Not trying to be a troll, but PETA scares me...

I know plants are just as cautious and self aware of themselves as animals are it irritates me when some stupid veggiterian says that they aren't aware and it isn't the same thing.You know life is life and i think veggies people are fine but I have to eat both meat and vegetables.Then you got those veggie people who htink that people who eat meat only eat meat.IF that was true then only the veggies would be alive today.
note humans need to eat both meat and vegetables in order to survive.The only reason why veggies can stay pretty much healthy is because of a thing called protein pills.But yeah we need both meat and veggies to survive and people just don't seem to get that especially veggiterians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

Why does it matter what morality is, whether it's an incredibly complex set of neurons firing, or a soul? It exists, and that's the important part.

"Yep, by burning down buildings, sending death threats, and giving a congradulations letter to that canibal guy. THAT is really great of them, isn't it."

Nice to see you're ONLY focusing on the very few and very negative aspects.

---

As if you're focussing on the positive aspects of my stance? Don't preach what you don't practice, please.

And of COURSE it matters what morality is. How could it NOT matter. It goes to the core of what could be defined as moral or immoral. If morality is only a nuerological condition, then we have no reason to obey it. EVER. The only things left would be logic and biology.
One, we'd do well to consider, the other we must maintain, and neither supports your claims very well. Your entire argument is based on the premise of emotion- emotions that, if we are just animals, end up being just lies.
I am more than just a biological machine, though I'm very pleased I have one to call my own, it is NOT who I am. I am not an animal (though I've been called one on occasions ;) ) I am more than that, animals are not more than that, end of story.
Oh, and there is no such thing as seperate but equal. That's been proven every time it's come up. The only true way to create equality is to take everything from everyone- and that, I'm sure we can ALL agree, is wrong.

:::EDIT:::
Umm... Blazer, you can find plants that provide protiens (oh how I hate correcting my own side... it's depressing). I believe soy beans are an example, but I'm not a nutritionist, I might be wrong. Although, you're absolutely right on (some) plants having responsive attempts to protect their own lives. Survival instincts exist in things as small as single-celled organisms.

What you still can't rationalise properly is that you are killing and eating what you kill. If you think killing things that can't feel pain is okay, let's just kill all the braindead hospitalised people on life support -- they're not feeling pain. Or if we're killing some plants but not killing them indescriminantly, then you're just doing whatever you want to further the human race, and that now justifies eating meat. Oh wait, so it's pain bad, killing non-pain good, but not too much, because it hurts others, but then I can still blow up buildings and make people lose jobs because in the end of the day animals have more rights than humans.

Oh wait, I'm being flippant. I should eat vegetables and say 'they don't feel pain. I have no guilt'. Screw that.

I wouldn't be able to provide any intellegent covnersation, even if I wanted to, because South Park has forever impressioned me that PETA are animal-marrying extremist. But, arsoning and killing other humans just to prove an extreme point isn't good. That's bad.(That was semi-intellegent, I guess...)

Good thing that PETA hasn't killed any human beings then, isn't it? :)

Burning a few buildings in not much in comparison to a life of misery. A crime, yes, but only in the monetary sense.

PETA is not a police or government organisation. Blowing up buildings is arson and destruction of property. They are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

As if you're focussing on the positive aspects of my stance? Don't preach what you don't practice, please.

And of COURSE it matters what morality is. How could it NOT matter. It goes to the core of what could be defined as moral or immoral. If morality is only a nuerological condition, then we have no reason to obey it. EVER. The only things left would be logic and biology.
One, we'd do well to consider, the other we must maintain, and neither supports your claims very well. Your entire argument is based on the premise of emotion- emotions that, if we are just animals, end up being just lies.
I am more than just a biological machine, though I'm very pleased I have one to call my own, it is NOT who I am. I am not an animal (though I've been called one on occasions ;) ) I am more than that, animals are not more than that, end of story.
Oh, and there is no such thing as seperate but equal. That's been proven every time it's come up. The only true way to create equality is to take everything from everyone- and that, I'm sure we can ALL agree, is wrong.

:::EDIT:::
Umm... Blazer, you can find plants that provide protiens (oh how I hate correcting my own side... it's depressing). I believe soy beans are an example, but I'm not a nutritionist, I might be wrong. Although, you're absolutely right on (some) plants having responsive attempts to protect their own lives. Survival instincts exist in things as small as single-celled organisms.

---

Yeah soy beans are kewl i ove htose soy bean hamburgers.You know the ones that schools try to pass off as a real burger lol.I knwo certain plants have protein but we need other things that meat can provide for us like fat.But you know I jsut hate the folks who say "people who eat meat only eat meat and nothing else."You know that pisses me off mainly because the people who only eat meet are the idiot who end up dying for eating too much meat.

I did a project on ratehr plants are aware of there surroundings.I set two plants up right. one in light and anothe rplant that was just outside of the light.The plant that wasn't in the light slowly but surely move towards that window(grew.).I mean what made teh plant want to grow in that direction if they aren't aware of there envriroment.We had this peach tree that was planted right next to the house.Noy ou know the roof and stuff kinda hangs over the house a bit.So the tree while it was growing literally made itself a hump like thing I'l have to take a pic and show you but it gave it enoguh space so it wouldn't hit the roof while it was growing.

We call that 'mechanical instinct' and that justifies cruelty to plants. I hope that wasn't too blunt, but I'm supporting what I seem to gather from your position that plants aren't just 'non-feeling-alive-things'.

Yeah lol I know they'll say that and that.But You know what I can tell those veggies and everyone else who wants to understand why we have to kill our things for us to eat it.Watch The Lion King.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

I am not an animal

---

Continually saying that is not going to make it right.

lordblazer, plants don't have brains or any of the inner systems animals have that gives them cognizance. They don't have senses--they cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or taste--nor do they communicate. They are not self aware.

Mike, that's called euthanasia. Lots of people support it.

The last few posts were directly relating to plants. Before that I was talking briefly about animals. You mentioned euthenasia which I believe requires consent, which neither can give.

IOW, clarify pls.

But yeah lets talk about the circle of life and sing the song so it'll stick to peoples heads!WE eat the plants and animals the plants will eat us when we die and the animals will eat the plants.the circle of *does a high note*liiiiiiiiiiiiiifffffffeeeeee1!!!!!!!

"What you still can't rationalise properly is that you are killing and eating what you kill. If you think killing things that can't feel pain is okay, let's just kill all the braindead hospitalised people on life support -- they're not feeling pain."

^ that.

There's a reason why, when people become unable to think, they are called "vegetables."

are you talking to me because I understand those things well heck I even said i understand it i just sang the freaking circle of life song dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by >>--heartshot--> ♥

"What you still can't rationalise properly is that you are killing and eating what you kill. If you think killing things that can't feel pain is okay, let's just kill all the braindead hospitalised people on life support -- they're not feeling pain."

^ that.

There's a reason why, when people become unable to think, they are called "vegetables."

---

Oh that, vegetables can't think (human dullards), so they can't give consent, so we can't kill them.

If you think you can kill vegetables (plants) without guilt because they don't feel pain, we can kill humans who don't 'feel pain'. That's all.

HI THAT'S WHAT EUTHANASIA IS.

lordblazer, I honestly can't understand what you're saying, so I think I'm going to start ignoring you.

I thought euthanasia was killing somebody who consented to it, but can't do it in his/her free power. Killing a vegetable without consent is murder.

Well, a vegetable is not in any way able to give consent, so I think it has something to do with the family, like if the family of the vegetable agrees then they kill them? (Sorry, I'm an English major, I don't know.)

THE CIRCLE OOFFF LLLIIIFE*HITS A HIGH e NOTE*LIIIIIIIIIIIFFFFEE

but seriously come on and think rationally.If we dont eat period we die.

"I know plants are just as cautious and self aware of themselves as animals are it irritates me when some stupid veggiterian says that they aren't aware and it isn't the same thing."

Where's your evidence?

"note humans need to eat both meat and vegetables in order to survive.The only reason why veggies can stay pretty much healthy is because of a thing called protein pills."

You are so very wrong. Vegetarians don't have to take protein pills.

"If morality is only a nuerological condition, then we have no reason to obey it. EVER."

That doesn't make sense. I believe my emotions are just chemical reactions. Does that mean I love my family any less? Of course not. I believe morality is just a result of how I feel about society etc... not a result of soul or whatever. Does that make it any less wrong to me? No!

"Oh, and there is no such thing as seperate but equal. That's been proven every time it's come up."

No, it's just been restated again and again.

"If you think killing things that can't feel pain is okay, let's just kill all the braindead hospitalised people on life support -- they're not feeling pain."

That's not limiting the suffering, now it is? It would upset families. Besides, we're talking about food sources, so this is a bit ridiculously, huh?

"Or if we're killing some plants but not killing them indescriminantly, then you're just doing whatever you want to further the human race, and that now justifies eating meat."

No, see, the second part is wrong for the reason you JUST SAID. Justifying eating meat would not happen because causing pain is wrong.

"but then I can still blow up buildings and make people lose jobs because in the end of the day animals have more rights than humans."

Argh, can you stop putting words in my mouth?? When did I say that was ok?

"I knwo certain plants have protein but we need other things that meat can provide for us like fat."

No we don't. No. NO. We can live perfectly healthily without meat. I know many vegans. I have talked to doctors. I'm majoring in health sciences. Please accept you're wrong.

"I did a project on ratehr plants are aware of there surroundings."

So what? That doesn't mean they're aware and can feel pain. It means they have light-sensitive cells that control their direction of growth.

I will summarize. again.

Eating meat is wrong, because we don't need to, and it causes pain. Eating plants is ok, because we have to eat something, and they don't feel pain, and aren't aware, can't feel, etc (braindead people usually have at least SOME sort of awareness, or they'd be dead). it's not ok to destroy all plants because plants do good things, and it's wrong to destroy ANYTHING more than you need to.

Um...nobody's saying anything about not eating period. We're arguing about condoning the suffering of animals by eating them for hedonistic pleasure.

Umm... ok, saying I'm not just an animal won't necessarily make it right. But if I AM just an animal, then my eating other animals is perfectly fine. And don't go into that "we know better" crap. Animals CAN'T know better, it's not in their nature. And if we're only animals, then it can't be in our nature, either. If we're on equal footing to animals, we're held to equal requirements and morality as animals. And those are: nothing.

Oh, and Aeris, I wasn't talking about in this thread, I was talking about in the real world. Every attempt at seperate but equal has FAILED, without exception. We have enough difficulty maintaining equality even if things aren't seperate.

And, if you believe all these things are just biochemistry, then I ask you this: why does pain matter? If it all lacks higher purpose, then pain is as transient as ideals and life and dirt and forgotten web pages. Nothing matters, therefor, this does not matter and we're all just spinning our wheels on issues that are, and always shall be lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

it's not ok to destroy all plants because plants do good things, and it's wrong to destroy ANYTHING more than you need to.

---

So it's safe to assume you eat one meal a day? And don't live in a house in the city, or drive a car? Or do anything else that isn't a compelte necessity for survival?

Euthanasia is not killing something that can't feel. It's killing something that can't live, or survive as normal. It's not eating a friggen salad.

"Good thing that PETA hasn't killed any human beings then, isn't it? :)"
It's only a matter of time.

"But if I AM just an animal, then my eating other animals is perfectly fine. And don't go into that "we know better" crap. Animals CAN'T know better, it's not in their nature."

For christ's sake, OTHER animals don't know better, but we do, because we're more intelligent. How is this hard to grasp? Animals differ in many ways. Cheetehs are fast runner, squirrels can climb, fish can swim, and humans are smart. It doesn't make any of them not animals just because they possess a trait or act in a different way than other animals.

And I already said that animals do have some morality. Are you just not reading my posts at all now?

"So it's safe to assume you eat one meal a day? And don't live in a house in the city, or drive a car? Or do anything else that isn't a compelte necessity for survival?"

Within reason. Expecting me to live in a hole is not reasonable. Hence why the saying is limiting the suffering and not no suffering whatsoever.

I will say this though, that is probably the best counter argument so far. Good job.

MecaKane, the point is that it's easy to stop eating meat, and it does make a difference, whereas it's not so easy to go live off in the wild when we've grown so accustomed to living otherwise that we're not likely to survive outside of the comfort of our safe little lives.

udsuna, just because you're incapable of morality don't say every other person is too. I'm an animal and I don't eat other animals because I know it's wrong. You're getting extremely irritating with this repeating the same nonsensical point over and over.

What's reasonable to you may be unreasonable to some.
The same way what I was suggesting you to do was unreasonable for you, but there are many people already doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

For christ's sake, OTHER animals don't know better, but we do, because we're more intelligent. How is this hard to grasp? Animals differ in many ways. Cheetehs are fast runner, squirrels can climb, fish can swim, and humans are smart. It doesn't make any of them not animals just because they possess a trait or act in a different way than other animals.

---

Thank you for the concession that humans are superior, or are you going to tell my I mis-read you saying WE know better? I think knowing better, on a moral level- not an intellectual one- is a good definition of WHY we're better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

And I already said that animals do have some morality. Are you just not reading my posts at all now?

---

Only the parts of them that are just laughably unprovable. I've been around a LOT of creatures in my life- and the only ones that seem to care about anything but themselves and (sometimes SOME) other members of their own species are humans, dolphins, and apes. Oh, and occasionally you can trick an animal into adopting another species as a baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

"So it's safe to assume you eat one meal a day? And don't live in a house in the city, or drive a car? Or do anything else that isn't a compelte necessity for survival?"

Within reason. Expecting me to live in a hole is not reasonable. Hence why the saying is limiting the suffering and not no suffering whatsoever.

---

Yes, you and I SHOULD live in holes, if your ideal is held to. All the trees and whatnot that we ripped up to make our homes cost hundred of animals homes, and probably lives as well. I know (some of) the treatment processes that wood undergoes- nothing survives THAT, and plenty of insects were comfortably at home in that wood before we poisoned and cooked and bleached them. At LEAST dozens of animals per human being even capable of residing in the home constructed.
And brick homes do the same thing to soil dwellers. All housing would need be made of metal to even "limit" the suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by >>--heartshot--> ♥

udsuna, just because you're incapable of morality don't say every other person is too. I'm an animal and I don't eat other animals because I know it's wrong. You're getting extremely irritating with this repeating the same nonsensical point over and over.

---

Hey, I'm perfectly capable of morality. I'm quite happy with my code of right/wrong and my sence of honor. If I were just an animal, I would be incapable of those things, because animals are incapable of higher concepts. THAT's the point "nonsensical" point. Sorry it's beyond your grasp... at least Aeris gets what I'm saying, even if she disagrees. You aren't even getting that far along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MecaKane

What's reasonable to you may be unreasonable to some.

---

But how is not eating meat unreasonable by any standard? We've already established that the only benefit one gets from eating meat is pleasure for the taste, and while it may not be easy to give that up, it's definitely reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by >>--heartshot--> ♥

But how is not eating meat unreasonable by any standard? We've already established that the only benefit one gets from eating meat is pleasure for the taste, and while it may not be easy to give that up, it's definitely reasonable.

---

It's unreasonable because it's a lot of effort for something that I can't imagine being worth it. It's JUST animals, animals that wouldn't do the same for us if positions were reversed. I consider it *REALLY* unreasonable to give time and effort to something that doesn't deserve it, and still get nothing in return.

"Thank you for the concession that humans are superior, or are you going to tell my I mis-read you saying WE know better? I think knowing better, on a moral level- not an intellectual one- is a good definition of WHY we're better."

So from a cheetah's perspective, let's say, because we can't run as fast, cheetahs are better than us? It's an arbitrary criteria!! Why is intelligence the deciding factor? There is no reason that's not completely subjective.

I have nothing more to say here. I've been ignored, insulted, and I've repeated myself again and again. I'm done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

So from a cheetah's perspective, let's say, because we can't run as fast, cheetahs are better than us? It's an arbitrary criteria!! Why is intelligence the deciding factor? There is no reason that's not completely subjective.

I have nothing more to say here. I've been ignored, insulted, and I've repeated myself again and again. I'm done.

---

Yep, from a cheetah's perspective, it is better. Hell, it might even be right. And, if I'm introduced to a wild cheetah, and it's hungry, it's going to KILL AND EAT me. So, the idea of "better" is selfish, but all life is selfish, that's part of living- caring enough about yourself to not die.

But you and I are on the same page that our morality is an important and special aspect of us. You say, that makes us "special" so that as we know the harm we cause, we should seek to prevent it where possible. I say it makes us "special" so that we get special privileges, but should take care not to abuse them. For that is bad, and could lead to the downfall of our species.

And I'll miss you :cry: - it's hard finding debating opponents with the intelligence to hold their own :mad: . Now all I'll have is the self-proclaimed whore to banter with. And she's a mean person :p .

okay, well, first of all if cave people didn't hunt and kill animals for food, they wouldn't have survived and we wouldn't be alive today. second, meat is a sourse of protien that is needed for our bodies to function and so long as the kill is swift there is nothing i find wrong with killing for food. also, i do not believe that animals were put on this planet only for us to eat, contrary to what some vegitarians and vegans may believe just because i eat meat, that's not it. i do believe that animals are a very beautiful part of this planet, and that they should be treated with respect, i mean even a lion can sit with a heard of buffalo and not kill. that brings me to another point. there are animals out there who kill for food, but because we can reason and we use logic that makes it so we can't eat meat? use that logic and reason and have someone hit you in the head with a large trout. if animals can reason, they already have, survival of the fittest, they do what is needed to survive, and if that includes killing to feed themselves and their young, then they do that. jeeze.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

I have nothing more to say here. I've been ignored, insulted, and I've repeated myself again and again. I'm done.

---

I commend you for staying this long. ;)

I can honestly say the exact same thing- do I get a commendation for staying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

"I know plants are just as cautious and self aware of themselves as animals are it irritates me when some stupid veggiterian says that they aren't aware and it isn't the same thing."

Where's your evidence?

"note humans need to eat both meat and vegetables in order to survive.The only reason why veggies can stay pretty much healthy is because of a thing called protein pills."

You are so very wrong. Vegetarians don't have to take protein pills.

"If morality is only a nuerological condition, then we have no reason to obey it. EVER."

That doesn't make sense. I believe my emotions are just chemical reactions. Does that mean I love my family any less? Of course not. I believe morality is just a result of how I feel about society etc... not a result of soul or whatever. Does that make it any less wrong to me? No!

"Oh, and there is no such thing as seperate but equal. That's been proven every time it's come up."

No, it's just been restated again and again.

"If you think killing things that can't feel pain is okay, let's just kill all the braindead hospitalised people on life support -- they're not feeling pain."

That's not limiting the suffering, now it is? It would upset families. Besides, we're talking about food sources, so this is a bit ridiculously, huh?

"Or if we're killing some plants but not killing them indescriminantly, then you're just doing whatever you want to further the human race, and that now justifies eating meat."

No, see, the second part is wrong for the reason you JUST SAID. Justifying eating meat would not happen because causing pain is wrong.

"but then I can still blow up buildings and make people lose jobs because in the end of the day animals have more rights than humans."

Argh, can you stop putting words in my mouth?? When did I say that was ok?

"I knwo certain plants have protein but we need other things that meat can provide for us like fat."

No we don't. No. NO. We can live perfectly healthily without meat. I know many vegans. I have talked to doctors. I'm majoring in health sciences. Please accept you're wrong.

"I did a project on ratehr plants are aware of there surroundings."

So what? That doesn't mean they're aware and can feel pain. It means they have light-sensitive cells that control their direction of growth.

I will summarize. again.

Eating meat is wrong, because we don't need to, and it causes pain. Eating plants is ok, because we have to eat something, and they don't feel pain, and aren't aware, can't feel, etc (braindead people usually have at least SOME sort of awareness, or they'd be dead). it's not ok to destroy all plants because plants do good things, and it's wrong to destroy ANYTHING more than you need to.

---

I liked how youd idnt read my other post stating that I understand there are plants with proteins also but hey go ahead and do your twisting and turning of peoples previous statements ebfore they actually thought it out and changed there mind yep we are all static here.

edit-udsuna dolphins are moral creatures so are dogs and wolves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordblazer

edit-udsuna dolphins are moral creatures so are dogs and wolves.

---

Really? I've no reason to believes canines are (I love my doggies, but I don't think they're moral)- but I've mentioned dolphins before in prior posts. And pointed out that I only eat dolphin-safe tuna. Anything that goes out of it's way to save the lives of strangers is a fellow spiritual being. Dolphins are the firefighters of the ocean. Wether keeping us from drowning or fending off sharks, or just cheering us up- they're wonderful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

I can honestly say the exact same thing- do I get a commendation for staying?

---

No, because you haven't debated anywhere near intelligently.

I'm done too. Eat all the meat you want. I'm just glad I'm not you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

Really? I've no reason to believes canines are (I love my doggies, but I don't think they're moral)- but I've mentioned dolphins before in prior posts. And pointed out that I only eat dolphin-safe tuna. Anything that goes out of it's way to save the lives of strangers is a fellow spiritual being. Dolphins are the firefighters of the ocean. Wether keeping us from drowning or fending off sharks, or just cheering us up- they're wonderful.

---

until they take a crap in the water then splash it on ya.Thats how they get there kicks.

edit-the ugy above me people who EAT MEAT DONT JUST EAT MEAT ONLY GET IT IN YOUR SMALL STUPID PURNY BRAIN THAT WE EAT BOTH MEAT AND VEGGIES SO WHAT JUST BECAUSE YOU JUST EAT VEGGIES DOESNT MEAN TEHRE ARE PEOPLE WHO CAN SURVIVE BY JUST BY EATING MEAT.THEY CAN'T.

edit- BTW emerald we do need meat meat like poltry lamb and fish is really good for you but beef and pork isn't.Plus I love eating Bison every once in a while.Meat gives us strength.We rely on the strength and energy meat gives us.WE can survive but i don't think we'll have as much strength without meat.To say we can live without meat is ok but its really impossible we need both.You don't understand a thing uh emerald aeris.Oh well you'll never know because your too bias anyway and you jump to conclusions pretty fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by >>--heartshot--> ♥

I'm done too. Eat all the meat you want. I'm just glad I'm not you.

---

so you're saying i should feel guilty that i eat meat. okay, and that goes along real well with the fact that i believe in god . oh, btw, did i mention they eat meat in the bible ALL THE TIME? i'm not trying to turn this into a god thread, i'm just saying the chances of me stopping my consumption of meat products is microscopic at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by >>--heartshot--> ♥

No, because you haven't debated anywhere near intelligently.

I'm done too. Eat all the meat you want. I'm just glad I'm not you.

---

Really? I always thought the "well, your wrong, here's why. oh, and even if you're not wrong, your still wrong, for this reason" method of debate was pretty effective. It hasn't failed me yet.

Except when faced with other people using similar methods, or someone points out something I've never thought about. In both cases, it weakens my position severly. And, on occasions, I recongnize a flaw in my logic and have been known to completely change my outlook on things.

But regardless, I think my method outdoes your baseless insults and petty sarcasms. And "I'm not having fun, I quit..." is something I thought I'd never have to deal with after graduating highschool...

I want Aeris back, even if I disagree with her, I respect her intelligence and ability. Too bad you both have such closed minds.... but I guess this ends this argument, now....

I'm going to sit here, petting my cat, eating my pepperoni pizza, listening to music and helping human beings who bring problems to this site. Oh, and doing some work that I got recently. I'm quite pleased in being me right about now...


Oh, and back on the original topic: PETA sucks HUGE, HAIRY, JUICY, PULSATING, SWOLLEN, SWEATY, DONKEY BALLS!!! And all their whiny B.S. is only going to make this meal more pleasant for me. Because I dedicate my consumption of flesh to the FREEDOM that allows me to ignore the self-righteous, oppressive bastards who want to rule my life for me and force me to conform to their perversions of morality! In fact, I think I'll go turn on my Braveheart theme music.

*sound of beautiful pipe music rises in the background*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

But regardless, I think my method outdoes your baseless insults and petty sarcasms. And "I'm not having fun, I quit..." is something I thought I'd never have to deal with after graduating highschool...

I want Aeris back, even if I disagree with her, I respect her intelligence and ability. Too bad you both have such closed minds.... but I guess this ends this argument, now....

I'm going to sit here, petting my cat, eating my pepperoni pizza, listening to music and helping human beings who bring problems to this site. Oh, and doing some work that I got recently. I'm quite pleased in being me right about now...


Oh, and back on the original topic: PETA sucks HUGE, HAIRY, JUICY, PULSATING, SWOLLEN, SWEATY, DONKEY BALLS!!! And all their whiny B.S. is only going to make this meal more pleasant for me. Because I dedicate my consumption of flesh to the FREEDOM that allows me to ignore the self-righteous, oppressive bastards who want to rule my life for me and force me to conform to their perversions of morality! In fact, I think I'll go turn on my Braveheart theme music.

---

roflmFao!! how did you come up with that. every word you just said i completely agree with, and Braveheart kicks major arse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YukiKiro

roflmFao!! how did you come up with that. every word you just said i completely agree with, and Braveheart kicks major arse.

---

I told you already, I'm a genius. And I won't hesitate to use it for my advantage. And Braveheart made me cry... I can't even listen to the tune without getting teary-eyed. Same with Aeris' (the real one, not Emmy) theme music. And, due in part to the emotions they evoke, I have them both conveniently located on my computer playlist ;)

The part that is so amazing to me: I actually DID have my cat (his name is Gizmo- from the Gremlins movie) sitting in my lap, as I was eating pepperoni pizza. Coincidence bordering on providence, I think. I even fed him some of it... was that evil of me to aid one stupid animal in eating the remains of another stupid animal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordblazer or someone impersonating him

To say we can live without meat is ok but its really impossible we need both.You don't understand a thing uh emerald aeris.Oh well you'll never know because your too bias anyway and you jump to conclusions pretty fast.

---

It appears that you're the one that doesn't understand and you're the one that's too biased and jump to conclusions pretty fast. Do you actually know any vegetarians? I do and they're all very healthy. I'm a vegetarian and I'm hardly finding it impossible to live. In fact I'm very healthy and my doctor can attest to that fact. Just like my mother and my grandmother and great-grandmother who were both octogenarians when they passed away. They lived very well and were also very strong women. Do some research please.

Anyway, this thread has gotten way off topic. It is not about vegans or vegetarians. It is about PETA so please get back on topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeza

It appears that you're the one that doesn't understand and you're the one that's too biased and jump to conclusions pretty fast.
Anyway, this thread has gotten way off topic. It is not about vegans or vegetarians. It is about PETA so please get back on topic.

---

Yep, sorry LB... she's right. You're actually hurting the position by trying to support it... Moreso than anything the oposition is doing, at least. You need to be doing some research, educating yourself better on the topic, and working on your master over the written word, it needs some work ;) Because, right now, you're the best player on their team.

Please... because in all honesty, there is no reason that modern farming couldn't provide all of the nutrition we need to be healthy, strong (and probably less chubby) vegetarians. No doubt exists as to that fact- I just assert that we shouldn't HAVE to go through the trouble in order to protect the lives of creatures that are entirely expendable and not terribly useful or meaningful, aside from as a form of nutrition.

And I think we have started sliding back on topic. Or did my statement go un-noticed? It was in bold font, it was given a pretty good review. I managed to include a good movie, a popular food item, a small rant, and reference to an animal's genetalia. All the ingredients of an excellent and memorable speach.

And if you think about it, the only reason some animals exist at all are because humans have bred them to be like they are. If we were to stop eating meat, the current livestock levels would be unsustainable and we'd probably have to cull them anyway... It's economics, and if you look at the general principles of economics and of natural selection, they're pretty similar.

As for morality and self awareness, only chimps, possible some of the other great apes and humans have been demonstrated to show self-awareness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeza

It appears that you're the one that doesn't understand and you're the one that's too biased and jump to conclusions pretty fast. Do you actually know any vegetarians? I do and they're all very healthy. I'm a vegetarian and I'm hardly finding it impossible to live. In fact I'm very healthy and my doctor can attest to that fact. Just like my mother and my grandmother and great-grandmother who were both octogenarians when they passed away. They lived very well and were also very strong women. Do some research please.

Anyway, this thread has gotten way off topic. It is not about vegans or vegetarians. It is about PETA so please get back on topic.

---

Someone hacked my account?LAst itme I was onhere was on Friday.So I guess i was hacked oh well.

OOC:	Quote: Originally Posted by lordblazer Someone hacked my account?LAst itme I was onhere was on Friday.So I guess i was hacked oh well. Or you left yourself logged in.

Oookay, I realize this is a bit late ;) And a bit off topic, but I decided to post this here anyway because it wouldn't really make sense to start a new topic, as it is more of an argument than anything else.

So I was studying for my Psychology test in an hour and some (studying? I meant cramming. If I kept up with my course I coulda posted this earlier xD) and came across a bit of information. So to udsuna or anyone else that think animals are machines or slaves to their instincts, experimental proof indicates that animals are in fact thinking beings that use higher cognitive thought.

Psychologists perform experiments on an animal's ability to learn. For example, when presented with food, a dog salivates. The food is called the unconditioned stimulus, and the salivation is called the unconditioned response. Scientists start to pair the food with a bell; after a while, when the dog hears the bell, regardless if there is food or not, the dog salivates. The bell is then called the conditioned stimulus.

However, when scientists start to present the unconditioned stimulus (the food) alone again after the animal learns to respond to the conditioned stimulus, the animal starts to respond less to the conditioned stimulus (the bell). I think my textbook puts it better than I,

"Theorists originally assumed that classical conditioning is an automatic, reflexive phenomenon that does not depend at all on higher mental proceses. If that were actually true, then the UCS-alone trials would have no effect on conditioning. However, the ucs-alone trials weakened conditioning. The result suggests that CS signals the occurence of UCS, and that additional trials with the UCS alone weaken the signaling value of CS. What is surprising about these results? Rather than being an automatic, mechanical process, these studies suggest that classical conditioning involves cognitive processes.
...
But does the animal "know" the connection between the response and reinforcer, or is the connection stamped in automatically? That is the crux of the response-outcome relations issue. Evidence suggests that humans and other animals actively try to figure out the contingencies, the relationship between response and outcome.

Why are the signal relations studies in classical conditioning and response-outcome relations studies in operant conditioning surprising and of theoretical importance? These studies indicate that conditioning is not, as assumed earlier, an automatic process but instead depends to a considerable degree on higher mental (cognitive) processes."

There, if anyone still reads this thread >=) At least it helped me study. *runs off to cram some more*

Ah, yes, the conditioning aspect. The problem is, there's also other issues with conditioning that complicate that matter. If you don't expose a person to any conditioning for a period of time, then the affects of that conditioning wear off, regardless of circumstance. Not so easily comparable in most animals, for most conditioning of animals relies entirely on food.

Now, with HUMANS, you can study conditioned responces without such problems. Take addictions- especially ones such as gambling- studies on those correlate directly to conditioned responces. And if you deny the subject their addiction (stimulus) for long enough, the conditioning (addiction) wears away on it's own. It takes time, but it works that way. So, ultimately, though conditioned responce is more complex than the standard Pavlovian theory- there's still good reason to believe it's a lower brain function needing NO real intelligence. Still a more-or-less mechanical behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

Ah, yes, the conditioning aspect. The problem is, there's also other issues with conditioning that complicate that matter. If you don't expose a person to any conditioning for a period of time, then the affects of that conditioning wear off, regardless of circumstance. Not so easily comparable in most animals, for most conditioning of animals relies entirely on food.

---

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. o_0 Conditioning wearing off is pretty much the same in humans and animals. If in the case of my last post, you start to ring the bell many times at the dog without taking out the food a moment later, the dog will stop salivating at the bell; called extinction. The same goes for a human -- a baby was exposed to a white rat and a loud noise at the same time, and starting attributing the loud noise to the white rat and was scared of it. After being exposed only to the rat without the noise for a while, the baby stopped being scared of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

Now, with HUMANS, you can study conditioned responces without such problems. Take addictions- especially ones such as gambling- studies on those correlate directly to conditioned responces. And if you deny the subject their addiction (stimulus) for long enough, the conditioning (addiction) wears away on it's own. It takes time, but it works that way. So, ultimately, though conditioned responce is more complex than the standard Pavlovian theory- there's still good reason to believe it's a lower brain function needing NO real intelligence. Still a more-or-less mechanical behavior.

---

...? Okay. If you shut a human who is addicted to gambling in a cell for a year, then release him, he would probably go and gamble again. ;) That's just speculation, but as I see, so is your argument. Actually, I'm not exactly sure what we're arguing.

Whatever you condition an animal with -- food, loud noises, pleasure, etc. my point is that animals still can be conditioned, and they can distinguish the connection between the response and the reinforcer. I don't think you really addressed the point of my post... which was about how higher thought is needed to distinguish between a UCS and a CS.

I was pointing out that these things operate at too simplistic a level to measure enough to provide any conclusivity to the claim that animals are mentally advanced because they can tell the difference from UCS and CS. Yes, they CAN tell, but even cockroaches are similarly capable of understanding CS and UCS.

They know to run for cover when you hit a light switch, but if you have roaches who live somewhere, and the lights come on and turn off without anyone present, eventually the roaches will stop running when the lights go on. And you might be able to argue some mammals are smart enough to qualify as more "advanced"- but not insects.

I'm just pointing out that Pavlovian studies only prove that animals and humans have the same situational reaction programs. But they are STILL programs built from a combination of neurochemistry and memory patterns. It's a complex system, but it's still JUST a system, and just a mechanical, albeit advanced, input/output design.

Except for sheep: for some reason, sheep don't appear to have a conditioned responce pattern. Which is why the same sheep can get it's head caught in the same part of the same fence every day for weeks on end- don't say they won't, I've seen them do it. Despite the fear and pain of getting their heads caught, they just don't learn better. Whether they can be conditioned to other situations, I don't know, but they are REALLY dumb about things like survival.

And you're absolutely right: lock a gambler in a cell for a year, then let him go, he'll probably go back to gambling. However, the COMPULSION to gamble will have faded, if not vanished. His return to old behaviors wouldn't be the result of conditioning any longer.