Actually the biggest gap in Dave’s logic is his assumption that pain & suffering is necessarily a bad thing, and that avoidance of these is necessarily a good thing.

That couldn’t be farther from the truth:

It is through pain that we learn to avoid things that will harm us. It is through suffering that we come to grips with the mistakes that we have made in our past. In fact, it is now a generally accepted premise in psychology that pain, discomfort and yes, even suffering, are necessary components of human growth, and that people who are sheltered from these do not develop as well as though who experience mild trauma in their growing up.

It is through being tested by pain, discomfort and even periods of suffering that we determine who we really are. There are several famous variants on this theme, but here’s one: “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

And to this sophistry:

you can’t be “better than” the group you belong to.

Tell that to Lance Armstrong. Every group has a “first of the litter” and a “last of the litter”.

The soul [of man] manifests its activity in certain “faculties” or “parts” which correspond with the stages of biological development, and are the faculties of nutrition (peculiar to plants), that of movement (peculiar to animals), and that of reason (peculiar to humans). These faculties resemble mathematical figures in which the higher includes the lower, and must be understood not as like actual physical parts, but like such aspects as convex and concave which we distinguish in the same line. The mind remains throughout a unity: and it is absurd to speak of it, as Plato did, as desiring with one part and feeling anger with another. Sense perception is a faculty of receiving the forms of outward objects independently of the matter of which they are composed, just as the wax takes on the figure of the seal without the gold or other metal of which the seal is composed. As the subject of impression, perception involves a movement and a kind of qualitative change; but perception is not merely a passive or receptive affection. It in turn acts, and, distinguishing between the qualities of outward things, becomes “a movement of the soul through the medium of the body.”

“Since we will not experience any more or less suffering either way“That’s the whole argument, isn’t it? You are trying to prove something about suffering by using the premise that the suffering is equal.

Wait. For you, the entire argument is that veganism and/or vegetarianism causes human animals to suffer? My God, you’re further behind than I thought. The existence of vegans and vegetarians shows that this is true.

“The American Dietetic Association says that a well-planned vegan diet is appropriate in all stages of life” -from the Wikipedia article.

In most parts of the world, like the entire continent of Africa, not eating animal products would produce starvation and malnutrition, which increases suffering greatly.,

So the reason you are not a vegan is because you don’t want Africans to suffer from malnutrition.

Even ignoring that lunacy (even if it were true that Africans would suffer on a vegan diet, that does not mean that they would suffer if you went on a vegan diet), let’s consider it practically. If you want to increase the amount of food available for the starving people of the world, you should immediately become a vegan. Why? Consider:

* It takes 22 pounds of protein fed to a calf to produce a single pound of animal protein for humans.

* Plant foods yield about ten times as much protein per acre as meat does.

* An acre of oats produce more than six times the calories yielded by pork, the most efficient of the animal products.

* “…if Americans were to reduce their meat consumption by only 10% for one year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption–enough to feed 60 million people.” -Lester Brown, Overseas Development Council

* A pound of meat requires fifty times as much water as an equivalent quantity of meat.

So? You are now causing suffering to the non-human animals you eat and the Africans you care sooooo deeply about. If you actually wanted to reduce their malnutrition, you’d stop eating meat.

Mark: Actually, it was Dave who said that we normal meat-eaters benefited thereby. I never made the generalized argument you seem to be stuck on. I never made the generalization that everything normal is beneficial. You stated that, attributed it to me, then refuted your own creation. Same with the smoking flap. You brought up smoking, tried to rope me into a meaningless discussion of the normality/abnormality of smoking, and then tried to say that you refuted an argument I never made. You seem to lack original thought, and furthermore, are prone to overgeneralization and projection. Try addressing the point in future. You may entertain yourself with your flights of fancy, but certainly not me.

Rob: I am not a child molestor. The posters here are hamburger-eaters. I’ve compared their actions to Nazis, but I have not lied about what they’ve done.

Your argument on the consumption of meat depends upon suffering being an evil that must be avoided.

No, unnecessary suffering is an evil that must be avoided.

Put another way, if the mere act of creating suffering in another is not necessarily always an evil act in and of itself, then you can’t judge whether an act is moral or immoral based solely upon whether it inflicts suffering. Rather, you must include the overarching effects of the action.

Of course; I’ve always held this. You choose the option that involves the least amount of total, aggregate suffering. It’s okay to eat an animal if you’re stuck on a deserted island (as it prevents your suffering)–it’s not okay to eat an animal in your apartment (as you can prevent your suffering without increasing that animal’s).

If as a drill instructor, I inflict suffering on my new recruits during their training, but increase their probability of survival in combat (by either improved training or by weeding up unfit recruits), I have thereby performed a moral act.

This is a spectacular statement–for you have applied the exact same standards I use in determining the morality of an action (reduction of suffering). The minor suffering you inflict on your recruits is made moral by the reduced chance of future suffering in combat. The end result of your action is an aggregate reduction of suffering; thus, it is moral.

The suffering of the parents who have to tend to a Down’s Syndrome baby will likely make them stronger and better people. Avoiding the suffering, will likely not only rob them of this growth opportunity, it will also inflict them with long-term guilt, possibly making them bitter and angry people as they grow older.

I believe the adults themselves are most qualified to make these decisions in individual cases.

Again-humans are better “animals” than the rest in their group.

Yes. They are not better than the group itself–they have not magically superseded their position in the Animal Kingdom. Again, Rob’s original statement was:

“Humans are better than animals.”

Unless you’ve been reading Nietzsche (or do not believe that human animals are, in fact, animals), this is a meaningless and completely absurd statement, akin to “trucks are better than automobiles” or “football is better than sports.”

It’s very dangerous to continue to allow teachers and professors, who propagandize students from a “left-leaning” agenda, to teach that “bullshit” to kids (captive audience) as if it’s axiomatic truth.
We can’t afford to have another generation of children graduating from highschool and college who have “ZERO” ability to reason properly beacuse they are “SO” overwhelmed by “feelings”
If we’re looking for the “source” of the problem; all we have to do is look more closely at our schools !!!!

I’m not “left-leaning” and every professor with whom I’ve ever discussed the issue of animal liberation has strongly disagreed with me.

Take Lester Burnham’s advice: Look closer.

Human vs. animal dichotomy represents illogical worldview.
Poor foolish kid! Attributing human qualities to animals and then using that to say humans are “against” animals is not on extremely childish but is also left leaning nonsense. Again this calls to mind animated movies like Lion King and Lady and the Tramp too much baby T.V. Dave!! Perhaps Winnie the Pooh is in dire need of your help right at this moment!!!
The concept of “animal liberation” purposely calls up reminders of slavery and errantly and foolishly equates animals with African Americans-who were “liberated” after the Emancipation Proclamation. Again left leaning horse-shit.

AW
You’re right on the money! Dave has all the markings of a spoiled little Momma’s boy.I like your satirical references to Dave’s “over- Disneyification”. Great stuff man!! Dave needs to be seriously “bitch-slapped.”

Mark: BTW, another car could be exciting because it looks good. You really didn’t think this through, did you?

I don’t understand your objections, unfortunately.
I have no idea what you mean.

I am trying to engage you on certain issues. You are refusing to do so.

Give me your views on Israel.

Do you see any connection between Israelis and Protestant settlers in Northern Ireland?

Would Britain’s sponsorship of a new state in North Dakota meet with your displeasure? Would it constitute a parallel example? If not, why not?

Are you homophobic?

Do you think Brokeback Mountain is a good book? (!)

Why are you so rude in your posts?

Calm

Bezu, I’m still waiting for you to set me straight on the question of Palestine. 1500 dead Palestinians, mostly civilians. 150 Israeli deaths, mostly military.

To “set you straight” Calm, I’d have to give you an assignment; a reading list of several books.

A series of Books that contain voluminously abundant and readily accessible, irrefutable historical facts; source material that is impeccably researched and meticulously footnoted.

Scholarly books based on the dispassionate desire of disinterested intellects to present an accurate retelling of the past rather than marching orders for the present.

To educate you properly and to undo the damage that’s already been done will take significant effort and time.

Judging only the statements you have posted in this and other threads, it seems that you’re justifying the faulty conclusions you’ve “already” drawn (which you simply restate in your questions=fallacy) by appealing to sensationalized “feelings” and “blind trust” in what other (equally biased) people have pulpiteered.

You ineffectually attempt to buttress your “evidence” with superficial information from hollow sources that are themselves based on partisan precepts and unsound discernment of the context of historical events.

An undertaking of the magnitude of what you’re requesting (to educate you) is quite challenging and can not be accomplished in a blog thread.

At the risk of completely boring all other readers, I will agree at least, to supply you with a beginner’s list of efficacious source material..

Another saw for you Davey – Those that throw stones shouldn’t live in glass houses.

On veggie liberals, I give you a survey, you give me one person, apparently your idol. Hardly an equal comparison.

Bezu
Judging by her statements and questions, I believe calm down to be an overly idealistic, simple minded silly little girl who has a romantic fairy-tale view of the world.
She needs to understand that the problem in the Middle East “ain’t no fucking cat show.” It’s a life and death struggle for survival!
We can’t afford to entertain “tea party” rhetoric when our way of life is being threatened.

I’m English.

We’re all generally a bit limp-wristed, and prone to mincing, stammering, and such-like.

Coo-ee!

[Now this is more like a serious discussion!]

Eating a normal human diet is obviously beneficial, because it’s…normal

Smoking is normal. Obviously that means it’s beneficial!

Hitler was a vegetarian, btw

Someone who likes cured meats is not a vegetarian.

One of your people

Stalin ate meat. Clearly he’s one of your people.

You are much more closely related to Hitler(via dietary extremism) than are consumers of a normal human diet.

Are you seriously suggesting that Dave is more closely related to Hitler because of his diet, than someone with a normal human diet like Mussolini?

Deary me. I know it’s late there, but dear dear dear…

Name a vegetable source of vitamin B12 that can be used by the human body.

Why must it be a vegetable? Most seaweeds and mushrooms contain B12.

I don’t understand why you have such a hard time with Dave’s notion that eating meat increases suffering. Now you don’t have to agree with him, but your constant outrage at his stance is bizarre and blunt-headed, full of disingenuous exclamations of bafflement and black-affrontedness. You know exactly what he means and why – you just don’t agree with him. I don’t agree with you on abortion, but I understand the logic of your position.
Don’t they teach you to see both sides of things in school? In history, we were encouraged to put ourselves in the position of the
people we were studying, rather than wilfully misunderstanding it…

The anti-gay comments are rather unwelcome too. Brokeback Mountain is a fantastic book, I’d rather
the grimy fingers of homophobia were left off it! Can we leave the personal insults out? “Arrogant extremism” and so forth?

“3. Do you think that the Palestines are an ancient peopls deprived of their land and nation by the Israelis?”

Well, it was mostly Britain who so cack-handedly organised the whole thing after the second world war, so it’s not just the fault of the Israelis, but it was never going to be a popular move with the people living there, was it? I do not condone the killing of civilians, but the Palestinians are hardly alone in this practice. Churchill (Dresden), Eisenhower (Hiroshima) and so on.

How would you feel if a foreign colonial power (in this case Britain) landed in North Dakota to create and sponsor a sovereign state which could dispossess you? You and your fellow countrymen would be reaching for your private arsenals before you could say NRA. Wouldn’t you? How did the Native (real) Americans feel?

And what about the illegal occupation of territory?

If this is all nonsense, please forgive me. If you can correct me, I can go and explain to the many here where I am who would echo much of what I’ve said!

Cheers.

This thread is retarded, because the subject of it was retarded.

The “cause” of its retardedness was the retardedness of the original subject. Therefore, all threads with retarded subjects are retarded. This is what “because” means.

Mark: “Robert -
You seem to have a poor understanding of the meaning of the word ‘because’.

If I were to say

This atom is one of oxygen, because it has 8 protons and 8 electrons in its nucleus, and 8 electrons, 2 in the inner shell, 6 in the outer

I am generalizing that all atoms with that particular configuration are ones of oxygen. Not some, all.Wrong. You are describing a definition. Oxygen is defined as having that structure. It is not a statement of causality, but definition. Get it? That is not how I meant “because”. I didn’t mean it as a definition. Try again.

Now another example. If I were to say

“you are a moron, because you are a conservative”

my statement (regardless of whether it is true or not) contains a generalization that all conservatives are morons. There is no escaping this plain fact.It is an expression of an opinion, not a fact at all. It is what the word ‘because’ means. If I thought any conservatives were not morons, the statement is nonsense, just as it would be in the case of the oxygen statement.Your statement is wrong, no matter how you phrase it. This is just a snarky way to namecall and insult. Personal attack generally indicates a lack of substance.

Precisely the same is true for

“this car is exciting because it goes fast”

The speaker here finds all fast things exciting.Wrong. The statement indicates a specific car, and so is specific to that car. He is indicating causality between his evaluation of that particular cars excitement value to him and its ability to go fast, nothing more. He is, therefore, making a generalization that all fast things are exciting.

A) He is not making a claim that cars are only exciting because they are fast (if he had been, he would have said, “this car, like all other cars, is only exciting because it is fast”), so your statement

BTW, another car could be exciting because it looks good. You really didn’t think this through, did you?

is irrelevant, and refutes nothing (I could repeat your last sentence there);It is a counterexample of another reason to find a particular car exciting, which refutes your claim of a generalized causal statement about excitement only being caused by the ability of that car to go fast.

B) Nor is he claiming that all cars are fast (he is only referring to one car), so

All cars are not fast, though

is again irrelevant, and refutes nothing.It refutes your entire claim of a generalized causal statement, rather than a particular one, as I said. I was right, and you are wrong here.

So (I cannot believe you are still refusing to accept this) when you said that

“Eating a normal human diet is obviously beneficial, because it’s…normal

you were generalizing that all normal things are beneficial.No, I wasn’t. I was specifically attributing the assumption of the beneficiality of a normal human(omnivorous) diet to its general use throughout human history and its use by almost the entire population of the Earth. That was my statement, not the one you made up. You could have asked, but you were too arrogant, apparently, to do so. You have thus wasted my time and the time of every other person who was unfortunate enough to read this exchange.

Either that, or your statement is an absurdity.”
Your arrogance makes you both ignorant and absurd.

To summarize: I expressed, in a fairly plain and simple statement, what might be considered a “majority opinion”. The vast majority of humans have not only chosen, but have multiplied and thrived on the normal human omnivorous diet, throughout human history. Therefore, I conclude, by the overwhelming evidence of human history, that the normal human diet is beneficial to humans. I made no definition here, just an obvious conclusion from the facts in evidence. You have presented absolutely no facts to the contrary, and have only made a weak and illogical attempt, through improper generalization, to attack me personally through some semantic gymnastics. Shame on you!

I bet that after reading Descartes, Awakened Warrior said, “Man, someone’s watched The Matrix a bit too many times! Too much baby TV!”

From AW’s prior posts, that’s as strong as a refutation he can provide.

Oh honey, Oscar Wilde you ain’t! No silly, if what I said on Israel and Palestine is nonsense, forgive me!! And, um, inherent in the post was a request to respond to my error, did you notice? I did ask nicely…
Plus, you didn’t really quote me fairly, did you? Mixed fragments together how you liked. So “calm wrote” is a little disingenuous of you, sweetie, isn’t it?
In summation, your post was neither funny, kind nor true, I’m afraid.

I hope you aren’t denying Brokeback Mountain is a fantastic book?

Instead of hiding behind your Mommie’s skirt,would you prefer to meet me in person for a good ‘ole Missouri ass kickin?

We can have a referee and use Marquess of Queensberry rules:

1. To be a fair stand-up boxing match in a twenty-four foot ring or as near that size as practicable.

2. No wrestling or hugging allowed.

3. The rounds to be of three minutes duration and one minute time between rounds.

4. If either man fall through weakness or otherwise, he must get up unassisted, ten seconds be allowed to do so, the other man meanwhile to return to his corner; and when the fallen man is on his legs the round is to be resumed and continued until the three minutes have expired. If one man fails to come to the scratch in the ten seconds allowed, it shall be in the power of the referee to give his awart in favour of the other man.

5. A man hanging on the ropes in a helpless state, with his toes off the ground, shall be considered down.

6. No seconds or any other person to be allowed in the ring during the rounds.

7. Should the contest be stopped by any unavoidable interference, the referee (is) to name the time and place as soon as possible for finishing the contest, to that the match can be won and lost, unless the backers of the men agree to draw the stakes.

8. The gloves to be fair-sized boxing gloves of the best quality and new.

9. Should a glove burst, or come off, it must be replaced to the referee’s satisfaction.

10. A man on one knee is considered down, and if struck is entitled to the stakes.

11. No shoes or boots with springs allowed.

12. The contest in all other respects to be governed by the revised rules of the London Prize Ring.

Calm Wrote:

I don’t understand… constant outrage at his stance…you just don’t agree with him….Don’t they teach you to see both sides of things…Brokeback Mountain is a fantastic book…I do not condone the killing of civilians, but…How would you feel if a foreign colonial power landed in North Dakota….what about the illegal occupation of territory…

If this is all nonsense, please forgive me

O.k. You are forgiven!!

Bezu

Spinach and all kinds of cabbage are a great vegetable sourc for B12.

Yea but He said that you said I said something that you said I didn’t say but nevertheless said that you said I said it. Which is of course untrue.
Additionally, he made reference to my sister-in-law’s second cousin’s half brother who married my best friend’s daughter’s ex-boyfriend’s step- niece. ER..Um…who is a vegetarian, I think, and er…um.. Is Hitler…no Stalin…I mean ..umm bbbaaambi ..No wait..

RE: Dave

The First Basic Law of Human Stupidity asserts without ambiguity that Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation. At first, the statement sounds trivial, vague and horribly ungenerous. Closer scrutiny will however reveal its realistic veracity. No matter how high are one’s estimates of human stupidity, one is repeatedly and recurrently startled by the fact that: people whom one had once judged rational and intelligent turn out to be unashamedly stupid. Day after day, with unceasing monotony, one is harassed in one’s activities by stupid individuals .
THE SECOND (AND GOLDEN) BASIC LAW OF STUPIDITY
A stupid person is a person who caused losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

The fact is that reasonable people have difficulty in conceiving and understanding unreasonable behavior.

But let us abandon the lofty plane of theory and let us look pragmatically at our daily life. We all recollect occasions in which a fellow took an action which resulted in his gain and our loss: we had to deal with a helpless person. We can recollect cases in which a fellow took an action by which both parties gained: he was intelligent. Such cases do indeed occur. But upon thoughtful reflection you must admit that these are not the events which punctuate most frequently our daily life.
Our daily life is mostly made of cases in which we lose money and/or time and/or energy and/or appetite, cheerfulness and good health because of the improbable action of some preposterous creature (I.E.-DAVE) who has nothing to gain and indeed gains nothing from causing us embarrassment, difficulties or harm.

Nobody knows, understands or can possibly explain why that preposterous creature (Dave) does what he does . In fact there is no explanation- or better, there is only one explanation: the person in question is stupid.

Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be costly mistake.

THE POWER OF STUPIDITY
It is not difficult to understand how social, political and institutional power enhances the damaging potential of a stupid person. But one still has to explain and understand what essentially it is that makes a stupid person dangerous to other people-in other words what constitutes the power of stupidity.

Essentially stupid people are dangerous and damaging because reasonable people find it difficult to imagine and understand unreasonable behavior. An intelligent person may understand the logic of a bandit. The bandit’s actions follow a pattern of rationality:nasty rationality, if you like, but still rationality. The bandit wants a plus on his account. Since he is not intelligent enough to devise ways of obtaining the plus as well as providing you with a plus, he will produce his plus by causing a minus to appear on your account. All this is bad, but it is rational and if you are rational you can predict it. You can foresee a bandit’s actions, his nasty maneuvers and ugly aspirations and often can build up your defenses.

On this page, Robert stated that something is beneficial because it is normal.

He then denied he ever said this.

He said that Hitler was a vegetarian.

He wasn’t.

He said that Hitler was “one of Dave’s people”, because he was a vegetarian.

Which is as ludicrous as saying that Stalin “is one of his people”, on the basis of his normal meat-eating diet.

He said that Dave is more closely related to Hitler, purely on the basis of his diet, than are consumers of a normal human diet.

So, nonsensically, he thinks that Mussolini is less related to Hitler than Dave.

He said that smoking is not normal, and also that it is not abnormal. So what is it?

He has said, erroneously, that the vegan diet is B12 deficient.

It isn’t.

He has said that because dietary supplements don’t exist in nature, they are not part of a normal diet.

So, according to his logic, bread is not part of a normal diet.

Despite this catalogue of factual and logical errors, inconsistencies and evasions, I am supposedly the one on the ropes?

Deary me.

Mark writes:

On this page, Robert stated that something is beneficial because it is normal.

He then denied he ever said this.

He said that Hitler was a vegetarian.

He wasn’t.

He said that Hitler was “one of Dave’s people”, because he was a vegetarian.

Which is as ludicrous as saying that Stalin “is one of his people”, on the basis of his normal meat-eating diet.

He said that Dave is more closely related to Hitler, purely on the basis of his diet, than are consumers of a normal human diet.

So, nonsensically, he thinks that Mussolini is less related to Hitler than Dave.

He said that smoking is not normal, and also that it is not abnormal. So what is it?

He has said, erroneously, that the vegan diet is B12 deficient.

It isn’t.

He has said that because dietary supplements don’t exist in nature, they are not part of a normal diet.

So, according to his logic, bread is not part of a normal diet.

Yeah, that about sums it up. But we could do that with r108 on ANY thread!

It was never a serious discussion….
Deary Me!
Oh MY!
You Go Girl!

Markey Mark:
I think an issue that is far more important to debate than normal vs beneficial & diet vs political ideology is the following “very serious” question:

How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?

If an infinite number of angels can fit on the head of a pin, then an angel has no material substance and is definitely a purely spiritual, non-material entity.
If, instead, some finite number of angles can fit on the head of a pin, then the spiritual universe is not much different from the physical universe.

Now that’s serious!!!!

Robert -

“This car is exciting because it goes fast” [1]

Statement [1] contains the generalisation that all fast things are exciting. Because the car is fast, it is, like all other fast things, exciting. Agreed so far?

Statement [1], therefore, would obviously be in direct contradiction with a statement like

“I never made the generalisation that all fast things are exciting” [2]

because statement [1] did generalise that all fast things are exciting.

Now, your statement

Eating a normal human diet is obviously beneficial, because it’s…normal.

contains the generalisation that all normal things are beneficial. Because the diet is normal, it is, like all other normal things, beneficial.

Your statement, therefore, would obviously be in direct contradiction with a statement like

“I never made the generalisation that all normal things are benificial”

because your initial statement did generalise that all normal things are beneficial.

I hope this is now clear.

You stated that, attributed it to me, then refuted your own creation.

What I stated were your own words. I had no need to ‘create’ anything.

You brought up smoking, tried to rope me into a meaningless discussion of the normality/abnormality of smoking

Err… I think it was you who started quibbling about whether smoking was normal or abnormal. Correction. It was you.

Try addressing the point in future

This from someone who, instead of addressing my point that not all normal things are beneficial, decided to make a statistical quibble about what qualifies as a normal activity. Pot? Kettle?

Angus:

If it is your argument that humans omnivores are more culpable for eating meat than other animals, then that would belie your argument that “[n]o, we are animals–you can’t be ‘better than’ the group you belong to”, as you would be ascribing some attribute to human animals that you don’t ascribe to other animals, which would necessarily place them in a different group.

Angus: excellent job pointing out flawed logic!
Dave’s statements are packed with it. No amount of persuasive (time-tested) reasoning will change his faulty perception of the world. Kids like Dave have been brainwashed and indoctrinated since pre-k and through college, by shyster (government school)employees and proselytizing proagandists masquerading as university professors.
Because they are so overwhelmed by “FEELINGS”,they don’t seem to have the ability to “concede” even the (possible) viability of a minor premise.

PETA=People Eating Tasty Animals. Veal is very tasty, and greatly relieves my suffering from hunger.

We’re better than animals.

No, we are animals–you can’t be “better than” the group you belong to. It’s like saying “males are better than humans”–completely meaningless.

Furthermore, quite a few human animals are “worse than” non-human animals–compare a chimpanzee with a Down’s syndrome child. But that doesn’t mean we can eat retards.

Carrick writes:

It is through pain that we learn to avoid things that will harm us. It is through suffering that we come to grips with the mistakes that we have made in our past. (…)It is through being tested by pain, discomfort and even periods of suffering that we determine who we really are.

Apply a single one of these examples to a veal calf.

You are quite silly.

Robert -

“This car is exciting because it goes fast” [1]

Statement [1] contains the generalisation that all fast things are exciting. Because the car is fast, it is, like all other fast things, exciting. Agreed so far?

Statement [1], therefore, would obviously be in direct contradiction with a statement like

“I never made the generalisation that all fast things are exciting” [2]

because statement [1] did generalise that all fast things are exciting.

Now, your statement

Eating a normal human diet is obviously beneficial, because it’s…normal.

contains the generalisation that all normal fast things are beneficial. Because the diet is normal, it is, like all other normal things, beneficial.

Your statement, therefore, would obviously be in direct contradiction with a statement like

“I never made the generalisation that all normal things are benificial”

because your initial statement did generalise that all normal things are beneficial.

I hope this is now clear.

You stated that, attributed it to me, then refuted your own creation.

What I stated were your own words. I had no need to ‘create’ anything.

You brought up smoking, tried to rope me into a meaningless discussion of the normality/abnormality of smoking

Err… I think it was you who started quibbling about whether smoking was normal or abnormal. Correction. It was you.

Try addressing the point in future

This from someone who, instead of addressing my point that not all normal things are beneficial, decided to make a statistical quibble about what qualifies as a normal activity. Pot? Kettle?

Is a lion morally the same as a Nazi when it eats an antelope?

No, the lion is not as rational as a human–it can’t understand how its actions are wrong. Humans can.

If it is your argument that humans omnivores are more culpable for eating meat than other animals

It is.

then that would belie your argument that “[n]o, we are animals–you can’t be ‘better than’ the group you belong to”, as you would be ascribing some attribute to human animals that you don’t ascribe to other animals, which would necessarily place them in a different group.

Human animals are, on average, much smarter than other animals–in the same way that whales are much larger than other animals. What’s your point?

Mark writes:

Vegans can get B12 from dietary supplements.

Or from 2 bowls of cereal and a bottle of Powerade. Vitamin B12 is very easy to get on a vegan diet; quite frankly, I have no idea how that bit of misinformation got started. You don’t need supplements at all; you don’t even need to watch it very carefully.

Whine,whine,cry,cry. Now tell us how you are morally superior because you advocate infanticide. We never get tired of that lameassed shit.

AW: About the “fascist” thing. To a Marxist, a fascist is anyone who questions his ideology. It’s used to manipulate emotionally, not as a substantive argument. Marxism doesn’t stand up to substantive argument, since it is based on erroneous premises and wrong assumptions about human nature. I’m not saying that Mark is a Marxist; he doesn’t speak enough of his own words to make any such determination. He is a sniper. He tries to dismantle the arguments of others by using semantics(as you have pointed out), and by inappropriate generalizations, which change the nature of the original argument.

Because “retards” can’t feel pain, right mullet boy?

No, of course they can! Don’t be silly. If infants could not feel pain, what would be the point of euthanizing them?

AW: That must be it. Or, we know the truth and Mark doesn’t. Pick ‘em.

Nope, AlphaWhiskey, you hit it in the black. Total fucking idiot, and quite willingly so. davey is very happy in his world sans morals. I believe the fumes from the Squishy machine melted his brain. We told Apu to install a vent-a-lation-o-matic, but he would not listen.

Consciousness

Robert

Very well articulated- precision and pin-point accuracy.
I wonder if the only reason I can clearly understand you but not mark is because we’re both fascists and mark is so morally superior to us that his words only SEEM esoterically abstract and incomprehensible.
I might have to go talk to my pastor about this-you see, I’m very troubled by it.

should read, by the very terms of the argument you are presenting,

To breathe in oxygen (in a regular fashion) is normal and beneficial

Mark, to make my statement even less of a whopper (as you’ve already helped me with by so astutely adding the words “in a regular fasion” maybe-along that same line of reasoning-we should also add:

-with your nostrils not your ears
-into your lungs not your stomach
-while your heart is pumping
-if their air’s not polluted
-while you’re awake or asleep
And
-without being strangled by Hezbollah

Dave
You seem like a nice kid but as usual, you either missed the point completely or understood the point and are purposely avoiding it. Your tendancy to skirt the basic premise of a comment or to ignore rationale of it, is exactly what I was trying to underscore in my post. I was (very obviously) not refering to your “veganism” as the subject (of my remarks) but rather your intrinsic inability to recognize and/or utilize proper logic.
You’re like a man who lost his wallet in a dark basement but is looking for it out on the sidewalk because there’s more light out there.
AW

Like the anti-war protesters who are only excersising their first amendment right to free speech, I’m protesting “veganism” and I’m calling for a “DAVE” boycott. Don’t block him but don’t anyone resopond to anything he writes; this’ll drive his maniacal ego over the top.

Dave lied babies died…Dave lied babies died …Dave lied babies died

Where’s my anti-vegan protest sign?

2H9

I’m pretty sure Dave is just a “very” misguided kid who’s viewpoint has been corrupted by “government school” teachers and/or marxists(hate America) college professors.

Since “left-wing school indoctrination” started in the 60′s, Dave may be representative of a 2nd or 3rd generation of like minded people with parents who propogated the same gobbledygook.

I regret calling him a “total fucking idiot” because I don’t think he has (as of yet) had the opportunities (life experiences) to develop a realistic view of the world. Most people with Dave’s psychosis don’t get “saved” (non-religiously speaking) until they’re in their late 30′s and some never get redeemed.

The statement made by Rob (I think) simply stated something like: “Humans are better than animals”
Of course, anyone (like- say- a reasonable adult) with any literary common sense would “INFER” from these simple words that the “group” being assumed is “sentient beings” not “animals.”

That was Dave’s very first mistake in logic:
Misstating someone else’s basic contention and then arguing from that “faulty” premise.

(We can see countless examples of this same thing in the main stream media.)

Even if the “group” being presupposed was “animals” one would infer that Rob was pointing to the superiority of a “category” within that group.

Except Dave, no one failed to make the correct imputation of meaning (and comparison) to “humans’ and “animals” in Rob’s original post.

I’ve noticed that several “kids” (like Dave) who comment on this blog share the common fallacious (and troubling) characteristic of misusing words and failing to understand their proper relationships within a certain context combined with the inability to logically “process” facts .
They continually (and I think unknowingly) mistake semantics for reason and logic; as if a subtle variation in the meaning of a word, applied in a different order in a sentence or paragraph, some how changes the logic of an argument.
There are many (life and death)geo- political issues that need to be seriously addressed by cold sober minds.
It’s very dangerous to continue to allow teachers and professors, who propagandize students from a “left-leaning” agenda, to teach that “bullshit” to kids (captive audience) as if it’s axiomatic truth.
We can’t afford to have another generation of children graduating from highschool and college who have “ZERO” ability to reason properly beacuse they are “SO” overwhelmed by “feelings”
If we’re looking for the “source” of the problem; all we have to do is look more closely at our schools !!!!

“All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth.” Aristotle:

Check out: Dangerous Minds

The function of the university is to seek and to transmit knowledge and to train students in the processes whereby truth is to be known. To convert, or make converts, is alien and hostile to this dispassionate duty. Where it becomes necessary, in performing this function of a university, to consider political, social, or sectarian movements, they are dissected and examined, not taught, and the conclusion left, with no tipping of the scales, to the logic of the facts….Essentially the freedom of a university is the freedom of competent persons in the classroom. In order to protect this freedom, the University assumed the right to prevent exploitation of its prestige by unqualified persons who would use it as a platform for propaganda. The activist agendas of today’s academics are not only a departure from academic tradition; they are violations of established principles of academic freedom dating back to 1915.

Okay, I’ll put it more simply, bezu. You misread my post. I wish for you to educate me on the Israeli situation; as you are perfectly aware, it is in that context that I asked for forgiveness, if I was talking nonsense, and not as regards the other content. Plus, you rather meanly took bits of phrases and stuck ‘em the gether.

How can I be guilty of fallacial reasoning when I simply asked a question?

Circular reasoning? A request for an informative answer isn’t reasoning in the first place.

What blind trust? What do you mean? Why not answer my points, however flawed or wrong they may be, rather than this sophomoric analysis of how they are presented?

“In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion.”

Reason given for what?

And once again davey shows his inbred stupidity and begin whining and crying in 5,,4,,3,,2,,,,

AW: What are the two ways of getting intel?

Recon and Interrogation

Dave: All trucks are better at carrying cargo than cars are; that is why they are trucks and not cars. That is elementary logic. What you wrote had nothing to do with logic at all, as usual.

You have, in the past, admitted you enjoy circlular arguments that go nowhere because they are “fun”.

I have done no such thing. I have enjoyed off-topic digressions, particularly with Seth. But those are not ‘circular’, nor did they ‘go nowhere’, despite your attempt to characterise them as such.

The above thread being a perfect example

There was nothing ‘circular’ about the above discussion. It was an honest debate about whether things that are ‘normal’ are always beneficial. To suggest my posts are purely malicious, or whimsical, or that I’m stirring up logical confusion, is utterly ridiculous.

I’m still waiting for your proof that the normal human diet results in more aggregate suffering than would exist if we couldn’t consume our normal animal food.

Here you go r108:

“To simplify, say we have only two dietary options: we can eat non-human animal products, or we can not. Since we will not experience any more or less suffering either way, and since the first option (omnivorism) involves the infliction of pain and the second one–veganism–does not, if we choose omnivorism we are increasing the amount of suffering in the world.”

BTW: Are you in a contest with someone to see who can use the word “normal” the most? This is like Conrad’s “magnanimous” in The Secret Agent.

Dave:

Apply a single one of these examples to a veal calf.

I don’t eat veal. If the only way one could be a carnivore would be by eating veal, you might have had a point.

You are quite silly.

Classy argument.

Your argument on the consumption of meat depends upon suffering being an evil that must be avoided. This is the Achilles heel of your argument. If suffering in itself is not always to be avoided, but is sometimes a necessary part of growth, then your entire argument is a wash out.

Put another way, if the mere act of creating suffering in another is not necessarily always an evil act in and of itself, then you can’t judge whether an act is moral or immoral based solely upon whether it inflicts suffering. Rather, you must include the overarching effects of the action. Of course, I’m speaking in generalities here, at the level at which a code of ethics is created.

If as a drill instructor, I inflict suffering on my new recruits during their training, but increase their probability of survival in combat (by either improved training or by weeding up unfit recruits), I have thereby performed a moral act.

Similarly, as a teacher, if I try to shelter my students from any suffering, say, inflicted by homework, I have committed an immoral act.

So when you say it’s OK to euthanize a small child, because that child has a birth defect, simply on the basis that it reduces suffering on the part of the parent, you are in fact, entirely, as in “couldn’t be more”, wrong. Simply eliminating or creating suffering is no indicator of whether the act is moral or immoral. The suffering of the parents who have to tend to a Down’s Syndrome baby will likely make them stronger and better people. Avoiding the suffering, will likely not only rob them of this growth opportunity, it will also inflict them with long-term guilt, possibly making them bitter and angry people as they grow older.

And where did Carrick go after making that ludicrous post?

Classy. This coming from the person who wrote:

you can’t be “better than” the group you belong to.

Likely this is the most laughably stupid thing I’ve seen anybody write in a month.

The funny thing is you act the ass, as you did with my comments, then you get your feelings hurt that anybody would be offensive towards you. All you do is throw out emotionally laden arguments mostly devoid of any real depth of thought, then get all pissy when anybody points out the flaws in them.

Ok, so maybe 2H9 shouldn’t have called you a “child molester” (actually he suggested your goal was to become one).

Perhaps “molester” (HOLY FUCK, SCARE QUOTES!) is the wrong choice of word. I thing “abuser” would be a better choice, because legally anyone who advocates infanticide is advocating the abuse of a child. It’s as simple as that.

Now I’m out of here. I’m going to be pretty busy the rest of this week, so don’t get all huffy if I don’t respond to anything you write for a while.

AW, marky is one of those trolls who enjoy spinning around in pointless circles while claiming the moral high ground on account of his astounding pretzel logic. davey is much the same.

Dave: “No, the lion is not as rational as a human–it can’t understand how its actions are wrong.”

By what standard are the lion’s actions wrong? Love to hear your thinking on this one. I have heard some pretty convoluted BS in my time, so bring it.

AW -
I find it rather amusing that in a post criticizing my logic, you present an absolute whopper.

Namely -
To breathe in oxygen is normal and beneficial

should read, by the very terms of the argument you are presenting,

To breathe in oxygen in a regular fashion is normal and beneficial

The very absence of this qualifier allows you to manufacture a contradiction out of thin air.

Normal and abnormal- especially when being applied to and defined by cultural mores and life style choices-is quite subjective and arguing about it is like trying to figure out how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

I can agree with that entirely.

My sole dispute here was with this claim -

Eating a normal human diet is obviously beneficial, because it’s…normal

Robert said that a human diet is beneficial because it is normal. That simply does not follow. Something is ‘normal’ on the basis of statistics, not its benefits.

He has accepted this.

Dave: Just for starters, the population of the US is about 300 million. 0.2% of that (.002) is 600,000, not 4 million, so I guess your math skills are on a par with your logic skills. Buddhists are vegetarians, btw, not vegans. They, as well as the Hindus, eat dairy products, like milk, butter and yogurt, so don’t try to include them in your extremism. I don’t know if Wiki’s number is accurate, but even if it is, my estimate is accurate, not yours.
As far as the flaws in your argument, let me ‘splain it to you again; it is one big flaw. The choices are not as you said, but are: eat meat and be healthy, avoid eating meat and suffer hunger and malnutrition(if you don’t have ready access to supplements), or have Dave’s extreme diet imposed on you. The second two involve a lot more suffering, and human suffering, at that, than does the first one. Get it?

Mark, here is a short troll test. What are your answers?
1. Do you associate Bush with Hitler?
2. Do you believe the the USA is the cause of all the distress in the world?
3. Do you think that the Palestines are an ancient peopls deprived of their land and nation by the Israelis?
4. Do you think that Gore or Kerry would have been better presidents than Bush?
5. Do you believe that we are at war against Islamic fundamentalists who promote terrorism?

We Are All Vegetables Now. What color schem should we use?

True!
He brought the initial point so far away from its origin that it was impossible to keep track of it. Sniper’s a good characterization of the tactic!
AW

Marine Recon

Dave: You are a dietary extremist. Not only that, but you are arrogant enough to think your way is best, even though the vast majority of the world doesn’t agree with you. You probably thinks that makes you special, and superior to the rest of us. I doubt that there are “millions” of vegans around the world. Vegans are more extreme than vegetarians. You are certainly entitled to your own personal beliefs; just don’t try to push them on those who aren’t interested in your extremism. If you want to feel really superior, become a breatharian. Your suffering argument is your own. You believe it, but almost no one else does.
Again, trucks are better than cars at carrying cargo. You still don’t have that “logic” thing down.

robert108
Dave’s forte’ is making flawed equivalences and faulty analogies. Bear that in mind.

Hey Robert-great point- manytimes, when these folks get challenged on flawed logic, they backpedal and resort to saying something like- it’s satire or it’s a parody- is it possible that dave and mark are just kidding around? How else can one explain this aberrant paradigm?

Toche’
Score:
Robert 10
Dave and Mark 0
P.S.
Q.E.D. is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase “quod erat demonstrandum” (literally, “which was to be demonstrated”). mathematicians used it to show that the result required for the proof to be completed had been obtained.
At least the kid did a little homework
AW

bezu fache:

I was (very obviously) not refering to your “veganism” as the subject (of my remarks) but rather your intrinsic inability to recognize and/or utilize proper logic.

You have provided no examples of my “intrinsic inability to recognize and/or utilize proper logic.” You agreed with Angus’s, even though he was using a flawed definition of animal “equality” to try to “catch” me in a contradiction. Yes, humans are the most intelligent species of animal; No, this does not mean we are justified in ignoring the ethical considerations of other species. We’re all members of the animal kingdom (as I said before), and (almost) all of us can experience pain–the crucial characteristic.

And where did Carrick go after making that ludicrous post?

I never said that smoking is abnormal

Interesting. Didn’t you say that -

Smoking is not normal?

That is to say, deviating from the normal – abnormal?

As smoking is a contentious example of normality, what about drinking alcohol? I would vouch that is certainly normal, but hardly beneficial.

Furthermore, you have accepted my point, namely that “what is ‘normal’ is not, by definition, beneficial” –

Agreed, but that is irrelevant to my statement, which was that the normal human omnivorous diet is beneficial. You have presented nothing to refute that argument. Instead you made a straw man argument about smoking.

Forgive me, but I didn’t set out to refute that argument. I only intended to refute your claim that something which is normal is by definition beneficial, which you have now accepted is wrong.

Your idea of “moral consistency”. You have not proved that it is applicable to anyone but yourself. No facts.

All I suggested was that moral consistency was the putative basis for Dave’s veganism. I wasn’t making any claims about its veracity, nor was I intending to.

Supplements don’t exist in nature

Neither do cakes, beer, cookies, bread… ad infinitum. I take it you refuse to consume those as part of your normal, natural diet?

davey, I don’t believe you are sexually molesting anything! From what you have said here and elsewhere I believe you fully capable and eager to mentally molest anyone you get the chance to. Your repeated advocations, and glorifications, of infanticide stand as testament to that. Your pretensions to moral superiority would be laughable, except you say you are going to be a teacher. Get it now, moron?!? Your situational ethics are the last thing a teacher should be embracing. Clarity! Both moral and philosophical, are what you need to find. And if at the end of that search you find yourself standing in the same place, you should choose a different career.

Are you saying smoking is abnormal? That seems a little strong.

Normal (adj.) -
Conforming to a standard, usual, typical, expected.

I would suggest that smoking fulfils at least 3 of those criteria. My point stands. Unless you have a different definition of ‘normal’.

Crucially, what is ‘normal’ is not, by definition, beneficial, or morally just.

Dietary extremism like Dave’s is relatively recent in human history, and is ideologically based, not nutritionally based.

I would say (speaking for Dave) that it is based on moral consistency. To term that an ‘ideology’ is a little far-fetched.

It is not B12 deficient, as is the vegan diet.

Vegans can get B12 from dietary supplements.

He broached the subject by labeling people who eat a normal human diet as “Nazis”. Are you suggesting that is accurate?

No. I think that would be unacceptably loose use of terminology. Having said that, I think (bear in mind my limited reading of this blog) the furthest Dave goes is to make ethical comparisons between the behaviour of Nazis and the behaviour of meat-eaters. That is different from saying meat-eaters are Nazis.

AW:

All trucks are automobiles; cars are automobiles-therefore all trucks must be cars.

Thus, it is impossible for trucks to be “better than” automobiles, since trucks are automobiles. Trucks may be better than some automobiles, but it is logically impossible for them to be better than just automobiles. You can’t be better than the group to which you belong–you can only be better than other members of that group. Human animals are better than snails, but they are not better than “animals,” because humans are animals. This is elementary logic.

Dave: Once the cheap labor source dried up, automation happened. Exactly why we don’t need cheap illegal labor. It impedes progress.
Eating a normal human diet is obviously beneficial, because it’s…normal. It has nothing to do with Nazism, which was National Socialism. Hitler was a vegetarian, btw. One of your people. You are much more closely related to Hitler(via dietary extremism) than are consumers of a normal human diet. It does predate Nazism by a couple hundred thousand years, btw. Your extreme diet…?

QED

Toodle pip!

r108

And why 100% of vegans are leftards.

Back up that statement.

Calm

What blind trust? What do you mean? Why not answer my points, however flawed or wrong they may be, rather than this sophomoric analysis of how they are presented?

Logic: informal fallacies

a) I asked my doctor why my mouth is so dry and he said because my salivary glands are not producing enough saliva

Flaw=The conclusion says approximately the same thing as the premises

(b) Have you given up that annoying habit of answering every question with a question?

Flaw=Framing a question in such a way that it requires a specific answer.

This fallacy is your biggest drawback and is the main reason why the conversation can’t continue. I believe you questions to be disingenuous.

(c) Jamie: We ought to have national health insurance? Brendt: But that is socialism.

Flaw=Arguing by labeling, as if this is a sufficient reason. Packing tacit assumptions into a label.

These are the most predominant flaws in your posts.
When you correct them, we can begin our debate

Pain is bad.

Because “retards” can’t feel pain, right mullet boy?

Furthermore, quite a few human animals are “worse than” non-human animals–compare a chimpanzee with a Down’s syndrome child. But that doesn’t mean we can eat retards.

Of course it doesn’t mean we can eat “retards,” dummy. “Retards” are human.

Though I find it interesting that you’d have no problem with parents offing a newborn Downs syndrome baby because that baby might pose a hardship in their lives. Because eating a hamburger is equivalent to being a nazi, but killing your mentally handicapped infant is something to be comended.

Davey’s rationalizing of his out-in-orbit veganism views to jive with his pro-infanticide views begins in 5…4…3…2…

Humans are animals, but not mere animals. We’re better than animals. We’re humans. Animals are just dumb animals.

And tasty too. At least in some instances. I’ve had antelope and it’s gross.

Wouldn’t recommend squid either.

I don’t think this post was all that retarded. I thought it was pretty funny.

Did 2H9 say you did anything? He said you want to be a teacher so you can molest children. I don’t know if that’s why you want to be a teacher or not, nor do I know if 2H9 meant “molest” in a sexual sense.

I’m not defending 2H9′s insults as I find them aggravating and boring, but if you want to call people Nazis you had better be prepared for some return fire.