance at surviving the game called life like mother nature intended. they shouldn&#39;t be caged up. what if canibalism came back and humans were caged up and going to be fed. those born in captivity would know no other life... does that make it ok?

(my goodness all this arguing and i&#39;m not even a vegetarian anymore :))

[Vinny Rafarino]

have you ever had a pet? if you have then you should know that animals have some level of emotion otherwise why do cats beg for attention and purr

Yes I have, and no, these animals DO NOT show emotion. What you are seeing is a manifestation of an instinct. This instinct is commonly referred to as the "comfort instinct". Animals will instinctively seek to "comfort" themselves in many ways. They do not have any emotional "desire" to perform this function, however they are genetically programmed to do it.



why do dogs wag their tails and howl


Dogs wag their tails to show they are submissive to the dominant animal in their pack (You). They will also instinctively behave in this manner to ANY other animal that appears to be "superior" to the animal.

Domesticated dogs howl in the reactionary and instictive sense at sirens and such due to the instinct to communicate with other members of their pack when in the wild. As you can see, (or hear) these instincts still exist in domestic animals today even though they have not been necessary for centuries in most domestic breeds.


but i do believe that animals have feelings.


I understand how you feel, you have a strong psychological bond with your food and pets that prevents you from believing what is fact. Don&#39;t worry, you are not alone. At some point in time, all human beings will resist what is actually true so they can comfort themselves...Sound familiar? That&#39;s YOU manifesting your own "comfort instinct".


but the other point is that these animals should at least be given a chance at surviving the game called life like mother nature intended

There is no such "being" as the "mother of nature", therefore it cannot "intend" to do anything at all. I do not see why, for any reason, we should put more than a fleeting thought into our food sources. That fleeting thought being how to prepare the food.



they shouldn&#39;t be caged up.

Let me guess, you say this because the thought of a "caged" animal makes you UNCOMFORTABLE right?



what if canibalism came back and humans were caged up and going to be fed those born in captivity would know no other life... does that make it ok?


You cannot compare the behaviour of self aware species to those of non self aware species. These "what if" scenarios are normally only brought forth by those that psychologically understand they are wrong yet continue to INSTICTIVELY ignore those facts.

We call it "reaching".

[truthaddict11]

If god didnt want us to eat animals, he shouldnt have made them out of meat

didnt you steal that from The Simpsons?

[Nickademus]

comrade raf,

this would suggest that humans aren&#39;t programed to have certain emotions and reactions, which i also totally disagree with. humans are &#39;programmed&#39; to feel sad when a close friend dies, or feel terror when confronted with a bear on hind legs. does that mean we don&#39;t feel? again, human emotions certainly differ from animal &#39;feelings&#39; but i still think that even animal instincts are being shut off when we box up cattle or cage chickens.

and while i don&#39;t disagree that there isn&#39;t a bieng mother nature, i do believe there is a force beyond what we humans can truly understand that has created a natural order of things and we humans seem to be doing everything contrary to that...including the domestication of our food supply.

[Vinny Rafarino]

this would suggest that humans aren&#39;t programed to have certain emotions and reactions, which i also totally disagree with. humans are &#39;programmed&#39; to feel sad when a close friend dies, or feel terror when confronted with a bear on hind legs. does that mean we don&#39;t feel?


Not at all. You are again confusing self aware species (humans) with non self aware species (animals). The issue at hand pertains to animals ONLY.


again, human emotions certainly differ from animal &#39;feelings&#39; but i still think that even animal instincts are being shut off when we box up cattle or cage chickens.


Human emotion differs from what you consider animal "feelings" in one way ONLY; Humans have emotions, animals do not.

You cannot "shut off" genetic instinct. The proteins responsible for triggering genetic instinctual reaction to environmental stimuli are controlled by specific DNA sequences that cannot be changed short of Somatic HGE therapy.


and while i don&#39;t disagree that there isn&#39;t a bieng mother nature, i do believe there is a force beyond what we humans can truly understand that has created a natural order of things and we humans seem to be doing everything contrary to that...including the domestication of our food supply.


Now I understand why you refuse to accept the facts. You seem to be living in some sort of "fantasy land" inhabited by "mythical forces". I suggest you come back to reality my friend, it&#39;s better over here.

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 26 2004, 12:27 PM


Now I understand why you refuse to accept the facts. You seem to be living in some sort of "fantasy land" inhabited by "mythical forces". I suggest you come back to reality my friend, it&#39;s better over here.
there is no need to be a condescending little prick comrade raf..... i&#39;m trying to discuss something with you and you have to make comments like these. because i&#39;m not an athiest i&#39;m living in a fantasty land? perhaps you should try to understand where i&#39;m coming frombefore you make such comments.

i am very unimpressed that someone so condescending actually became a mod.

[Urban Rubble]

there is no need to be a condescending little prick comrade raf.....

Oh but there is, for that is the way of Comrade RAF. You&#39;ll grow to love it. :lol:

No, RAF&#39;s a good guy, he is just very educated and tends to come off as a dick because usually he knows alot more about what he is debating than the other person. Not to say you&#39;re ignorant of the subject, it&#39;s just that RAF is some kind of human super computer and seems to have facts on everything. I know, it&#39;s annoying.

Anyway, I think what RAF is saying basically correct. However, I disagree that we should not have any feeling for animals or not. Whether or not they have emotions is irrelevant, we do know that they can feel pain. Corporate slauighterhouses cause these animals to go through massive unneccesary pain simply because it saves them money. I don&#39;t think we should stop killing animals, but I do think that these business owners need to sacrifice some of their profits in order to make life better for the livestock. It seems fair to me.

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 26 2004, 01:01 PM

there is no need to be a condescending little prick comrade raf.....

Oh but there is, for that is the way of Comrade RAF. You&#39;ll grow to love it. :lol:

No, RAF&#39;s a good guy, he is just very educated and tends to come off as a dick because usually he knows alot more about what he is debating than the other person. Not to say you&#39;re ignorant of the subject, it&#39;s just that RAF is some kind of human super computer and seems to have facts on everything. I know, it&#39;s annoying.

Anyway, I think what RAF is saying basically correct. However, I disagree that we should not have any feeling for animals or not. Whether or not they have emotions is irrelevant, we do know that they can feel pain. Corporate slauighterhouses cause these animals to go through massive unneccesary pain simply because it saves them money. I don&#39;t think we should stop killing animals, but I do think that these business owners need to sacrifice some of their profits in order to make life better for the livestock. It seems fair to me.
no i&#39;m sorry i cant grow to love someone who is an ass like that. i am also very well educated thank you and can debate but only when people are debating with me not simply saying im living in a fantasy land .. suggesting of course that i am not capable of having a discussion with him.


on your other point, that is a part of what i&#39;m getting at. eat animals .. i don&#39;t care....but do it in a way that lets animals be what they are (meaning not caged and forced to eat)

[Vinny Rafarino]

because i&#39;m not an athiest i&#39;m living in a fantasty land?

Yes.



perhaps you should try to understand where i&#39;m coming frombefore you make such comments.


I would rather not move backwards, thank you.



Corporate slauighterhouses cause these animals to go through massive unneccesary pain simply because it saves them money. I don&#39;t think we should stop killing animals, but I do think that these business owners need to sacrifice some of their profits in order to make life better for the livestock. It seems fair to me.

I have never disputed this fact comrade. I too agree that some slaughterhouse practises are indeed atrocious and SHOULD be changed. I can however live comfortable if they were not however.

Don&#39;t worry, the chickens don&#39;t care.

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 26 2004, 01:28 PM

because i&#39;m not an athiest i&#39;m living in a fantasty land?

Yes.



perhaps you should try to understand where i&#39;m coming frombefore you make such comments.


I would rather not move backwards, thank you.



Corporate slauighterhouses cause these animals to go through massive unneccesary pain simply because it saves them money. I don&#39;t think we should stop killing animals, but I do think that these business owners need to sacrifice some of their profits in order to make life better for the livestock. It seems fair to me.

I have never disputed this fact comrade. I too agree that some slaughterhouse practises are indeed atrocious and SHOULD be changed. I can however live comfortable if they were not however.

Don&#39;t worry, the chickens don&#39;t care.
would you actually care to discuss with my why you believe i am living in a fantasy land simply because i&#39;m not atheistic ... and note .. i&#39;m NOT christian.

and it wouldn&#39;t be going backwards to undersand where i&#39;m coming from because you have only seen a very small part of me through the posts i&#39;ve made in this thread. discussing things with people and trying to understand is NEVER moving backwards.

and you have infact disputed this with me...i said it was the manner in which the animals are bred that is the problem for a lot of veggies i know ...and thats when you started ....

[Postteen]

i&#39;M NOT a vegetarian but I&#39;d like to.I don&#39;t eat rabbits,beef,pork.I generally try to avoid meat because:1.i&#39;m sorry of all those animals
2.too muh of it is unhealthly
3.I don&#39;t like it&#33;

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by Nickademus+Mar 26 2004, 06:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickademus @ Mar 26 2004, 06:02 PM)
COMRADE [email protected] 26 2004, 01:28 PM

because i&#39;m not an athiest i&#39;m living in a fantasty land?

Yes.



perhaps you should try to understand where i&#39;m coming frombefore you make such comments.


I would rather not move backwards, thank you.



Corporate slauighterhouses cause these animals to go through massive unneccesary pain simply because it saves them money. I don&#39;t think we should stop killing animals, but I do think that these business owners need to sacrifice some of their profits in order to make life better for the livestock. It seems fair to me.

I have never disputed this fact comrade. I too agree that some slaughterhouse practises are indeed atrocious and SHOULD be changed. I can however live comfortable if they were not however.

Don&#39;t worry, the chickens don&#39;t care.
would you actually care to discuss with my why you believe i am living in a fantasy land simply because i&#39;m not atheistic ... and note .. i&#39;m NOT christian.

and it wouldn&#39;t be going backwards to undersand where i&#39;m coming from because you have only seen a very small part of me through the posts i&#39;ve made in this thread. discussing things with people and trying to understand is NEVER moving backwards.

and you have infact disputed this with me...i said it was the manner in which the animals are bred that is the problem for a lot of veggies i know ...and thats when you started .... [/b]
If you are not an athiest, that means that to some extent, you are denying science, and to deny the fundamental method if man to learn about the universe, and you tell me that is not living in a fantasy land?
As for the animals, they incapable of doing anything productive for society outside eating them. I do not care what their living conditions are or what the have to go through, so long as the meat tastes good.

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+Mar 27 2004, 08:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr @ Mar 27 2004, 08:41 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 06:02 PM

COMRADE [email protected] 26 2004, 01:28 PM

because i&#39;m not an athiest i&#39;m living in a fantasty land?

Yes.



perhaps you should try to understand where i&#39;m coming frombefore you make such comments.


I would rather not move backwards, thank you.



Corporate slauighterhouses cause these animals to go through massive unneccesary pain simply because it saves them money. I don&#39;t think we should stop killing animals, but I do think that these business owners need to sacrifice some of their profits in order to make life better for the livestock. It seems fair to me.

I have never disputed this fact comrade. I too agree that some slaughterhouse practises are indeed atrocious and SHOULD be changed. I can however live comfortable if they were not however.

Don&#39;t worry, the chickens don&#39;t care.
would you actually care to discuss with my why you believe i am living in a fantasy land simply because i&#39;m not atheistic ... and note .. i&#39;m NOT christian.

and it wouldn&#39;t be going backwards to undersand where i&#39;m coming from because you have only seen a very small part of me through the posts i&#39;ve made in this thread. discussing things with people and trying to understand is NEVER moving backwards.

and you have infact disputed this with me...i said it was the manner in which the animals are bred that is the problem for a lot of veggies i know ...and thats when you started ....
If you are not an athiest, that means that to some extent, you are denying science, and to deny the fundamental method if man to learn about the universe, and you tell me that is not living in a fantasy land?
As for the animals, they incapable of doing anything productive for society outside eating them. I do not care what their living conditions are or what the have to go through, so long as the meat tastes good. [/b]
actually quantum physics is beginning to proove what i believe in so don&#39;t tell me i&#39;m denying science..... in fact science does absolutely nothing to contradict my spirituality.

and have you never heard of the ecosystem? animals have a very specific place in the world... nad its all a part of the ecosystem. they don&#39;t simply exist so that humans can eat them.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

actually quantum physics is beginning to proove what i believe in so don&#39;t tell me i&#39;m denying science..... in fact science does absolutely nothing to contradict my spirituality.

Is that so? What does spirituality have to do with the behavior and proporties of subatomic particles?


and have you never heard of the ecosystem? animals have a very specific place in the world... nad its all a part of the ecosystem. they don&#39;t simply exist so that humans can eat them.

The animals used for meat have no place in the ecosystem. They were bred by us, raised by us, and fed by us. The only place they have in this world is on our dinner plates.

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 09:40 AM

actually quantum physics is beginning to proove what i believe in so don&#39;t tell me i&#39;m denying science..... in fact science does absolutely nothing to contradict my spirituality.

Is that so? What does spirituality have to do with the behavior and proporties of subatomic particles?


and have you never heard of the ecosystem? animals have a very specific place in the world... nad its all a part of the ecosystem. they don&#39;t simply exist so that humans can eat them.

The animals used for meat have no place in the ecosystem. They were bred by us, raised by us, and fed by us. The only place they have in this world is on our dinner plates.
perhaps you should find out what my spirituatlity is first and then you might possibly understand.


and true we have &#39;bred&#39; many of hte animals that our now our food but that&#39;s cause we killed all thebuffalo .... BUT many of these animals did exist before humans ever appeared upon the earht&#39;s surface and they were a part of the ecosystem. in case you don&#39;t realize it we humans have fucked withthat fragile system severely.....and raising animals the way wehave is a large part of that....we have taken them out of the natural order and forced them into ours.

[shyguywannadie]

MEAT IS MURDER

so what?
che shooting someone in the face is also murder isnt it?
kill people kill animals, I dont give a shit.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

perhaps you should find out what my spirituatlity is first and then you might possibly understand.

Don&#39;t tell me you are one of those scientologist whack jobs... They are the religious equivilant of trying to use big scientific words to sound intelligent, but everyone knows they are full of shit.


and true we have &#39;bred&#39; many of hte animals that our now our food but that&#39;s cause we killed all thebuffalo .... BUT many of these animals did exist before humans ever appeared upon the earht&#39;s surface and they were a part of the ecosystem. in case you don&#39;t realize it we humans have fucked withthat fragile system severely.....and raising animals the way wehave is a large part of that....we have taken them out of the natural order and forced them into ours.

Natural order...pfft, who cares? We do what is best for ourselves.

[Vinny Rafarino]

actually quantum physics is beginning to proove what i believe in so don&#39;t tell me i&#39;m denying science..... in fact science does absolutely nothing to contradict my spirituality

Okay, I&#39;ll bite. I can&#39;t wait to see how you are going to explain that quantum mechanics "prooves" your "spirituality". Prehaps your "spirituality" is actually the long-lost unification theory that has been alluding physicists for decades. If this is the case, Let me know so I can email Dr. Mendel Sachs to let his know his unification theory has been debunked by "god".

So, what exactly IS your "spirituality"?


Edit

(6 to 1 she says wicca)

[RedCeltic]

Thousands of years ago people believed that everything is connected to the same energy or life force. This notion naturally had been supressed with the coming of Christianity that teaches that humans are the highest form of life and therefore can not be made of the same matter or "life force" as other beings or non living things.

Science now shows that the smallest sub-microscopic partical is what is known as a Quark.. It is the smallest thing known.. so small that it can not be seen with an electron microscope. Scientists now know that quark&#39;s exist, but only theorize that they look like a constantly moving particle... just basicly vibration... and this is what makes up everything in the universe... much like what had been talked about thousands of years ago.

Ancient and "primitive" cultures are actually more knowlegable about the natural world than western society because of how far distanced western society is from nature. They see the interconnectedness of everything around them while we live in a society who&#39;s outlook and values are based on Judeo-Christianity...

Weather you believe in religion or not has no basis here actually, you may be an athiest but if you are living within western society you are being affected by 2000 years of christian dogma which molds how you and the rest of western society views the world.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Thousands of years ago people believed that everything is connected to the same energy or life force. This notion naturally had been supressed with the coming of Christianity that teaches that humans are the highest form of life and therefore can not be made of the same matter or "life force" as other beings or non living things.

Science now shows that the smallest sub-microscopic partical is what is known as a Quark.. It is the smallest thing known.. so small that it can not be seen with an electron microscope. Scientists now know that quark&#39;s exist, but only theorize that they look like a constantly moving particle... just basicly vibration... and this is what makes up everything in the universe... much like what had been talked about thousands of years ago.


Right, thousands of years ago, the tribal people who could not even count higher then ten theorized that we all made up of subatomic viberations that some how make us connected by some imaginary life force...


Ancient and "primitive" cultures are actually more knowlegable about the natural world than western society because of how far distanced western society is from nature. They see the interconnectedness of everything around them while we live in a society who&#39;s outlook and values are based on Judeo-Christianity...

Right, the ancients are far wiser then us idiots, so lets bring back bloodletting and human sacrafice so that we might appease the gods, and go have people foraging and hunting for food instead of farming for it...all 6 billion of them.


Weather you believe in religion or not has no basis here actually, you may be an athiest but if you are living within western society you are being affected by 2000 years of christian dogma which molds how you and the rest of western society views the world.

I can see through "christian dogma" like glass comrade. The only effect it has on me is to make me even more hostile against them. You can be an atheist without stomping on women, owning slaves, worshipping Jesus, or burning gays, jews, and immigrants. Care to tell me what effect Christianity has on me?

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 05:44 PM

Thousands of years ago people believed that everything is connected to the same energy or life force. This notion naturally had been supressed with the coming of Christianity that teaches that humans are the highest form of life and therefore can not be made of the same matter or "life force" as other beings or non living things.

Science now shows that the smallest sub-microscopic partical is what is known as a Quark.. It is the smallest thing known.. so small that it can not be seen with an electron microscope. Scientists now know that quark&#39;s exist, but only theorize that they look like a constantly moving particle... just basicly vibration... and this is what makes up everything in the universe... much like what had been talked about thousands of years ago.


Right, thousands of years ago, the tribal people who could not even count higher then ten theorized that we all made up of subatomic viberations that some how make us connected by some imaginary life force...


Ancient and "primitive" cultures are actually more knowlegable about the natural world than western society because of how far distanced western society is from nature. They see the interconnectedness of everything around them while we live in a society who&#39;s outlook and values are based on Judeo-Christianity...

Right, the ancients are far wiser then us idiots, so lets bring back bloodletting and human sacrafice so that we might appease the gods, and go have people foraging and hunting for food instead of farming for it...all 6 billion of them.


Weather you believe in religion or not has no basis here actually, you may be an athiest but if you are living within western society you are being affected by 2000 years of christian dogma which molds how you and the rest of western society views the world.

I can see through "christian dogma" like glass comrade. The only effect it has on me is to make me even more hostile against them. You can be an atheist without stomping on women, owning slaves, worshipping Jesus, or burning gays, jews, and immigrants. Care to tell me what effect Christianity has on me?
Simply because the ancient tribal people couldn&#39;t explain the life force in the same manner we do today doesn&#39;t mean they didn&#39;t understand the core of it .. they might not have known why but they trusted the INSTINCTS and learned from nature around them ... a great and powerful teacher.

And simply because they did some things we accept as idiot doesn&#39;t mean they weren&#39;t right on other things. i can look at society today and say we do a lot of stupid idiotic things (capital punishment, prostitution, letting people starve on the streets while some people are spending &#036;12,000 on a bloody cell phone) it doesn&#39;t necessarily mean we humans are idiots.... humans can be right about some things and wrong about other things. i really can&#39;t believe you made that statement.

No one has said you can&#39;t be atheistic without stomping on womne,owning slaves etc.... but there are certain things in this world that have been taken away from us because that tradition etc. was surpressed as being a threat to christianity .... and there are many things that are christian that are subconscious (meaning you don&#39;t know it).


And yes I am wiccan ... i can&#39;t wait to hear you slander that as well.

[RedCeltic]

Right, the ancients are far wiser then us idiots, so lets bring back bloodletting and human sacrafice so that we might appease the gods, and go have people foraging and hunting for food instead of farming for it...all 6 billion of them.

There are many instances where bio-medicine falls short, and seeks to adopt new (or rather old) ways of medical practice. If tribal medicine is all useless as you say than why do phamasudical corperations go out into the rain forests and find what plants aborgional peoples use in medical practice in order to develop new drugs?

Even though blood letting had fallen out of practice in say the 1930&#39;s, there are some instances that doctors have found leaching quite effective actually. They use leaches now for re-ataching limbs for example. leaches secrete a fluid from their saliva that lets blood flow and keeps it from clotting. This alows doctors to then attach fingers back where otherwise it would be rejected due to blood clotting.

maggots are also in use in bio-technology these days that would never have been considered some years ago as it would be discounted as being too primitive. Yet, today doctors can avoid surgery by placing maggots on dead tissue and the maggots will only eat what is dead and save them from risky surgery. This isn&#39;t anything new. Medical doctors didn&#39;t recently discover that a maggot will only eat dead tissue, it had been in practice for a long time among traditional healers.



I can see through "christian dogma" like glass comrade. The only effect it has on me is to make me even more hostile against them. You can be an atheist without stomping on women, owning slaves, worshipping Jesus, or burning gays, jews, and immigrants. Care to tell me what effect Christianity has on me?


I&#39;m talking about the concept of our place in the universe. I admit that myself I am more interested in human rights than animal rights. I&#39;m not preaching here mind you... yet I am saying that we are biased that way due to how we have been raised in a Judeo-Christian society. How we view marrage, birth, death, how we view time as having a begining and an end, are all part of a christian concept.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 10:34 PM

Right, the ancients are far wiser then us idiots, so lets bring back bloodletting and human sacrafice so that we might appease the gods, and go have people foraging and hunting for food instead of farming for it...all 6 billion of them.

There are many instances where bio-medicine falls short, and seeks to adopt new (or rather old) ways of medical practice. If tribal medicine is all useless as you say than why do phamasudical corperations go out into the rain forests and find what plants aborgional peoples use in medical practice in order to develop new drugs?

Even though blood letting had fallen out of practice in say the 1930&#39;s, there are some instances that doctors have found leaching quite effective actually. They use leaches now for re-ataching limbs for example. leaches secrete a fluid from their saliva that lets blood flow and keeps it from clotting. This alows doctors to then attach fingers back where otherwise it would be rejected due to blood clotting.

maggots are also in use in bio-technology these days that would never have been considered some years ago as it would be discounted as being too primitive. Yet, today doctors can avoid surgery by placing maggots on dead tissue and the maggots will only eat what is dead and save them from risky surgery. This isn&#39;t anything new. Medical doctors didn&#39;t recently discover that a maggot will only eat dead tissue, it had been in practice for a long time among traditional healers.



I can see through "christian dogma" like glass comrade. The only effect it has on me is to make me even more hostile against them. You can be an atheist without stomping on women, owning slaves, worshipping Jesus, or burning gays, jews, and immigrants. Care to tell me what effect Christianity has on me?


I&#39;m talking about the concept of our place in the universe. I admit that myself I am more interested in human rights than animal rights. I&#39;m not preaching here mind you... yet I am saying that we are biased that way due to how we have been raised in a Judeo-Christian society. How we view marrage, birth, death, how we view time as having a begining and an end, are all part of a christian concept.
Now, I didn&#39;t say that EVERYTHING that people used to do medically was quackery, just a good portion of it was, such as drilling holes in people&#39;s skulls who you thought to have mental problems. There are some medically valid medical practices that people used to do that are valid, but as a whole, medical knowledge is far superior to that 1000 years ago. I don&#39;t have a very christian view of marriage, death or anything else. As for Wiccans, I don&#39;t know or care what they believe. As far as I am concerned all religions consist of unscientific garbage.

[RedCeltic]

look.... I&#39;m not saying that all tribal practice is good, nor that all bio-medicine is bad, yet as an anthropologist and as a Wiccan myself I have a different, and quite less ethnocenteric view of things as you do.

That&#39;s not ment to be an insult actually because we all are ethnocentric to one extent or another.

They say that 80% of any sickness humans suffer from, they will get better regardless of what is done.

They have also shown that people who are administered a placebo actually have a quicker rate of recovery than someone who recieves no treatment at all.

So the trick is to make a person think that what the doctor is doing is the best thing, be it seeing a medical doctor who charges you through the nose to tell you to take two asprin and call him in the moring, or be it going to a shaman who will find the evil spirit who has cause you to feel ill and "do battle with him" on the spiritual plane. The cure is really in the belief rather than the actual practice in these cases.

That isn&#39;t to say that a shaman is able to be as affective as a medical doctor in dealing with serous problems however.

Bio-medicine is also less personal than medicine used to be years ago. Doctors rarely know who their patiants are anymore and it is typical for a nurse to say, "Doctor Smith, that liver is waiting for you in room 203"...

[DarkAngel]

&#39;&#39;Meat is Murder&#39;&#39; is my opinion. I never said u had to believe in this, its my opinion its not like i said:

&#39;&#39;&#39;MEAT IS MURDER, BETTER FUCKING BELIEVE THIS&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#39;&#39;

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 03:29 AM
&#39;&#39;Meat is Murder&#39;&#39; is my opinion. I never said u had to believe in this, its my opinion its not like i said:

&#39;&#39;&#39;MEAT IS MURDER, BETTER FUCKING BELIEVE THIS&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#39;&#39;
Really?


Whose opinon would it otherwise be?

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 09:29 PM
&#39;&#39;Meat is Murder&#39;&#39; is my opinion. I never said u had to believe in this, its my opinion its not like i said:

&#39;&#39;&#39;MEAT IS MURDER, BETTER FUCKING BELIEVE THIS&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#39;&#39;
In my opinion, “Meat is murder” is a much more acceptable and noble political statement/belief than this one from our ex member Bolshivika… who said this on
Another board:

What a waste of life, your pussy is. I suggest doing something useful with it, like shaving it, putting it in a paper bag, and throwing off the tallest cliff you can find.


Ok, first of all, all cats should die. Cats represent the bourgeoisie, they are fine, they think they are special, they think they are the shit, so... THEY MUST DIE.


YEAH. They&#39;re also nice to grab by the tail and swing around in circles, but I don&#39;t get a cat because I have self-control.

If I had to choose comrades to stand by my side in the fight against capitalism I’d gladly trade 10 Bolshivkas for one Darkangel. :)

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

look.... I&#39;m not saying that all tribal practice is good, nor that all bio-medicine is bad, yet as an anthropologist and as a Wiccan myself I have a different, and quite less ethnocenteric view of things as you do.

I would hardly equate being scientific with being ethnocentric, but if being scientific means ethnocentricity then so be it.


They say that 80% of any sickness humans suffer from, they will get better regardless of what is done.

Sometimes the treatment is what kills the patent, espeically in instances of quackery.


So the trick is to make a person think that what the doctor is doing is the best thing, be it seeing a medical doctor who charges you through the nose to tell you to take two asprin and call him in the moring, or be it going to a shaman who will find the evil spirit who has cause you to feel ill and "do battle with him" on the spiritual plane. The cure is really in the belief rather than the actual practice in these cases.

When your doctor tells you to "battle with the evil spirit within you on a spiritual plane" that means there are one of two things are to be done. Either get a new doctor or start setting up the arrangements for your funeral.


Bio-medicine is also less personal than medicine used to be years ago. Doctors rarely know who their patiants are anymore and it is typical for a nurse to say, "Doctor Smith, that liver is waiting for you in room 203"...

Doctors are doctors, not shrinks. I don&#39;t care if the man understands my emotions. You go to the doctors to get treatment, not sit around and talk about how much fun you had arranging your flowers.

[DarkAngel]

If I had to choose comrades to stand by my side in the fight against capitalism I’d gladly trade 10 Bolshivkas for one Darkangel.

aww so sweet :)

[DarkAngel]

Ok, first of all, all cats should die. Cats represent the bourgeoisie, they are fine, they think they are special, they think they are the shit, so... THEY MUST DIE.

all humans should die too, doesnt mean its gonna happen...

-I imagine u the type of person that sticks their head in the oven just to see what would happen...

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 01:25 AM
all humans should die too, doesnt mean its gonna happen...

All humans who think all humans should die, should die. It really makes sence since the humans who think humans should die are in fact humans themselves. Kinda like being a Jewish nazi.

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 06:51 PM
As for Wiccans, I don&#39;t know or care what they believe. As far as I am concerned all religions consist of unscientific garbage.
so now right there is a problem. YOu have said that I am living in a fantasy land to some extent and that I&#39;m denying science when you don&#39;t even know what i believe through your own admittance. Don&#39;t make such statements if you don&#39;t have a CLUE about the topic.

[RedCeltic]

MidnightMaruader

I&#39;m being very "accademc" here and using graduate level anthropological theory in my argument. It&#39;s proboly difficult to understand without a basic anthropology class or two... I&#39;ll try to explain what I mean better here...

In western society we view everything pretty much in scientific terms. Science for us has replaced what religion did or does on other cultures. Furthermore, we don&#39;t all have to be scientists to know that science works, just have faith in it and knowlege that any scientific theory can be tested.

Now I have a friend who had a foot injury and went to an accupuncturist... accupuncture is not scientificly based medicine. Yet for him, it worked.

Now, personally, I would have gone to a "regular doctor" and put my faith in science and bio-medicine long before I would ever concider accupuncture or anyting else.

Another example... a bit more extreme... is say you went to a native American doctor and he told you that what you need to do is to drink your own urine every day... You would think the guy was nuts&#33; I mean that&#39;s disgusting.. and I wouldn&#39;t blame you&#33;&#33; Bio-Medicine as tested it and shown that while drinking your own urine isn&#39;t going to do anything bad to you, they can&#39;t find any benfit in it also. But for some reason it works for people who try it.

So in the first example... I&#39;m "ethnocentric" because I put faith in something I&#39;ve been told works, and in the second example I&#39;m "ethnocentric" because in the culture where I grew up, drinking your own piss is disgusting.

So I&#39;m saying that to an extent everyone is somewhat ethnocenteric, because it&#39;s impossible not to view the world in the way you learned is correct.

That&#39;s what we mean anthropologically by "ethnocenteric"... politically however it would mean that America is great and everyone should eat big macs and watch Opera on TV... lol...

Scientificly, there is only one reason attribited why Shamanism, or drinking your own urine, or whatever will work... and that&#39;s the placebo effect. For some reason a percentage of people seem to get better quicker if they think they will get better. They&#39;ve done this with Prozac tests actually, and given some people he real drug and other a starch or sugar pill and some people no treatment at all. The proof shows that for some reason, regardless of if it was a real drug or not, if the doctor told them it would make them happy it did.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+Mar 27 2004, 11:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr @ Mar 27 2004, 11:27 PM)
DarkAngel[email protected] 28 2004, 01:25 AM
all humans should die too, doesnt mean its gonna happen...

All humans who think all humans should die, should die. It really makes sence since the humans who think humans should die are in fact humans themselves. Kinda like being a Jewish nazi. [/b]
I agree that is kind of an odd statement there, but for some reason I don&#39;t think she ment it the way it sounds.

[cubist]

especially as all humans and animals will die

[Nickademus]

common midnight maurader ..... where&#39;s your response? or have you realized you made abig mistake by making such an assumption about my faith.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by Nickademus+Mar 28 2004, 01:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickademus @ Mar 28 2004, 01:59 AM)
[email protected] 27 2004, 06:51 PM
As for Wiccans, I don&#39;t know or care what they believe. As far as I am concerned all religions consist of unscientific garbage.
so now right there is a problem. YOu have said that I am living in a fantasy land to some extent and that I&#39;m denying science when you don&#39;t even know what i believe through your own admittance. Don&#39;t make such statements if you don&#39;t have a CLUE about the topic. [/b]
It makes no differance what you believe in. If you believe in a higher power, then you are insane as far as I am concerned. Wicca, Islam, Jewish, Christian, Rastafarian, Buddist, its all the same shit rolled up in a different package.

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+Mar 28 2004, 07:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr @ Mar 28 2004, 07:36 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 01:59 AM

[email protected] 27 2004, 06:51 PM
As for Wiccans, I don&#39;t know or care what they believe. As far as I am concerned all religions consist of unscientific garbage.
so now right there is a problem. YOu have said that I am living in a fantasy land to some extent and that I&#39;m denying science when you don&#39;t even know what i believe through your own admittance. Don&#39;t make such statements if you don&#39;t have a CLUE about the topic.
It makes no differance what you believe in. If you believe in a higher power, then you are insane as far as I am concerned. Wicca, Islam, Jewish, Christian, Rastafarian, Buddist, its all the same shit rolled up in a different package. [/b]
HOw the hell can you say that when you have absolutely no concept whatsoever about what i believe in? if you really have this opinion you dont give a fuck for equality or tolerance ..... forget trying to undrestand people.. you just prefer to tell them they are wrong .. and people like this on the left really scare me ... in fact people like that in general scare me.

YOU SCARE ME

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by Nickademus+Mar 29 2004, 07:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickademus @ Mar 29 2004, 07:08 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 01:59 AM

[email protected] 27 2004, 06:51 PM
As for Wiccans, I don&#39;t know or care what they believe. As far as I am concerned all religions consist of unscientific garbage.
so now right there is a problem. YOu have said that I am living in a fantasy land to some extent and that I&#39;m denying science when you don&#39;t even know what i believe through your own admittance. Don&#39;t make such statements if you don&#39;t have a CLUE about the topic.
It makes no differance what you believe in. If you believe in a higher power, then you are insane as far as I am concerned. Wicca, Islam, Jewish, Christian, Rastafarian, Buddist, its all the same shit rolled up in a different package.
HOw the hell can you say that when you have absolutely no concept whatsoever about what i believe in? if you really have this opinion you dont give a fuck for equality or tolerance ..... forget trying to undrestand people.. you just prefer to tell them they are wrong .. and people like this on the left really scare me ... in fact people like that in general scare me.

YOU SCARE ME [/b]
It doesn&#39;t matter to me weather you go talk with your imaginary god on a sunday or a wednesday, or all week long. The purpose of religion is to deceive and control people, it makes no differance what that actual belief is to me. Its all the same crap.

[RedCeltic]

It doesn&#39;t matter to me weather you go talk with your imaginary god on a sunday or a wednesday, or all week long. The purpose of religion is to deceive and control people, it makes no differance what that actual belief is to me. Its all the same crap.


The only one who seems brainwashed about religion here is you.

You are very much like a Christian. It doesn&#39;t matter if you believe in a "God" or no "God" because you think that your way is the only way, and that everyone who doesn&#39;t think like you is evil or stupid.

You claim that there is no proof in the spiritual and therefore it must not exist, yet have no trouble puting your faith in other things you have not seen first hand, yet assume they exist.

Why do you believe that the world is round without actually going and seeing it for youself? Sure there are photos of the earth from outer space.. but there are also photos that show people have an aura. You put your FAITH in science to tell you that the earth is round because you&#39;ve never seen it for yourself.

And, even if you say you have seen it, or can prove it.. how do I know I can believe you? I mean some people say they "talk to God".

Furthermore, if you want to get into Decartes.. how do you know if anything is real? This all may be an figmant of your imagination. Everything may cease to exist once as you aren&#39;t looking at it... because it&#39;s all in your head.

That&#39;s the whole power of the "I think therefore I am" philosophy. Therefore my reality is very real for me, as your reality is very real for you. You try to tell me that I&#39;m stupid for believing in something I can&#39;t touch or see, but I ask you.. how do you know that I exist? You&#39;ve never seen me.. in fact nobody on che-lives has ever met me.. so if nobody on che-lives can see me or touch me than you all must be stupid schitsophrenic morons or whatever that are fooling themselves that this imaginary person they talk to on the "internet" is actually real.

Christians and athiests both think they are superior to everyone else.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Science now shows that the smallest sub-microscopic partical is what is known as a Quark.. It is the smallest thing known.. so small that it can not be seen with an electron microscope. Scientists now know that quark&#39;s exist, but only theorize that they look like a constantly moving particle... just basicly vibration... and this is what makes up everything in the universe... much like what had been talked about thousands of years ago.


RC,

You are confusing String Theory (unification theory) and Quarks (fundamental matter particles) comrade.






And yes I am wiccan ... i can&#39;t wait to hear you slander that as well.




How truly ....."shocking" my dear.

It&#39;s too bad no one took my bet, I would have made a few. Don&#39;t worry love, I have no desire to "slander" your "faith". Your "faith" has a tendency to do a right job of that on it&#39;s own.

I am however still interested in how you are going to explain to me the way quantum mechanics "prooves" wicca.




It makes no differance what you believe in. If you believe in a higher power, then you are insane as far as I am concerned. Wicca, Islam, Jewish, Christian, Rastafarian, Buddist, its all the same shit rolled up in a different package.


You are correct Mr. Maurader. I am going to stay out of this argument as I feel that arguing about religious practices with those that are religious is a silly practise. For example, Newtonian gravitational predicts, with amazing accuracy remembering the times, how gravity will affect earthbound objects. However, once these theories were applied celestially they failed to accurately predict the orbit of planets.

It was not until Einstein&#39;s General Relativity equated that space-time will bend when near a mass. The denser or larger the mass, the more extreme the "bend". Imagine am orange sitting atop a sheet stretched out. The cheet will naturally dip or "bend" under the orange. If you place a small marble a few cetimetres away from the orange it will naturally follow the "bend" and roll towards the orange until the marble&#39;s path is ceased by the mass itself. Of course, following Einstein&#39;s equations, scientists were able to accurately predict the path of orbital objects.

That being proven with observation, would it be smart to try to apply Newtonian gravitational theory to celestial objects when we absolutely know that it is not accurate when applied to macro-gravitational force?
Of course not.

I consider religion of ANY form to be as such. I relate this to moving backwards as that&#39;s what it truly is. Those of "faith" would instantly agree that atempting to re-apply Newtonian gravitation theory to a planet&#39;s orbital path would indeed be moving backwards yet they cannot see that they themselves are consistently moving backwards as well.

Well, what can you do eh? Some people just can&#39;t be reached. So it&#39;s better to just let them have their "faith"
(for now) and choose to pick up their slack on our own. You dig?

[Nickademus]

1. don&#39;t call me my dear..... that&#39;s quite condescending to a woman .... it denotes some form of possession and superiority so please do NOT use that term in reference to me ..... ever.

2. congratulations you predicted i was wiccan ...... wow thrilling .... geeze perhaps you&#39;re psychic .. oh no wait, you couldn&#39;t possibly believe in that concept. and so what, you took a stab in the dark and discovered my faith?

3. how the hell does my faith slander itself? my faith is very loving and embracing and loves the earth and the environment.... so again, how does wicca slander itself?

4. i never said quantum phsyics proves my faith i simply said it is starting to prove ASPECTS of my faith, not all of it. and you read red celtics post about quorks .... it simply adds scientific evidence to our belief in life energies and the use of magick.

5. and you won&#39;t be able to reach me until you stop treating me like an idiot. i&#39;m not an idiot ... i&#39;m not living in a fantasy land. my faith is built on centuries of observation of the world ... its a belief in the cycles of nature and the world. it is a very earth based religion that can offer a lot. i&#39;m not deluded or anything like that .... i&#39;m actually a very intelligent logical human being, but i also trust my feelings and my instincts, something we humans have gotten away from doing. simply because you can&#39;t have a discussion with someone without saying they&#39;re living in a fantasy land doesn&#39;t mean they can&#39;t be reached ... use reason not condescending comments to do it....

[Vinny Rafarino]

don&#39;t call me my dear..... that&#39;s quite condescending to a woman .... it denotes some form of possession and superiority so please do NOT use that term in reference to me ..... ever.



No it doesn&#39;t. You are just angry.


congratulations you predicted i was wiccan ...... wow thrilling .... geeze perhaps you&#39;re psychic .. oh no wait, you couldn&#39;t possibly believe in that concept. and so what, you took a stab in the dark and discovered my faith?


Common sense led me to this prediction. I also concluded that sometime during this conversation, your ability to think rationally would be clouded by your subconscious realisation that you are indeed wrong. You are now exhibiting your "fight or flight" instinct.


how the hell does my faith slander itself? my faith is very loving and embracing and loves the earth and the environment.... so again, how does wicca slander itself?


I already mentioned I will not discuss your "faith". I find it pointless.


. i never said quantum phsyics proves my faith i simply said it is starting to prove ASPECTS of my faith, not all of it. and you read red celtics post about quorks .... it simply adds scientific evidence to our belief in life energies and the use of magick.


Comrade RC is a bit confused on what exactly quarks are. I can&#39;t understand how you actually think that this gives some sort of "credibility" to wicca. Even though I have asked twice for an explanation, you have yet to comply, leading me to believe you really have no clue what you are on about.


and you won&#39;t be able to reach me until you stop treating me like an idiot. i&#39;m not an idiot ... i&#39;m not living in a fantasy land. my faith is built on centuries of observation of the world ... its a belief in the cycles of nature and the world. it is a very earth based religion that can offer a lot. i&#39;m not deluded or anything like that .... i&#39;m actually a very intelligent logical human being, but i also trust my feelings and my instincts, something we humans have gotten away from doing. simply because you can&#39;t have a discussion with someone without saying they&#39;re living in a fantasy land doesn&#39;t mean they can&#39;t be reached ... use reason not condescending comments to do it....

At this point, I really have no desire to "reach" you. Subsequentially I can now assume this matter is closed.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

1. don&#39;t call me my dear..... that&#39;s quite condescending to a woman .... it denotes some form of possession and superiority so please do NOT use that term in reference to me ..... ever.

"Dear" could hardly be considered offencive, when it is infact used to show affection rather then possession or superiority. I don&#39;t imagine many slave owners addressing their slaves as "dear". You should consider it a complement my dear.


3. how the hell does my faith slander itself? my faith is very loving and embracing and loves the earth and the environment.... so again, how does wicca slander itself?

Your faith does not embrace science, a faith cannot "love", and a people who make a religion out of nature tend to take enviromentalism so far that it becomes something that hinders human progress.


04. i never said quantum phsyics proves my faith i simply said it is starting to prove ASPECTS of my faith, not all of it. and you read red celtics post about quorks .... it simply adds scientific evidence to our belief in life energies and the use of magick.

Is it just me, or can other people not see the connection between the superstring unification theory and life force and "magick"?


5. and you won&#39;t be able to reach me until you stop treating me like an idiot. i&#39;m not an idiot ... i&#39;m not living in a fantasy land.

I guess I should leave you to your "real world" of life energy and magicks.


my faith is built on centuries of observation of the world ... its a belief in the cycles of nature and the world.

I would hardly compare centuries of observations made by tribal cheifs and cave people with those made by modern day scientists. "Cycles of nature and the world" are easily explained by science. You know? The tilt in the earth&#39;s orbit and how organisms react to cold temperature? It isn&#39;t a divine will, thats just how things turned out.


it is a very earth based religion that can offer a lot.

Well, I could kinda dig the nude rituals, that is assuming there are some hot Wiccans... but granted the people who go to nudist activities tend to be old and fat makes for a rather powerful deterrant.


i&#39;m not deluded or anything like that .... i&#39;m actually a very intelligent logical human being,

Yeah, life force and magicks are all part of common sence.


i also trust my feelings and my instincts, something we humans have gotten away from doing.

Is there any way that you can prove that we are not trusting feelings and instincts? I trust logic, something that you appearantly haven&#39;t discovered yet.


simply because you can&#39;t have a discussion with someone without saying they&#39;re living in a fantasy land doesn&#39;t mean they can&#39;t be reached ... use reason not condescending comments to do it....

Well, I don&#39;t think it will be easy, if possible, to pull you out of a self-imagined world that sounds something like a stale game of dungeons and dragons.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Is it just me, or can other people not see the connection between the superstring unification theory and life force and "magick"?



Mr. Maurader,


Let&#39;s not forget that in this specific case, it must be understood that these two have quarks and string theory confused.

I gave up once she started on about "magick" (sic). I suggest you do the same.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+Mar 29 2004, 12:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr @ Mar 29 2004, 12:10 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 01:59 AM

[email protected] 27 2004, 06:51 PM
As for Wiccans, I don&#39;t know or care what they believe. As far as I am concerned all religions consist of unscientific garbage.
so now right there is a problem. YOu have said that I am living in a fantasy land to some extent and that I&#39;m denying science when you don&#39;t even know what i believe through your own admittance. Don&#39;t make such statements if you don&#39;t have a CLUE about the topic.
It makes no differance what you believe in. If you believe in a higher power, then you are insane as far as I am concerned. Wicca, Islam, Jewish, Christian, Rastafarian, Buddist, its all the same shit rolled up in a different package.
HOw the hell can you say that when you have absolutely no concept whatsoever about what i believe in? if you really have this opinion you dont give a fuck for equality or tolerance ..... forget trying to undrestand people.. you just prefer to tell them they are wrong .. and people like this on the left really scare me ... in fact people like that in general scare me.

YOU SCARE ME
It doesn&#39;t matter to me weather you go talk with your imaginary god on a sunday or a wednesday, or all week long. The purpose of religion is to deceive and control people, it makes no differance what that actual belief is to me. Its all the same crap. [/b]
Some might say that science is a religion itself.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 10:21 PM
Some might say that science is a religion itself.
They would be wrong then.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by John Galt+Mar 29 2004, 06:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Mar 29 2004, 06:38 PM)
[email protected] 29 2004, 10:21 PM
Some might say that science is a religion itself.
They would be wrong then. [/b]
No actually he&#39;s right, which is what I&#39;ve been trying to argue in a round about way.

Without yourself actually being a scientist you are putting your "faith" in science.

Anyway, I feel that I should be honest here, because I&#39;ve been arguing on the issue
of religion for so long here that I feel that I&#39;m being somewhat hypocritical.

See I had become a Wiccan back in the 80&#39;s and practiced as one right up to about a year ago
when I moved up here to Albany, NY. I kind of used the excuse that there is such a "lack of a Pagan
scene" here in Albany as compaired to Long Island and New York City, yet in actuality I just don&#39;t feel
the need for spirituality in my life these days and have become incresingly "agnostic" and leaning more
to athiesm as time goes on.

This isn&#39;t to say that I don&#39;t think that there is a need for spirituality in people&#39;s lives in general, having a
spirituality that was quite personal (as opposed to Roman Catholisism which I found inpersonal) has surely
helped me through very rough times in my life.

It&#39;s also been a long time since I&#39;ve read about theories involving "Quarks", so I&#39;m unsure just how Comrade RAF means that I&#39;m confusing the theories, and if he could be so kind... it would be nice if he could explian where I have gone wrong, which I&#39;m sure he&#39;s probobly right...

[Vinny Rafarino]

It&#39;s also been a long time since I&#39;ve read about theories involving "Quarks", so I&#39;m unsure just how Comrade RAF means that I&#39;m confusing the theories, and if he could be so kind... it would be nice if he could explian where I have gone wrong, which I&#39;m sure he&#39;s probobly right...



Of course comrade&#33;


Quarks are simply small fundamental matter particles that have fractional electical charges.
"Fundamental particles" meaning a particle of matter that has no internal substructure, unlike Protons or Electons that contain a nucleus and quarks.


String theory is a unification theory that (the strings are theorised to be small "vibrating" strings) proposes a unification of general relativity with quantum gravity.

[RedCeltic]

Ahhh… I see… This had actually been explained to me by an anthropology professor in a class once and I may have jumbled things up in my head over time. Thanks.

[Nickademus]

don&#39;t call me my dear..... that&#39;s quite condescending to a woman .... it denotes some form of possession and superiority so please do NOT use that term in reference to me ..... ever.




No it doesn&#39;t. You are just angry.

YES IT DOES...... WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE THAT YOU CAN TELL ME WHAT IS OFFENSIVE TO ME&#33; YOU CAN&#39;T POSSIBLY FUCKING KNOW THAT&#33; and there is no way that this was meant in any endearing way .. you know it was very condescending.


Common sense led me to this prediction. I also concluded that sometime during this conversation, your ability to think rationally would be clouded by your subconscious realisation that you are indeed wrong. You are now exhibiting your "fight or flight" instinct.

my ability to think rationally is not clouded... in fact i&#39;m considered by many to be too rational.


I already mentioned I will not discuss your "faith". I find it pointless.

perhaps you find it pointless because you know nothing of my faith? i like my religion being challenged ... so please provide me with your thoughts.



I can&#39;t understand how you actually think that this gives some sort of "credibility" to wicca. Even though I have asked twice for an explanation, you have yet to comply, leading me to believe you really have no clue what you are on about.

i&#39;m not a scientist and my knowledge of quantum physics is quite small. but as i understand it ... quantum physics is prooving that even the tiniest fundamental particle is in a constant state of energy. thus, everything in our existence has its own form of energy. this is a fundamental belief in wicca .. everything has an energy ("LIFE FORCE") that can be manipulated and worked with. that manipulation or working with energy is what we call magick. obviously you got scared by the term magick because you had no knowledge of what it means in wiccan terms. you see we simply use different terms, that appear to be threatening to you, than you are accustomed to seeing in relation to science (which btw is all subjective anyway ... science does not create or prove any truths).


At this point, I really have no desire to "reach" you. Subsequentially I can now assume this matter is closed.

this matter has been closed since you stopped trying to have any discussion with me ... and why is that i wonder... because you think i&#39;m illogical? well you have given me no opportunity to show you that i am quite logical.

[Vinny Rafarino]

but as i understand it ... quantum physics is prooving that even the tiniest fundamental particle is in a constant state of energy.

Not exactly. Quantum Theory is the study of matter on the atomic and sub-atomic level.

Quantum Physics encompasses all quantum theory, from quantum gravity to quantum randomness...In a nutshell it states that all energy is composed of specific units (quanta) rather than constant waves.


perhaps you find it pointless because you know nothing of my faith? i like my religion being challenged ... so please provide me with your thoughts.


Not going to bite.


that can be manipulated and worked with. that manipulation or working with energy is what we call magick. obviously you got scared by the term magick because you had no knowledge of what it means in wiccan terms. you see we simply use different terms, that appear to be threatening to you, than you are accustomed to seeing in relation to science (which btw is all subjective anyway ... science does not create or prove any truths).


Good grief. This is simply pure babble.


this matter has been closed since you stopped trying to have any discussion with me ... and why is that i wonder... because you think i&#39;m illogical?

Yes. That and you keep on about silly things like "magick".


well you have given me no opportunity to show you that i am quite logical.

That is a matter of opinion.





Ahhh… I see… This had actually been explained to me by an anthropology professor in a class once and I may have jumbled things up in my head over time. Thanks.


No problem Comrade RC. This is a very difficult subject.

[El Che]

Wow, looks like I&#39;ve been missing out on all the fun. Lets dig in shall we?


Humans have emotions, animals do not. -COMRADE RAF

Oh really? Says you? Prove it.

Here is some scientific evidence that says you don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about.

Views of Animal Emotion; Lay and Scientific (http://www.jeffreymasson.com/views.html)

Most ordinary people who have direct contact with animals freely concede the reality of animal emotions. Their belief arises from the evidence of their senses and logical deduction.
(...)
Human beings are not always aware of what they are feeling. Like animals, they may not be able to put their feelings into words. This does not mean they have no feelings.
(...)
Psychiatric lexicons contain the term alexithymia for the condition of certain people who cannot describe or recognize emotions, who are able to define them "only in terms of somatic sensations or of behavioral reaction rather than relating them to accompanying thoughts." Such people are handicapped by their inability to understand what feelings are. It is curious that the study of animal behavior should demand that its practitioners turn themselves into alelrithymics. -Excerpted from When Elephants Weep: The Emotional lives of Animals
by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy




I have never disputed this fact comrade. I too agree that some slaughterhouse practises are indeed atrocious and SHOULD be changed. I can however live comfortable if they were not however.

Don&#39;t worry, the chickens don&#39;t care. -COMRADE RAF

RAF recognizes that slaughterhouse practices are "atrocious" but he says he can live "comfortably" with that fact. Obviously this is because he isn&#39;t bothered by the "atrocious" suffering animals are subjected to.

Then, as if to justify his indifference, he procedes to make this extraordinary claim: "the chickens don&#39;t care" The logic seems to be: Since "chickens", and by extension all other irrational animals, aren&#39;t self aware nor possess rational counciousness they "don&#39;t care" about their suffering. As if this made any difference. As if, by virtue of not being rational, they cease to feel pain and indeed anguish, fear and so forth.

To COMRADE RAF only the suffering of rational beings should be taken into consideration. From that we can infer, among other things, that the suffering of people who have their capacity for rational thought impaired is less important than the suffering of those who do not.

His views should leave us all a bit uncomfortable I think. Their inherent cruelty is jarring.


If you are not an athiest, that means that to some extent, you are denying science, and to deny the fundamental method if man to learn about the universe, and you tell me that is not living in a fantasy land? -MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

Firstly, this is not necessarily true. Be specific. When and where did Nickademus state a religious belief that is directly contradicted by a scientifc hypothesis currently accepted within the scientific community.

Secondly, your statement is incoherent, logically inconsistent and just flat out wrong. As I have explained many times, and will again if you wish, "atheism" is not "scientific". You can start by looking here (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=23&t=23312&s=).

Thirdly, is everything you say, everything you believe and defend supported by the scientific method? Of course not. What gives you the right to slander some philosophical views as "garbage" and "fantasy", on the grounds that they are not scientific, whilst holding others, equal in this particular, as true? Both you and RAF need to learn some humility and learn to respect for other people&#39;s views.

The fact that you might say, and I might agree, that "science" is the highest form of human knowledge does not mean we should totally restrict our selves to it. There are many things that fall out of the scope of the scientific method and that we have every right to consider, reflect upon, even make dileberations and come to conclusions. The only thing you should point out, if you must, is the qualitative character of any given conclusion and leave it at that. You have no intellectual, or other, authority to make the proclamations you have been making.

[Nickademus]

"Dear" could hardly be considered offencive, when it is infact used to show affection rather then possession or superiority. I don&#39;t imagine many slave owners addressing their slaves as "dear". You should consider it a complement my dear.


see my above post. and i know that comrade raf did not mean that in an affectionate way. its no compliment ESPECIALLY after i asked very specifically that i not be referred to as that. it shows that you have absolutely no respect for me. as such you no longer have my respect either, which is unfortunate because i think this board is built and successful because of the respect peoplehave for each other here.


Your faith does not embrace science, a faith cannot "love", and a people who make a religion out of nature tend to take enviromentalism so far that it becomes something that hinders human progress

again i repeat... how can you make such statements while knowing nothing of my faith? and the &#39;faith&#39; doesn&#39;t love ... but the principles of the faith teach love for the environment.... and what good has human progress done really? global warming? the destruction ofo the ozone? things that can potentially destroy the human race .... great progress.



Is it just me, or can other people not see the connection between the superstring unification theory and life force and "magick"?


again this is because you have no knowledge of my religion or what i mean by magick ... perhaps if you looked into my faith you could understand. but alas, you need knowledge before you can see how things are relative.



I would hardly compare centuries of observations made by tribal cheifs and cave people with those made by modern day scientists. "Cycles of nature and the world" are easily explained by science. You know? The tilt in the earth&#39;s orbit and how organisms react to cold temperature? It isn&#39;t a divine will, thats just how things turned out.

you just don&#39;t get it .... pagans had these theories way before science proved any of it. and really, just because the earths orbit is on a certain title and because organisms react to cold in a certain way doesn&#39;t mean there wasn&#39;t something, some force, that created those things.


Well, I could kinda dig the nude rituals, that is assuming there are some hot Wiccans... but granted the people who go to nudist activities tend to be old and fat makes for a rather powerful deterrant.

thanks for that shining example of intelligence. and not all rituals are nude.



I trust logic, something that you appearantly haven&#39;t discovered yet.

i have discovered it and logic dictates that you shouldn&#39;t make broad statments about something you have no knowledge of whatsoever.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Oh really? Says you? Prove it.

Here is some scientific evidence that says you don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about.

Views of Animal Emotion; Lay and Scientific

Most ordinary people who have direct contact with animals freely concede the reality of animal emotions. Their belief arises from the evidence of their senses and logical deduction.
(...)
Human beings are not always aware of what they are feeling. Like animals, they may not be able to put their feelings into words. This does not mean they have no feelings.
(...)
Psychiatric lexicons contain the term alexithymia for the condition of certain people who cannot describe or recognize emotions, who are able to define them "only in terms of somatic sensations or of behavioral reaction rather than relating them to accompanying thoughts." Such people are handicapped by their inability to understand what feelings are. It is curious that the study of animal behavior should demand that its practitioners turn themselves into alelrithymics. -Excerpted from When Elephants Weep: The Emotional lives of Animals
by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy

Lets rephrase that. Instead of the chickens not caring, lets make it into I don&#39;t care?


Firstly, this is not necessarily true. Be specific. When and where did Nickademus state a religious belief that is directly contradicted by a scientifc hypothesis currently accepted within the scientific community.

Who cares what Nickodemus said or didn&#39;t say?


Secondly, your statement is incoherent, logically inconsistent and just flat out wrong. As I have explained many times, and will again if you wish, "atheism" is not "scientific". You can start by looking here.

If athiesm is not scientific, then what do you think is?


Thirdly, is everything you say, everything you believe and defend supported by the scientific method? Of course not. What gives you the right to slander some philosophical views as "garbage" and "fantasy", on the grounds that they are not scientific, whilst holding others, equal in this particular, as true? Both you and RAF need to learn some humility and learn to respect for other people&#39;s views.

I really don&#39;t see the need to treat the practice of worshipping imaginary super heroes with any sort of respect.


The fact that you might say, and I might agree, that "science" is the highest form of human knowledge does not mean we should totally restrict our selves to it.

You don&#39;t have to&#33; If you are getting burned out thinking about science, then thats where the arts come in&#33;


see my above post. and i know that comrade raf did not mean that in an affectionate way. its no compliment ESPECIALLY after i asked very specifically that i not be referred to as that. it shows that you have absolutely no respect for me. as such you no longer have my respect either, which is unfortunate because i think this board is built and successful because of the respect peoplehave for each other here.

Now don&#39;t get your panties in a twist over nothing my dear. I would hate to see a dear woman like yourself go crazy over a little word like dear...dear.


again i repeat... how can you make such statements while knowing nothing of my faith? and the &#39;faith&#39; doesn&#39;t love ... but the principles of the faith teach love for the environment.... and what good has human progress done really? global warming? the destruction ofo the ozone? things that can potentially destroy the human race .... great progress.

It is progress that can send us to the stars, it is progress that made the average life span longer then 20 years of age, it is progress that enables 6 billion people to live on the earth, and it is capitalism that is obnoxiously wasteful. It doesn&#39;t take a religion to get a point across.



Is it just me, or can other people not see the connection between the superstring unification theory and life force and "magick"?

again this is because you have no knowledge of my religion or what i mean by magick ... perhaps if you looked into my faith you could understand. but alas, you need knowledge before you can see how things are relative.

You still didn&#39;t answer my question.


thanks for that shining example of intelligence. and not all rituals are nude.

:) <---Me not caring.


you just don&#39;t get it .... pagans had these theories way before science proved any of it. and really, just because the earths orbit is on a certain title and because organisms react to cold in a certain way doesn&#39;t mean there wasn&#39;t something, some force, that created those things.

Just because things turned out the way they did doesn&#39;t mean there was a divine force that did it. Something happening by chance is not justification for the authenticity of the ramblings of some sckitzo who claims to be able to speak with "God". Can you name any "Pagan theory" that led to a major scientific breakthrough? People have theories all the time. Some right, some wrong, but that isn&#39;t proof.


i have discovered it and logic dictates that you shouldn&#39;t make broad statments about something you have no knowledge of whatsoever.

Need I be an archmage first?

[El Che]

From MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

Lets rephrase that. Instead of the chickens not caring, lets make it into I don&#39;t care?

You can&#39;t rephrase anything. No one is interested in what you care or do not care about.


Who cares what Nickodemus said or didn&#39;t say?

You accused Nickademus of something that is false and which you now refuse to back up.


I really don&#39;t see the need to treat the practice of worshipping imaginary super heroes with any sort of respect.

That doesn&#39;t surprise me.

Also, I would consider your characterization of Nickademus religious beliefs as "imaginary super heroes" as personal abuse and flaming contrary to the rules of this forum and think action on the part of the moderators, or Malte, is in order. If you continue to make accusations of this sort, in my humble opinion, there is no place for you here.


If athiesm is not scientific, then what do you think (it) is?

It is...exactly that.

[RedCeltic]

Now don&#39;t get your panties in a twist over nothing my dear. I would hate to see a dear woman like yourself go crazy over a little word like dear...dear.

MM, is it totally essential for you to act like a total jackass all the time? Personally I think Nickademus misunderstood Comrade RAF but what you’re posting here is nothing but a personal attack, does not help your argument, nor your chances to get unrestricted.

[elijahcraig]

It doesn&#39;t matter to me weather you go talk with your imaginary god on a sunday or a wednesday, or all week long. The purpose of religion is to deceive and control people, it makes no differance what that actual belief is to me. Its all the same crap.

Taoist religion has actually forged revolution before, so that kind of backfires on your “theory.” On the other hand, you are correct about MOST religion. Religion is usually a revolutionary idea, which is turned into a doctrine and destroyed by those in power. Take the Rome crucifying not only Jesus but also his revolutionary teachings. Or Buddhism now being enforced by the Burmese government in an attempt to have “Fundamentalist Buddhist thought,” whatever that means (I won’t go into why that is fundamentally wrong when viewing Buddhist thought).

Most ideas are like this. Marxism, Democracy, Revolution, Religion: Laotse used the word ch’ang to describe it: the law of growth and decay.


The only one who seems brainwashed about religion here is you.

You are very much like a Christian. It doesn&#39;t matter if you believe in a "God" or no "God" because you think that your way is the only way, and that everyone who doesn&#39;t think like you is evil or stupid.

You claim that there is no proof in the spiritual and therefore it must not exist, yet have no trouble puting your faith in other things you have not seen first hand, yet assume they exist.

All of this is true of Mr. Falwell, present in debate as always of late.


Why do you believe that the world is round without actually going and seeing it for youself? Sure there are photos of the earth from outer space.. but there are also photos that show people have an aura. You put your FAITH in science to tell you that the earth is round because you&#39;ve never seen it for yourself.

Blake didn’t believe the world was round. But, even though you are obviously attempting to put forth a correct argument against the fundamentalist, this has been proven. Although I for one don’t necessarily think science class is any better than if we had Creationist class. Nothing is explained in school; they tell you “this is how it is,” and that’s it. If you are interested in it at all, you have to make a journey into deeper texts. I am referring to mainly high school and earlier by the way, which the majority of Americans attend at best.


And, even if you say you have seen it, or can prove it.. how do I know I can believe you? I mean some people say they "talk to God".

You are under no obligation to believe anything. Some philosophers deny being and existence. But I am fairly (entirely) sure that if you examine data, information, etc., answers to these sorts of questions are inevitably obvious. Deep meaning in human nature, etc., is harder to define and explain.


Furthermore, if you want to get into Decartes.. how do you know if anything is real? This all may be an figmant of your imagination. Everything may cease to exist once as you aren&#39;t looking at it... because it&#39;s all in your head.

And the argument you make is not very good. Closing your eyes or turning away is the same argument George Berkley made in his philosophical thought basically. There is no backing for the argument that when you turn away everything is gone, or any other silly proposition. Eye sight has no special function in determining the reality of, for example, if “that tree is real or imagined.” Blind people never see certain things, it doesn’t mean they don’t acknowledge existence of an Other.


That&#39;s the whole power of the "I think therefore I am" philosophy. Therefore my reality is very real for me, as your reality is very real for you. You try to tell me that I&#39;m stupid for believing in something I can&#39;t touch or see, but I ask you.. how do you know that I exist? You&#39;ve never seen me.. in fact nobody on che-lives has ever met me.. so if nobody on che-lives can see me or touch me than you all must be stupid schitsophrenic morons or whatever that are fooling themselves that this imaginary person they talk to on the "internet" is actually real.

Can God log in as a Che-lives member? If so: dial him up and have him come on over and debate. Otherwise, this argument falls flat.


Christians and athiests both think they are superior to everyone else.

As an Atheist, I can say this is false. Though I do feel I am superior (or advantaged?) in that I do not believe the world was created 6000 yrs ago.


RC,

You are confusing String Theory (unification theory) and Quarks (fundamental matter particles) comrade.

What is your opinion of the String Theory? Many are expressing doubt about it.


1. don&#39;t call me my dear..... that&#39;s quite condescending to a woman .... it denotes some form of possession and superiority so please do NOT use that term in reference to me ..... ever.

Using Religious “reason,” I could probably prove that I own you. God told me I did. Proven?


2. congratulations you predicted i was wiccan ...... wow thrilling .... geeze perhaps you&#39;re psychic .. oh no wait, you couldn&#39;t possibly believe in that concept. and so what, you took a stab in the dark and discovered my faith?

I don’t think Wicca is a faith. It is extremely anti-dogma as far as I’ve seen. That doesn’t change the fact that it is a return to pagan thought, most likely stirred up as a result of the psychological conditions in the individual. Take Germany and Hitler in relation to Wotan and the German paganism beneath the Roman Christianity forced upon them. It was thin, and the psychology of Paganism returned in the thanatos of Hitler.

Why do you believe in psychic ability?


3. how the hell does my faith slander itself? my faith is very loving and embracing and loves the earth and the environment.... so again, how does wicca slander itself?

I wasn’t aware the ability of “faith” to grasp truth was stringent on the amount of love it has for biological systems.


4. i never said quantum phsyics proves my faith i simply said it is starting to prove ASPECTS of my faith, not all of it. and you read red celtics post about quorks .... it simply adds scientific evidence to our belief in life energies and the use of magick.

I think the Hindu philosopher/theologian Kanada used a very advanced (for his time) theory of the atomic model in describing his metaphysical belief. This does not mean that science proved religion. It means something quite different. It shows that religion is an inkling into what science can provide as answer. Science is the new God: like it or not.


5. and you won&#39;t be able to reach me until you stop treating me like an idiot. i&#39;m not an idiot ... i&#39;m not living in a fantasy land. my faith is built on centuries of observation of the world ...

Why the dogmatic tie to a faith built on observation? Sounds like an early attempt at science by primitive peoples in my view. You can either develop these ideas or take the ideas of tribal men as fact.


its a belief in the cycles of nature and the world. it is a very earth based religion that can offer a lot. i&#39;m not deluded or anything like that .... i&#39;m actually a very intelligent logical human being, but i also trust my feelings and my instincts, something we humans have gotten away from doing. simply because you can&#39;t have a discussion with someone without saying they&#39;re living in a fantasy land doesn&#39;t mean they can&#39;t be reached ... use reason not condescending comments to do it....

Have you ever read Vico’s New Science? It is an attempt to explain the natural history of the world. It was even praised by Marx. Joyce used it as a model for Finnegans Wake. Cycles are the main theme of both of these works.

My argument against your label of “faith” is redundant at this point, and can’t continue until you answer the above questions.


a faith cannot "love"

Quite true. Just as a “State” can’t intervene for humanitarian purposes.


Well, I could kinda dig the nude rituals, that is assuming there are some hot Wiccans... but granted the people who go to nudist activities tend to be old and fat makes for a rather powerful deterrant.

Has Mr. Falwell emerged from the captivity of the Moral Majority?


YES IT DOES...... WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE THAT YOU CAN TELL ME WHAT IS OFFENSIVE TO ME&#33; YOU CAN&#39;T POSSIBLY FUCKING KNOW THAT&#33; and there is no way that this was meant in any endearing way .. you know it was very condescending.

Reduce use of any “natural wiccan” stimulants in the future please, your blood is going to boil higher and higher until you’re nothing but “life energy” and then we won’t be able to debate the “logic” of “Wiccan thought.”


everything has an energy ("LIFE FORCE") that can be manipulated and worked with. that manipulation or working with energy is what we call magick. obviously you got scared by the term magick because you had no knowledge of what it means in wiccan terms. you see we simply use different terms, that appear to be threatening to you, than you are accustomed to seeing in relation to science (which btw is all subjective anyway ... science does not create or prove any truths).

This proves that primitive peoples have instinctive ideas as to what is behind the system of phenomena which surround them, not that Wicca is at all true or worthy of following.


(which btw is all subjective anyway ... science does not create or prove any truths).

If you believe this, it disqualifies you from the Wiccan “faith.”


QUOTE
Humans have emotions, animals do not.
-COMRADE RAF

Oh really? Says you? Prove it.

Here is some scientific evidence that says you don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about.

Views of Animal Emotion; Lay and Scientific

Most ordinary people who have direct contact with animals freely concede the reality of animal emotions. Their belief arises from the evidence of their senses and logical deduction.
(...)
Human beings are not always aware of what they are feeling. Like animals, they may not be able to put their feelings into words. This does not mean they have no feelings.
(...)
Psychiatric lexicons contain the term alexithymia for the condition of certain people who cannot describe or recognize emotions, who are able to define them "only in terms of somatic sensations or of behavioral reaction rather than relating them to accompanying thoughts." Such people are handicapped by their inability to understand what feelings are. It is curious that the study of animal behavior should demand that its practitioners turn themselves into alelrithymics. -Excerpted from When Elephants Weep: The Emotional lives of Animals
by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy


That is an opinion as far as I’m concerned.

I’m a vegetarian, but have little moral attitude towards those who do eat meat.


QUOTE
I have never disputed this fact comrade. I too agree that some slaughterhouse practises are indeed atrocious and SHOULD be changed. I can however live comfortable if they were not however.

Don&#39;t worry, the chickens don&#39;t care.
-COMRADE RAF

RAF recognizes that slaughterhouse practices are "atrocious" but he says he can live "comfortably" with that fact. Obviously this is because he isn&#39;t bothered by the "atrocious" suffering animals are subjected to.

Then, as if to justify his indifference, he procedes to make this extraordinary claim: "the chickens don&#39;t care" The logic seems to be: Since "chickens", and by extension all other irrational animals, aren&#39;t self aware nor possess rational counciousness they "don&#39;t care" about their suffering. As if this made any difference. As if, by virtue of not being rational, they cease to feel pain and indeed anguish, fear and so forth.

To COMRADE RAF only the suffering of rational beings should be taken into consideration. From that we can infer, among other things, that the suffering of people who have their capacity for rational thought impaired is less important than the suffering of those who do not.

His views should leave us all a bit uncomfortable I think. Their inherent cruelty is jarring.

The lamb must be killed. The tyger must eat. Stop whining.


QUOTE
If you are not an athiest, that means that to some extent, you are denying science, and to deny the fundamental method if man to learn about the universe, and you tell me that is not living in a fantasy land?
-MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

Firstly, this is not necessarily true. Be specific. When and where did Nickademus state a religious belief that is directly contradicted by a scientifc hypothesis currently accepted within the scientific community.

Newton was a mystic who attempted to prove certain alchemist projects. For another example of science being used by a non-Atheist.


Secondly, your statement is incoherent, logically inconsistent and just flat out wrong. As I have explained many times, and will again if you wish, "atheism" is not "scientific". You can start by looking here.

Science takes in data, analyzes it, and interprets it (as far as most people observe the practice). Atheism is not a prerequisite to science. Many phrase themselves Agnostic-Atheists—those who deny that a God exists, but allow that he may since all material cannot be interpreted by scientists in the universe(s).

I prefer Atheism simply because it provides me with an Artistic freedom.


Thirdly, is everything you say, everything you believe and defend supported by the scientific method? Of course not. What gives you the right to slander some philosophical views as "garbage" and "fantasy", on the grounds that they are not scientific, whilst holding others, equal in this particular, as true? Both you and RAF need to learn some humility and learn to respect for other people&#39;s views.

Science is never “proven,” it is debated and discussed. Philosophy is not a scientific outlet, but a humanistic one.


The fact that you might say, and I might agree, that "science" is the highest form of human knowledge does not mean we should totally restrict our selves to it. There are many things that fall out of the scope of the scientific method and that we have every right to consider, reflect upon, even make dileberations and come to conclusions. The only thing you should point out, if you must, is the qualitative character of any given conclusion and leave it at that. You have no intellectual, or other, authority to make the proclamations you have been making.

I agree with this.


see my above post. and i know that comrade raf did not mean that in an affectionate way. its no compliment ESPECIALLY after i asked very specifically that i not be referred to as that. it shows that you have absolutely no respect for me. as such you no longer have my respect either, which is unfortunate because i think this board is built and successful because of the respect peoplehave for each other here.

Please dear: calm down. Damn.


again i repeat... how can you make such statements while knowing nothing of my faith? and the &#39;faith&#39; doesn&#39;t love ... but the principles of the faith teach love for the environment.... and what good has human progress done really? global warming? the destruction ofo the ozone? things that can potentially destroy the human race .... great progress.


Faith puts forth doctrine which individuals follow. Faith does nothing but indoctrinate, which is always bad if it is irrationally accepted. Chomsky calls it “building irrational attitudes of submission to authority.” Authority is, in this case, the “law” of any particular faith.


again this is because you have no knowledge of my religion or what i mean by magick ... perhaps if you looked into my faith you could understand. but alas, you need knowledge before you can see how things are relative.

How old are you, 12, 14? I know a load of “Wiccans” who merely adopt the “faith” as a clique-entrance opportunity.


pagans had these theories way before science proved any of it. and really, just because the earths orbit is on a certain title and because organisms react to cold in a certain way doesn&#39;t mean there wasn&#39;t something, some force, that created those things.

This force is not necessarily “mystical” or “magick”, or whatever. Frank Zappa said something close to: I believe these things exist, but just that they exist without all the “religious glamour”, etc. and have rational and scientific explanations. Maybe the nature of man is one which will never be entirely rationally understood…but it is not any better to jab “answers” from tribal huts and take them as truth thousands of years later. That’s irrational and idiotic.


and not all rituals are nude.

All nudity is a ritual though.


"Needles to say, th[e] truth is inexpressible, indeed unthinkable." – Chomsky

What context did you grab this from?

[Guest1]

Some Atheists give the rest of us a bad name.

Who cares if someone believes that there is a higher force? So long as they are progressive, what does it matter to you that their reason for it is that their religion is built on abstract notions of love for the earth and people?

You guys make me sick. You and your anthropocentric views of the treatment of animals. <_<

[El Che]

RAF recognizes that slaughterhouse practices are "atrocious" but he says he can live "comfortably" with that fact. Obviously this is because he isn&#39;t bothered by the "atrocious" suffering animals are subjected to.

Then, as if to justify his indifference, he procedes to make this extraordinary claim: "the chickens don&#39;t care" The logic seems to be: Since "chickens", and by extension all other irrational animals, aren&#39;t self aware nor possess rational counciousness they "don&#39;t care" about their suffering. As if this made any difference. As if, by virtue of not being rational, they cease to feel pain and indeed anguish, fear and so forth.

To COMRADE RAF only the suffering of rational beings should be taken into consideration. From that we can infer, among other things, that the suffering of people who have their capacity for rational thought impaired is less important than the suffering of those who do not.

His views should leave us all a bit uncomfortable I think. Their inherent cruelty is jarring.
- El Che


The lamb must be killed. The tyger must eat. Stop whining. -elijahcraig

I&#39;m not "whining", I&#39;m deconstructing idiocy. But if I feel like "whining", rest assured, I will.

[elijahcraig]

That&#39;s taken from Blake, I&#39;m not being idiotically cryptic.

[El Che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 06:08 AM
That&#39;s taken from Blake, I&#39;m not being idiotically cryptic.
???

[Guest1]

He&#39;s quoting someone. By the way, congrats elijah, you&#39;re unrestricted.

Booya&#33; Who predicted it? :D

MM, you could get unrestricted too, but you&#39;re not gonna do it attacking members and being so damn closed-minded.

Nickademus, why don&#39;t you get your subtitle changed to a female subtitle?

[elijahcraig]

???

I&#39;m sorry. You&#39;re just lost aren&#39;t you, honey? --Spoken by a nice old lady with a flab of skin jiggling in ecstasy as the young boy looks dumbfounded over the complex situation.

:lol:

[El Che]

Care to explain what&#39;re on about?

[elijahcraig]

Care to explain what&#39;re on about?

Now its my turn: ???

[Nickademus]

Just because things turned out the way they did doesn&#39;t mean there was a divine force that did it. Something happening by chance is not justification for the authenticity of the ramblings of some sckitzo who claims to be able to speak with "God". Can you name any "Pagan theory" that led to a major scientific breakthrough? People have theories all the time. Some right, some wrong, but that isn&#39;t proof.

I agree that something that just turns out doesn’t necessarily mean there is something divine … however it doesn’t mean it isn’t divine either. And no one man or woman has created the dictates of my religion …. And I also agree that some peoples have correct theories but that isn’t proof … the science is the ‘proof’ but if you believe something and science turns around and proves your belief is true … what do you call it?


Need I be an archmage first?

Archmage? I’m sorry I have no knowledge of this term you use.


Also, I would consider your characterization of Nickademus religious beliefs as "imaginary super heroes" as personal abuse and flaming contrary to the rules of this forum and think action on the part of the moderators, or Malte, is in order. If you continue to make accusations of this sort, in my humble opinion, there is no place for you here.

Thank you, I’m glad someone is also feeling this way. And it has turned into that … personal attacks and it is out of control.


Now don&#39;t get your panties in a twist over nothing my dear. I would hate to see a dear woman like yourself go crazy over a little word like dear...dear.

If youre people had been oppressed for as long as you can remember, one little word makes a difference…. For example, person was a little word that gave women much power. Slut is a little word that does a lot of damage to women. so think about the fact that one little word can do a lot of damage. And the fact that you continue to be an asshole about this means you have no respect whatsoever for my feelings.


Using Religious “reason,” I could probably prove that I own you. God told me I did. Proven?

Huh?


I don’t think Wicca is a faith. It is extremely anti-dogma as far as I’ve seen. That doesn’t change the fact that it is a return to pagan thought, most likely stirred up as a result of the psychological conditions in the individual. Take Germany and Hitler in relation to Wotan and the German paganism beneath the Roman Christianity forced upon them. It was thin, and the psychology of Paganism returned in the thanatos of Hitler.

Can you explain more please?


Why do you believe in psychic ability?

I never made a statement about whether or not I do or don’t believe in psychic abilities.


I think the Hindu philosopher/theologian Kanada used a very advanced (for his time) theory of the atomic model in describing his metaphysical belief. This does not mean that science proved religion. It means something quite different. It shows that religion is an inkling into what science can provide as answer. Science is the new God: like it or not.

OK I NEVER EVER SAID THAT SCIENCE HAS PROOVED WICCA TO BE THE TRUE RELIGION. Wiccans don’t even believe there is one true religion. What I have said is that wiccans have theories on many aspects of life and some of those theories are turning out to be true through the science of quantum physics. It hasn’t proven the religion it has just provided evidence that are theories are correct. And it is not proof that there is a divine being…that is not the part I’m looking at.


Why the dogmatic tie to a faith built on observation? Sounds like an early attempt at science by primitive peoples in my view. You can either develop these ideas or take the ideas of tribal men as fact.

this is true…this is how earth based religions came about .. they observed the world and tried to come up with theories about why things happen a certain way … they tried to understand … so yes it was a primative form of science… but then again I think science in itself is akin to a religion.


Have you ever read Vico’s New Science? It is an attempt to explain the natural history of the world. It was even praised by Marx. Joyce used it as a model for Finnegans Wake. Cycles are the main theme of both of these works.

No I have not.


YES IT DOES...... WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE THAT YOU CAN TELL ME WHAT IS OFFENSIVE TO ME&#33; YOU CAN&#39;T POSSIBLY FUCKING KNOW THAT&#33; and there is no way that this was meant in any endearing way .. you know it was very condescending.


Reduce use of any “natural wiccan” stimulants in the future please, your blood is going to boil higher and higher until you’re nothing but “life energy” and then we won’t be able to debate the “logic” of “Wiccan thought.”

No stimulants here…just anger at the complete and utter lack of respect that some people on this board seem to have towards others people who have the slightest disagreement in thought. And its really irrelevant….no one can tell me how something makes me feel. NO ONE HAS THAT RIGHT.


This proves that primitive peoples have instinctive ideas as to what is behind the system of phenomena which surround them, not that Wicca is at all true or worthy of following.

Again, I agree. Again I state, that I have never ever stated that wiccan itself has been proven to be true, only that we had some idea of what is in fact reality. Don’t follow it if you don’t want I don’t care, just don’t slander me because I like this explanation of the world.


(which btw is all subjective anyway ... science does not create or prove any truths).

If you believe this, it disqualifies you from the Wiccan “faith.”

How so?


Firstly, this is not necessarily true. Be specific. When and where did Nickademus state a religious belief that is directly contradicted by a scientifc hypothesis currently accepted within the scientific community.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU&#33; Finally some one has understood what I was trying to say. Wiccan can and does accept every scientific theory that is generally accepted….hence it does NOT deny science in any way.


Please dear: calm down. Damn.

FUCK OFF&#33;


Faith puts forth doctrine which individuals follow. Faith does nothing but indoctrinate, which is always bad if it is irrationally accepted. Chomsky calls it “building irrational attitudes of submission to authority.” Authority is, in this case, the “law” of any particular faith.

But who decides if it is irrationally accepted? No one here has given me the opportunity to prove that I have not irrationally accepted the tenants of wicca.



How old are you, 12, 14? I know a load of “Wiccans” who merely adopt the “faith” as a clique-entrance opportunity.

yes unfortunately there are many like that in the world. But I am well beyond that age thank you and am not wiccan simply because its cool. I think for myself and really don’t care what other people think of me.


This force is not necessarily “mystical” or “magick”, or whatever. Frank Zappa said something close to: I believe these things exist, but just that they exist without all the “religious glamour”, etc. and have rational and scientific explanations. Maybe the nature of man is one which will never be entirely rationally understood…but it is not any better to jab “answers” from tribal huts and take them as truth thousands of years later. That’s irrational and idiotic.

again you are confusing contemporary definitions of magic with the wiccan understanding of magick. And we have not accepted the truths of the ancients blindly … if some have proven to be false, we do not accept them .. if the belief doesn’t make sense, we don’t abide by it. We are not irrational or idiotic people.


"Needles to say, th[e] truth is inexpressible, indeed unthinkable." – Chomsky

What context did you grab this from?

To be honest, I can’t remember … I put this on here 4 years ago when I started in this board and I just haven’t found anything to replace it since I got back here about 4 days ago.


And Che y Marijuana: I don’t want my subtitle to be changed to a female one because I don’t think a distinction is necessary.

[Guest1]

Alright, that&#39;s your choice. By the way, don&#39;t put spaces after the {quote} brackets or before the {/quote} brackets, cause that messes up the code.

Or linespaces (pressing enter).

[El Che]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 30 2004, 03:29 AM
Wow, looks like I&#39;ve been missing out on all the fun. Lets dig in shall we?


Humans have emotions, animals do not. -COMRADE RAF

Oh really? Says you? Prove it.

Here is some scientific evidence that says you don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about.

Views of Animal Emotion; Lay and Scientific (http://www.jeffreymasson.com/views.html)

Most ordinary people who have direct contact with animals freely concede the reality of animal emotions. Their belief arises from the evidence of their senses and logical deduction.
(...)
Human beings are not always aware of what they are feeling. Like animals, they may not be able to put their feelings into words. This does not mean they have no feelings.
(...)
Psychiatric lexicons contain the term alexithymia for the condition of certain people who cannot describe or recognize emotions, who are able to define them "only in terms of somatic sensations or of behavioral reaction rather than relating them to accompanying thoughts." Such people are handicapped by their inability to understand what feelings are. It is curious that the study of animal behavior should demand that its practitioners turn themselves into alelrithymics. -Excerpted from When Elephants Weep: The Emotional lives of Animals
by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy




I have never disputed this fact comrade. I too agree that some slaughterhouse practises are indeed atrocious and SHOULD be changed. I can however live comfortable if they were not however.

Don&#39;t worry, the chickens don&#39;t care. -COMRADE RAF

RAF recognizes that slaughterhouse practices are "atrocious" but he says he can live "comfortably" with that fact. Obviously this is because he isn&#39;t bothered by the "atrocious" suffering animals are subjected to.

Then, as if to justify his indifference, he procedes to make this extraordinary claim: "the chickens don&#39;t care" The logic seems to be: Since "chickens", and by extension all other irrational animals, aren&#39;t self aware nor possess rational counciousness they "don&#39;t care" about their suffering. As if this made any difference. As if, by virtue of not being rational, they cease to feel pain and indeed anguish, fear and so forth.

To COMRADE RAF only the suffering of rational beings should be taken into consideration. From that we can infer, among other things, that the suffering of people who have their capacity for rational thought impaired is less important than the suffering of those who do not.

His views should leave us all a bit uncomfortable I think. Their inherent cruelty is jarring.


If you are not an athiest, that means that to some extent, you are denying science, and to deny the fundamental method if man to learn about the universe, and you tell me that is not living in a fantasy land? -MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

Firstly, this is not necessarily true. Be specific. When and where did Nickademus state a religious belief that is directly contradicted by a scientifc hypothesis currently accepted within the scientific community.

Secondly, your statement is incoherent, logically inconsistent and just flat out wrong. As I have explained many times, and will again if you wish, "atheism" is not "scientific". You can start by looking here (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=23&t=23312&s=).

Thirdly, is everything you say, everything you believe and defend supported by the scientific method? Of course not. What gives you the right to slander some philosophical views as "garbage" and "fantasy", on the grounds that they are not scientific, whilst holding others, equal in this particular, as true? Both you and RAF need to learn some humility and learn to respect for other people&#39;s views.

The fact that you might say, and I might agree, that "science" is the highest form of human knowledge does not mean we should totally restrict our selves to it. There are many things that fall out of the scope of the scientific method and that we have every right to consider, reflect upon, even make dileberations and come to conclusions. The only thing you should point out, if you must, is the qualitative character of any given conclusion and leave it at that. You have no intellectual, or other, authority to make the proclamations you have been making.
I&#39;m still waiting for a reply here guys. Whats the matter, don&#39;t want to play anymore?

[Vinny Rafarino]

COMRADE RAF

Oh really? Says you? Prove it.

Here is some scientific evidence that says you don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about.

Views of Animal Emotion; Lay and Scientific

Most ordinary people who have direct contact with animals freely concede the reality of animal emotions. Their belief arises from the evidence of their senses and logical deduction.
(...)
Human beings are not always aware of what they are feeling. Like animals, they may not be able to put their feelings into words. This does not mean they have no feelings.
(...)
Psychiatric lexicons contain the term alexithymia for the condition of certain people who cannot describe or recognize emotions, who are able to define them "only in terms of somatic sensations or of behavioral reaction rather than relating them to accompanying thoughts." Such people are handicapped by their inability to understand what feelings are. It is curious that the study of animal behavior should demand that its practitioners turn themselves into alelrithymics. -Excerpted from When Elephants Weep: The Emotional lives of Animals
by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy



Let us review how "scientific" your sources are:

Jeffery Moussaieff Masson:

B.A. magna cum laude, Harvard College, 1964 Arts, interesting.


Ph.D. with Honors, Sanskrit & Indian Studies, Harvard University, 1970. Thesis: Suggestion in Sanskrit Poetics.

We all know how relevant Indian Studies are to this issue.

Toronto Institute of Psychoanalysis, Candidate, 1970-1978. Graduated in 1978, became a member in 1979 of the International Psychoanalytical Association, the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society and the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Society

Never heard of Psychoanalysing animals before.


I won&#39;t even post this cat&#39;s career as it has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand.

It appears there is someone ELSE in this conversation that does not know what they are talking about. I suggest you research your sources prior to blindly posting them.

This interesting fellow is full of nothing but HOT AIR.



RAF recognizes that slaughterhouse practices are "atrocious" but he says he can live "comfortably" with that fact. Obviously this is because he isn&#39;t bothered by the "atrocious" suffering animals are subjected to

That is correct.




Then, as if to justify his indifference, he procedes to make this extraordinary claim: "the chickens don&#39;t care" The logic seems to be: Since "chickens", and by extension all other irrational animals, aren&#39;t self aware nor possess rational counciousness they "don&#39;t care" about their suffering. As if this made any difference. As if, by virtue of not being rational, they cease to feel pain and indeed anguish, fear and so forth.



Hardly an extraordiary claim. If you would bother to check the research of those that are not "professors of Indian Studies", perhaps you will understand.

The point is their "pain" is meaningless. I&#39;m sorry you are unable to detach yourself from irrational feleings of pain by proxy.



To COMRADE RAF only the suffering of rational beings should be taken into consideration. From that we can infer, among other things, that the suffering of people who have their capacity for rational thought impaired is less important than the suffering of those who do not.


I love how once again, individuals attempt to make "people" the focus of the debate rather than the actual subject. People have nothing to do with this issue, so leave your smoke and mirrors at home.


His views should leave us all a bit uncomfortable I think. Their inherent cruelty is jarring.


I reckon everyone is entitled to their own opinion.


Both you and RAF need to learn some humility and learn to respect for other people&#39;s views.


I can care less about "other people&#39;s views" when they are obviously irrational and absurd.


Do you still feel like you "got me"?



Edit:


I also think you need to understand that there are those in the scientific community that see "animal emotion" as a physical manifestation of instinct (reference my previous description of why a dog wag&#39;s it&#39;s tail) only.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Now don&#39;t get your panties in a twist over nothing my dear. I would hate to see a dear woman like yourself go crazy over a little word like dear...dear.



MR. Maurader,


You are getting out of line here, so relax. She does not want to be called "dear" so let it go.

Note that I did.

[El Che]

RAF,

1. I asked you to provide some evidence to backup your claim that animals "do not have emotions". Nothing.

2. What did you think of the quotes themselves? Why didn&#39;t you address them? The logic in them seems simple and straight forward. Please explain how it is wrong.

3. If you didn&#39;t like that source I have some more for you.

http://www.vetcentric.com/magazine/magazin...?ArticleID=1137 (http://www.vetcentric.com/magazine/magazineArticle.cfm?ArticleID=1137)
For some time now, those who study animal behavior have been moving toward the idea that animals experience emotions, researchers said. Charles Darwin, in his 1899 book The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals, talked about the body language of animals changing in sync with emotions and feelings.

But until recently, ethologists—animal behavior researchers—were reluctant to ascribe even basic emotions to animals, Dr. Cooper said.

Now even the skeptics say they think animals have emotions—with the qualifier that they don’t know what those emotions would be, said Dr. Marc Bekoff, professor of biology at the University of Colorado at Boulder and editor of The Smile of A Dolphin: Remarkable Accounts of Animal Emotions. "The tide has really changed."




The point is their "pain" is meaningless.-RAF

The pain animals experience is "meaningless". Please elaborate. Is it "meaningless" to you or are you stating an objective fact? In the latter case, on what do you base this assertion? How is "pain" ever "meaningful"?
----

To COMRADE RAF only the suffering of rational beings should be taken into consideration. From that we can infer, among other things, that the suffering of people who have their capacity for rational thought impaired is less important than the suffering of those who do not.
-El Che


I love how once again, individuals attempt to make "people" the focus of the debate rather than the actual subject. People have nothing to do with this issue, so leave your smoke and mirrors at home.-RAF

It is a logical conclusion that derives from something you said. I&#39;m sorry that it is an uncomfortable one.


I can care less about "other people&#39;s views" when they are obviously irrational and absurd.-RAF

Fair enough. But why quote me on this line and ignore the much larger part of my post that dealt with religious beliefs, atheism, etc? Why not answer the substance of my post to MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr?

[El Che]

Edit:


I also think you need to understand that there are those in the scientific community that see "animal emotion" as a physical manifestation of instinct (reference my previous description of why a dog wag&#39;s it&#39;s tail) only.
-RAF

Please provide sources that explain these extraordinary notions.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I won&#39;t run around the internet looking for "sources" as you do, however I WILL instruct you to research the work of Dr. James Rose.


Perhaps AFTER you have finally done some REAL research on the subject, you will then email or call Dr. Rose and advise HIM his "notions" are "extraordinary".


I would love to read more of your "sources". Perhaps you can find a few from those that are not professors of Indian studies.


The pain animals experience is "meaningless". Please elaborate. Is it "meaningless" to you or are you stating an objective fact? In the latter case, on what do you base this assertion? How is "pain" ever "meaningful

It is meaningless to the animals themselves as they are not self aware.


It is a logical conclusion that derives from something you said. I&#39;m sorry that it is an uncomfortable one.


That is definitely some "unique" logic.

[El Che]

You present nothing to backup your claim that animals have no emotions -claim that you presented in a very arrogant and matter of fact way- and dismiss all the research, that points in the opposite direction, done by professionals in the area.

What is wrong with "Indian Studies"? My last source was from "Dr. Marc Bekoff, professor of biology at the University of Colorado at Boulder and editor of The Smile of A Dolphin: Remarkable Accounts of Animal Emotions. "The tide has really changed.", what does this have to do with "Indian Studies"?


It is meaningless to the animals themselves as they are not self aware.


How is it "meaningless to the animals" if the only thing that is meaningful (if indeed anything can be construed as "meaningful" at all...) about pain is that pain causes suffering, suffering which they feel?


That is definitely some "unique" logic

Sure is.

[Vinny Rafarino]

You present nothing to backup your claim that animals have no emotions -claim that you presented in a very arrogant and matter of fact way- and dismiss all the research, that points in the opposite direction, done by professionals in the area


You have the name of one of the leading experts in the field. If you choose NOT do do your own research then I cannot help you. Your "research" that points in the "opposite direction" is nothing more than individuals similar to your Indian studies expert who are unable to sever their own emotional "connections" with species of animals that are just "too cute" or "act too human sometimes".



What is wrong with "Indian Studies"? My last source was from "Dr. Marc Bekoff, professor of biology at the University of Colorado at Boulder and editor of The Smile of A Dolphin: Remarkable Accounts of Animal Emotions. "The tide has really changed.", what does this have to do with "Indian Studies"?


Absolutely nothing, If we were studying India.



How is it "meaningless to the animals" if the only thing that is meaningful (if indeed anything can be construed as "meaningful" at all...) about pain is that pain causes suffering, suffering which they feel?


animals do not have the ability to apply "meaning" to their physical pain.

[elijahcraig]

the science is the ‘proof’ but if you believe something and science turns around and proves your belief is true … what do you call it?


Science is based on fact. Interpretation of these facts. No Scientific is ever 100% correct. 99% many are.

Belief is different when considered in modes of investigating phenomena and merely yelling “I have faith.”


Huh?

Many religions (most) say men are to own women. The Bible. Aquinas. Or merely the tribal leader who tells the others “God said men are to own women.”


QUOTE
I don’t think Wicca is a faith. It is extremely anti-dogma as far as I’ve seen. That doesn’t change the fact that it is a return to pagan thought, most likely stirred up as a result of the psychological conditions in the individual. Take Germany and Hitler in relation to Wotan and the German paganism beneath the Roman Christianity forced upon them. It was thin, and the psychology of Paganism returned in the thanatos of Hitler.


Can you explain more please?

Wicca, as far as I can tell, is about individual belief. No two witches follow the same rules. They vary. I know several who call themselves “Wiccans,” though none share dogmatic belief.

Read some Jung for the analysis of Pagan thought in Hitler, and the psychology of the past still present in the minds of those modern human individuals. Read Campbell or Frazer also.


QUOTE
Why do you believe in psychic ability?


I never made a statement about whether or not I do or don’t believe in psychic abilities.

Do you believe in psychic ability? If so, why?


OK I NEVER EVER SAID THAT SCIENCE HAS PROOVED WICCA TO BE THE TRUE RELIGION.

I didn’t say anything about “true religions.” YOU stated science proves Wiccan thought to a certain degree. I opposed this view. All religious people accept watered down versions as rational thought becomes more dominant. Take Aquinas.


Wiccans don’t even believe there is one true religion.

I think I said this when I said “anti-dogma.”


What I have said is that wiccans have theories on many aspects of life and some of those theories are turning out to be true through the science of quantum physics.

No, it proved SIMILARITIES between two theories. And what theories have been turned “out to be true through the science of quantum physics”? Are you familiar in depth with the subject or just connecting two models of thought to give validity to your religion?








but then again I think science in itself is akin to a religion.

As I’ve said before: Science is the New God.


No stimulants here…just anger at the complete and utter lack of respect that some people on this board seem to have towards others people who have the slightest disagreement in thought. And its really irrelevant….no one can tell me how something makes me feel. NO ONE HAS THAT RIGHT.

Stop complaining about stupid things. If you are secure in your personage you should not become offended by insults. It’s childish. Besides the point that the original “insult” was not an “insult” at all.


QUOTE
(which btw is all subjective anyway ... science does not create or prove any truths).

If you believe this, it disqualifies you from the Wiccan “faith.”


How so?

If everything is subjective, Wicca is subjective and can establish no link to “truth” whatsoever; a prerequisite to any religion.


FUCK OFF&#33;

While you dance, dear? Heaven’s to betsy I’m fucking off, dear meter.


But who decides if it is irrationally accepted? No one here has given me the opportunity to prove that I have not irrationally accepted the tenants of wicca.

There are no rational links to religious beliefs. There have been attempts to do so. They have all failed. If you can do so, present your case.


I think for myself and really don’t care what other people think of me.

That’s false, contradicting your incessant whining about “feelings” at being referred to as “dear.”


again you are confusing contemporary definitions of magic with the wiccan understanding of magick. And we have not accepted the truths of the ancients blindly … if some have proven to be false, we do not accept them .. if the belief doesn’t make sense, we don’t abide by it. We are not irrational or idiotic people.

As far as I know, magick is mainly defined by Crowley in different sources, The Book of the Law being one important text (though not as ritual-oriented).

If you can present some sort of argument that would be helpful. How is magick EVER true?


QUOTE
"Needles to say, th[e] truth is inexpressible, indeed unthinkable." – Chomsky

What context did you grab this from?


To be honest, I can’t remember … I put this on here 4 years ago when I started in this board and I just haven’t found anything to replace it since I got back here about 4 days ago.

Because this is not Chomsky’s stance on life in general.

[El Che]

You have the name of one of the leading experts in the field. If you choose NOT do do your own research then I cannot help you. Your "research" that points in the "opposite direction" is nothing more than individuals similar to your Indian studies expert who are unable to sever their own emotional "connections" with species of animals that are just "too cute" or "act too human sometimes".

Lol... No comment.


Absolutely nothing, If we were studying India.

Please show us how and where they (the indians or the non indians) are wrong. Be specific.


animals do not have the ability to apply "meaning" to their physical pain.

So what?

[elijahcraig]

By El Che&#39;s standards, we shouldn&#39;t eat vegetables either.

Ants feels pain. What about them?

I&#39;m sure even my computer feels a little bad when I don&#39;t use it for a while&#33; :lol:

[El Che]

What standards are those?

I wasn&#39;t aware that I had stated any standards. Perhaps you would like to show us all what you are referring to by quoting me on the matter.


Ants feels pain. What about them?


What about them?

[elijahcraig]

Your basic standards are obvious from merely reading your rhetoric debate against RAF"s factual arguments.

[El Che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 10:07 PM
Your basic standards are obvious from merely reading your rhetoric debate against RAF"s factual arguments.
You don&#39;t know my "standards" concerning eating meat because I have not outlined them. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Please show how RAF&#39;s arguments are factual and mine and purely rhetorical. If you do not you are a coward and a liar.

[elijahcraig]

I have been known to be cowardly and quite a liar.

And also not up to doing PETA fanatics bidding.

[El Che]

Backup your claims.

[elijahcraig]

Which one? That I&#39;ve been known to be a coward? A Liar? Or one who doesn&#39;t like doing the bidding of PETA fanatics?

Back up your assignment.

[El Che]

You know which ones. The ones you directed at me.

[elijahcraig]

That you&#39;re a PETA fanatic?

That&#39;s a fact in itself.

Like the irrefutable fact that an apple is an apple and not a pear.

[El Che]

Who do you think your talking to?

[elijahcraig]

As I&#39;ve made clear: I think I am talking to a PETA fanatic.

By the way: it&#39;s "you&#39;re" not "your."

[El Che]

You don&#39;t talk to me like that understand?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 30 2004, 10:25 PM
Who do you think your talking to?
Well let&#39;s see...


Big Paulie Castellano got whacked....

John Gotti Died in Jail.....

Vinnie The Chin is in jail.....

Carmine Galante...Nope...whacked in the 70&#39;s......


I reckon that leaves...


No one.

[elijahcraig]

You don&#39;t talk to me like that understand?

:lol:

Yes, Mr. Deniro.


We have on our hands quite an individual: a PETA fanatic who also is a crime boss. Who&#39;da figured?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Who gives a crap weather animals feel pain or not anyways? The wolf eats the lamb, thats just how it works. All the chickens in the world can die slow and aganizing deaths and never once in their lives be let our of their cages, and I DONT CARE&#33; So long as it is within our ability to feed people meat, I want my meat.

P.S. Its odd on how much me and COMRADE RAF see eye to eye on, but yet RAF is a mod, and I am restricted...

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 03:22 AM
Who gives a crap weather animals feel pain or not anyways?
WHETHER&#33;&#33;

It&#39;s WHETHER&#33; Not &#39;weather&#39;&#33; WHETHER&#33;

God damn it&#33;

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by DyerMaker+Mar 31 2004, 12:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DyerMaker @ Mar 31 2004, 12:30 AM)
[email protected] 31 2004, 03:22 AM
Who gives a crap weather animals feel pain or not anyways?
WHETHER&#33;&#33;

It&#39;s WHETHER&#33; Not &#39;weather&#39;&#33; WHETHER&#33;

God damn it&#33; [/b]
Thanks grammar nazi, but when quoting, it&#39;s "weather" not &#39;weather&#39;, and it&#39;s not proper english to not use complete sentances or incorrect capitalization.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by DyerMaker+Mar 30 2004, 11:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DyerMaker @ Mar 30 2004, 11:30 PM)
[email protected] 31 2004, 03:22 AM
Who gives a crap weather animals feel pain or not anyways?
WHETHER&#33;&#33;

It&#39;s WHETHER&#33; Not &#39;weather&#39;&#33; WHETHER&#33;

God damn it&#33; [/b]
That argument is oh so relevant to what&#39;s actually being discussed&#33;&#33;&#33;

[synthesis]

That argument is oh so relevant to what&#39;s actually being discussed&#33;&#33;&#33;

Who said it was an argument?

The misusage of the word was like a little bug that sits in your arm hairs for an incredibly long time until you finally have to squash it.

You&#39;re perfectly welcome to delete the last four posts in this topic. Be my guest.


Thanks grammar nazi, but when quoting, it&#39;s "weather" not &#39;weather&#39;,

That&#39;s not true, but I don&#39;t really care if you misuse it. I just had to get that out of my system.

I apologize if you took me seriously.

[DarkAngel]

Lets rephrase that. Instead of the chickens not caring, lets make it into I don&#39;t care?



What a big shocker it is that the biggest mother fucker on this board doesnt care about anyone but himself. Of course why would you care because your the only one that matters, and you, my friend, are always right *sarcasim* <_<

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 03:22 AM
Who gives a crap weather animals feel pain or not anyways? The wolf eats the lamb, thats just how it works. All the chickens in the world can die slow and aganizing deaths and never once in their lives be let our of their cages, and I DONT CARE&#33; So long as it is within our ability to feed people meat, I want my meat.

P.S. Its odd on how much me and COMRADE RAF see eye to eye on, but yet RAF is a mod, and I am restricted...
From what I recall, this is the first issue we have ever agreed on.


Please do not use me as a tool in your crusade to get unrestricted.


Don&#39;t forget Mr. Maurader, I still think you are quite the tosser.



EDIT:


What a big shocker it is that the biggest mother fucker on this board doesnt care about anyone but himself. Of course why would you care because your the only one that matters, and you, my friend, are always right *sarcasim*


If you think MM is the biggest "mother fucker" on this board then you really need to open your eyes. I am a much bigger "mother fucker" than he is.

[DarkAngel]

If you think MM is the biggest "mother fucker" on this board then you really need to open your eyes. I am a much bigger "mother fucker" than he is.

-Whatever makes u happy...

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 31 2004, 04:07 PM
If you think MM is the biggest "mother fucker" on this board then you really need to open your eyes. I am a much bigger "mother fucker" than he is.
Trying to salvage your ego? Can&#39;t handle the thought of someone being a "bigger motherfucker" then you?

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 11:44 AM
Trying to salvage your ego? Can&#39;t handle the thought of someone being a "bigger motherfucker" then you?
*cough* ego problems *cough* :rolleyes: <_<