General Discussion - 2

Nightfall · Jun 05, 2009 7:49 PM

Spyro Master wrote:

Saphina, i got one more RE exam left ,
one small problem in using up everything, what the hell do we do when its all gone? answer me that XD lol

You mean the fact that the stuff they drill into us at skull (school) we're likely never to use again? Yep, I've moaned too. roll

Oh and good luck with your RE. smile Why have you got two?

Spyro Master · Jun 05, 2009 7:58 PM

I dunno, stupid yr 11 GCSEs i suppose XD, anyway i doubt i will use it again either lol, ive got enough good morals and how to live just from going through life, thats all i need.

RedDragonX · Jun 05, 2009 8:53 PM

Humans were meant to eat meat and plants...that's why we were created as Obnivores. I hate it when people go off about killing all those innocent animals.

Well if we were still living in a world millions of years ago something else would have eaten us to stay alive..and we need to eat to stay alive as well. It just so happens that we are near the top of the foodchain.

Aceedwin · Jun 06, 2009 7:36 AM

All right, but would any of you eat another human? If not, you're more prejudiced species-wise than the vegetarians.

I'm not a veggie, but I hate to see everyone agreeing with each other so nicely. You people shouldn't have a discussion condemning something without a balanced expression of both sides of the arguments.

bmah · Jun 06, 2009 8:13 AM

Aceedwin wrote:

All right, but would any of you eat another human? If not, you're more prejudiced species-wise than the vegetarians.
I'm not a veggie, but I hate to see everyone agreeing with each other so nicely. You people shouldn't have a discussion condemning something without a balanced expression of both sides of the arguments.

You eat to survive, and eating others go against that simple logic. Also, unlike certain species (namely some insects), it's not advantageous to eat your own species - that might only work for species with large rates of reproduction.
So it's not as cut-and-dry as you might like to put it. Also, I doubt you're hungry for me anyways...lol.

ember_da_dragon · Jun 06, 2009 8:50 AM

of the topic sorry but i may sound stupid. where is the pictures of you thread? i saw it once now i can't find it...

Aceedwin · Jun 06, 2009 9:24 AM

It appears to have vanished... Huh.

I think what you're saying is eating people of your species is bad for your species (woah, deja vu...), but that's not the point I'm making. I mean, if we were to do what was best for the species we'd immediately cut down on natural resources we use to allow sustained use of our planet.

The point I'm making is that while we can scoff at vegetarians and say "Plants are living too" but while they are prejudiced against beings outside the animal kingdom, we omnivores are prejudiced against every other species. So my favorite argument against vegetarianism has a counter-argument. Nuts.

And finally, that statement of yours bmah, "You eat to survive, eating others go against that simple logic." I must be missing something there. Eating others is necessary for survival in your first statement, then al of a sudden in your second statement it's bad.

bmah · Jun 06, 2009 6:13 PM

It's besides the point, since for humans, cannibalism won't really get you far. I probably should've specified that I was talking about our own species in my previous post. In a broader sense, it's applicable to most mammals.

Aceedwin · Jun 06, 2009 7:43 PM

Cannibalism... What if a plane crashed and there wasn't enough food. Would you kill others for your own survival and later lie to authorities, saying they died in the crash and you buried them, or simply starve?

I'm stuck on the wrong side of this argument...

Hurricos_McBreixo · Jun 06, 2009 8:21 PM

Cannibalism is something that has always existed in nature, and we humans are no exception to it.

To answer your question Aceedwin, I would eat another human. If my survival depended upon it I'd do it. Ppl are quick to say nay to this act of nature because of emotional ties to their species and legal problems.

Though you humans would probably taste the same as chicken, pork, or beef does tongue

...

Aceedwin · Jun 06, 2009 8:30 PM

So you take a similiar stance to me, necessity negates morals and emotions. Or something close to that.

Now, what I'm saying is that if you want to be a vegetarian, it is at least, morally equal to meat-eating. Going against vegetarians is a bit like going against pro-life. In the end, they have the better argument overall, you can only hope they lack the knowledge to use it all.

bmah · Jun 06, 2009 9:13 PM

Well, I'm assuming that when you said:

Aceedwin wrote:

All right, but would any of you eat another human? If not, you're more prejudiced species-wise than the vegetarians.
I'm not a veggie, but I hate to see everyone agreeing with each other so nicely. You people shouldn't have a discussion condemning something without a balanced expression of both sides of the arguments.

we're referring to society as it is today, and not in a case where we have no food left. It's not a "balanced discussion" if we have to say that humans should eat one another as a counterargument to the fact that we choose what we eat; it's just silly (in today's society) to use that argument. It's for our convenience and well-being that we don't eat each other, in the way society stands today.

A Guy · Jun 06, 2009 9:35 PM

Less plants to absorb CO2 = faster global warming.

Vegetarians are responsible for it all.

~cornys~ · Jun 07, 2009 3:54 AM

Aicebo wrote:

Swaffy wrote:
I think humans were meant to eat meat anyways.
Before the human race was cursed after the Adam and Eve event, I
believe that God gave us the rights to eat meat.
Genesis 9:3 - "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just
as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."
Don't be too religious now
But I do agree on how we're made to eat meat. The whole reason that pigs, cows, and chickens are even raised the way they are is for humans to eat, and they're not going extinct anytime soon.

Ironicaly why I didn't explain myself... lol

Aceedwin · Jun 07, 2009 8:53 AM

A Guy wrote:

Less plants to absorb CO2 = faster global warming.
Vegetarians are responsible for it all.

Cows and sheep are the number one producers of methane, which is 21 times more effective at heating up our planet.

Growing plants takes CO2 out of the air, lowering the temperature, but then later we eat them, which adds carbon to us, which we then burn off as CO2. In actuality, a vegetarian meal is mostly caron-neutral.

Vegetarians will always win in the global warming argument.

Now to bmah's point:

Did you know, that if no-one ate meat, world famine would be non-existent, we can get ten times the energy from the sun from plants, thatn from animals. Simple biology. Now tell me eating meat is better for society, when there are children dying in Africa of malnutrition, while we chomp away on beefburgers.

My trump card. God, I hate to admit it, but veggies have a much better argument. If I wasn't roughly amoral, I'd be crying into an eco-hanky right about now.

In other words, if we all went veggie, global warming would be stopped, destruction of the rainforests would be slowed, health issues with fast food would be gone, and finally, we could say goodbye to world famine.

Now tell me meat-eating is beneficial to society, when it solves all those problems.

ontels · Jun 07, 2009 9:43 AM

It's like some cruel joke, the best tasting food available is also the responsible for allot of our troubles.

Spyro Master · Jun 07, 2009 3:05 PM

Well then the solution is simple, try to have less of it. Although i do admit that can be hard i guess *tries to resist the chocolate cake in the fridge*

fbocabral · Jun 07, 2009 4:11 PM

any exaggeration is harmful

A Guy · Jun 07, 2009 5:17 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

In other words, if we all went veggie, global warming would be stopped

Untrue. We still have cars. Not to mention, more animals = more CO2.

destruction of the rainforests would be slowed

...okay, how the hell is this true? What does meat-eating have to do with cutting down rainforests? In fact, we would need MORE space to plant food, so we would have to cut down more rainforest.

health issues with fast food would be gone

It's the fault of the people that eat the fast food for not being responsible. The same thing could be said about smoking.

and finally, we could say goodbye to world famine.

...uh, how? If we started raising animals in Africa for food, that would slow or stop hunger there as well.

Now give me a good counter-argument.

Aceedwin · Jun 07, 2009 5:38 PM

*cracks knuckles*

Global warming: A) Cars have negligible impact, it's farm animals that are the real problem, no matter what the goverment say, in their froth of hatred against the middle-class. B) Animals being reared for the chop is the methane producing issue here. If we stop eating meat, there will in fact be less animals, due to lack of farming.

Rainforest: No, a serious factor is the will to graze crops on the land. And since growing animals uses up food, there will be less demand for food overall.

Fast food: But still, my point stands.

Famine: For every calorie of meat, ten calories of fodder were used to make it. By that logic, if we all went veggie, there would be a great deal more food efficiency.

A Guy · Jun 07, 2009 5:50 PM

Global warming: A) Cars have negligible impact, it's farm animals that are the real problem, no matter what the goverment say, in their froth of hatred against the middle-class. B) Animals being reared for the chop is the methane producing issue here. If we stop eating meat, there will in fact be less animals, due to lack of farming.

I'll give you A (I read some statistics in a newspaper). However, B is blatantly incorrect. There will be MORE animals if their growth is unchecked.

Rainforest: No, a serious factor is the will to graze crops on the land. And since growing animals uses up food, there will be less demand for food overall.

That doesn't mean that we're not going to need wood or use up space for growing food.

Fast food: But still, my point stands.

Well, what about tobacco, then?

Famine: For every calorie of meat, ten calories of fodder were used to make it. By that logic, if we all went veggie, there would be a great deal more food efficiency.

It has nothing to do with efficiency. It has everything to do with money. Farmers aren't just going to throw food at Africa for free.

Aceedwin · Jun 07, 2009 6:04 PM

Global warming: No, you're missing the obvious point. They won't go unchecked, they'll enter the ecosystem and be cut down by predators. It's our farming and breeding of these animals that encourages their growth. We provide a safe environment for them, it's not like we hunt them, we REAR them.

Rainforest: I said it would slow, not stop.

Fast food: Tobacco is fairly unaffected. What? You expected it to solve EVERY problem we have?

Famine: You're not getting this, they're the farmers. The point is, the demand will be less, but I'll bet the prices won't be as drastically effected. Basically, there will be more food to go around, prices go down, poorer people can afford more food, famine is lessened drastically.

A Guy · Jun 07, 2009 6:17 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

Global warming: No, you're missing the obvious point. They won't go unchecked, they'll enter the ecosystem and be cut down by predators. It's our farming and breeding of these animals that encourages their growth. We provide a safe environment for them, it's not like we hunt them, we REAR them.

Considering our huge population, I would believe we would kill more than any predators can.

Rainforest: I said it would slow, not stop.

If it slows, it won't be by much.

Fast food: Tobacco is fairly unaffected. What? You expected it to solve EVERY problem we have?

No, I'm saying that if we're going to ban fast food because of its health effects, we should also ban tobacco.

Famine: You're not getting this, they're the farmers. The point is, the demand will be less, but I'll bet the prices won't be as drastically effected. Basically, there will be more food to go around, prices go down, poorer people can afford more food, famine is lessened drastically

The problem is, wealth in Africa isn't really trickled down to the masses that much. Add in the constant wars... What you would really need is a huge farm in Africa, which would be strongly endangered by the constant wars.

Another problem is herbicide and scorched earth. It would be easier to salvage animals than plants in a fire. Animals can go on for a few days without eating, while plants infected with herbicides will make you sick if you eat them.

Aceedwin · Jun 07, 2009 6:22 PM

Global warming: Which is why we breed them so vastly. Is there any grey matter at all between underneath that hair?

Rainforest: It'll probably be reduced to one and a half football pitches a minute or whatever the daily mail says it is.

Fast food: I'm not saying we're banning it. Tobacco doesn't come into it.

Famine: But you can't argue that if we had more food production, prices would go down, and countries would become more independent. You can't deny that famine would be lessened drastically.

A Guy · Jun 07, 2009 6:34 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

Global warming: Which is why we breed them so vastly. Is there any grey matter at all between underneath that hair?

Resorting to insults now? The average farm animal only lives long enough for the fed food/meat ratio to be cost efficient.

Rainforest: It'll probably be reduced to one and a half football pitches a minute or whatever the daily mail says it is.

We would have to use more soil for plants, and then search out more soil as the previously used soil becomes barren.

Fast food: I'm not saying we're banning it. Tobacco doesn't come into it.

Okay, we'll ignore this part then.

Famine: But you can't argue that if we had more food production, prices would go down, and countries would become more independent. You can't deny that famine would be lessened drastically.

Famine wouldn't be lessened that much unless the food actually reached the hungry, which would be very hard to do with Africa's corrupt leaders and constant warfare.

More plants also equals more water consumption.

#901 Jun 05, 2009 7:49 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#902 Jun 05, 2009 7:58 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#903 Jun 05, 2009 8:53 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#904 Jun 06, 2009 7:36 AM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#905 Jun 06, 2009 8:13 AM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#906 Jun 06, 2009 8:50 AM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#907 Jun 06, 2009 9:24 AM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#908 Jun 06, 2009 6:13 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#909 Jun 06, 2009 7:43 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#910 Jun 06, 2009 8:21 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#911 Jun 06, 2009 8:30 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#912 Jun 06, 2009 9:13 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#913 Jun 06, 2009 9:35 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#914 Jun 07, 2009 3:54 AM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#915 Jun 07, 2009 8:53 AM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#916 Jun 07, 2009 9:43 AM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#917 Jun 07, 2009 3:05 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#918 Jun 07, 2009 4:11 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#919 Jun 07, 2009 5:17 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#920 Jun 07, 2009 5:38 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#921 Jun 07, 2009 5:50 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#922 Jun 07, 2009 6:04 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#923 Jun 07, 2009 6:17 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#924 Jun 07, 2009 6:22 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#925 Jun 07, 2009 6:34 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

Board footer