About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Forward one pageLast Page


Post 140

Friday, September 1, 2006 - 10:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think I've sanctioned every single one of Ted's posts since he showed up, including this one.

What a joy it is to read this guy.

I am a meat and potatoes man. I catch and eat fish. But, like my ex who would not eat “anything with eyes,” we can be ~aesthetic~ vegetarian egoists without hypocrisy.
I am really have a difficult time finding anything to argue with in this.

Adults don’t trample anthills. People who casually snap branches and trample flowers while walking through the woods are worse than beasts. Anyone who shrugs at vandalism – whether of buildings, or bushes, or beasts – is a brute if not a psychopath.
Persuasive. Nice. Benevolent view of this way of life for some people.  I just wish I knew anyone who undertook this life style from an aesthetic motive. I seriously doubt their existence. 



Post 141

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 10:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jody Allen Gomez,

I don't even get what it is you're talking about. I wasn't talking about Einstein ever, and I questioned the validity of Ed's scientific studies, considering he may have just found them randomly on a google search. You're not enticing enough to go on a useless arguing tangent with, but good try.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 142

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 8:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wasn't talking about Einstein
Is your mentality so anti-conceptual that you can only deal in concretes? It's an analogy!!
I questioned the validity of Ed's scientific studies, considering he may have just found them randomly on a google search.
Jody's point was that the validity of a study is not dependent on whether you found it on google, or in the library. And speaking of scientific studies...
There's also a little science behind it - the two things exclusive to meat are cholesterol and fat...
Where did you come up with that little gem? Let me get this straight, the peer reviewed well documented studies Ed gave (which were not from google, but you'd know that if you actually read the posts) are not valid because he used a computer to find them? But we should accept your baseless assertion because, well, because Dustin said so!

If you want to troll, by a fucking boat. Read the posts and make a logical argument. I'm not holding my breath.


Post 143

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 11:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ah Dustin,

Jody wasn't suggesting that you were talking about Einstein. He was making a point that finding a paper through a google search does not automatically invalidate that paper and used Einsteins paper as an example. I guess he didn't expect that point to go over your head. To understand "peer review" you would have to understand what the scientific method is and why it works.

If you don't understand something, simply say "please explain". There are some very bright people here, many have decades more experience than yourself and have led very productive lives. Take advantage, ask questions, mull over the answers. No one wants to force you to change your mind about anything or could they even if they wanted to.

Post 144

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 5:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
-"Adults don’t trample anthills. People who casually snap branches and trample flowers while walking through the woods are worse than beasts. Anyone who shrugs at vandalism – whether of buildings, or bushes, or beasts – is a brute if not a psychopath." [TSK, as qtd by TSI]

-Persuasive. Nice. Benevolent view of this way of life for some people. I just wish I knew anyone who undertook this life style from an aesthetic motive. I seriously doubt their existence. [TSI]

----

Teresa, to respond to your comments above,

the Jainists of India do not eat meat or seeds, and they are obliged by their beliefs to carry a broom at all times, with which to sweep their paths so as to avoid killing any insects.
As their motivation is to avoid karma, neither I nor orthodox O'ists would adopt their choice. But people do live with that commitment.

As for rational egoists, my former girlfriend - a rational egoist but not a self described o'ist - did indeed choose to eat "nothing with eyes" out of an aesthetic choice. She did ~not~ hold that animals have political rights or approve of PETA or hector or agitate others against eating meat. I only found out she had adopted this after inviting her to dinner a year after we had separated. She explained that it was simply a matter of empathy, and she volunteered that she wished she could find an alternative to using leather for her camping and hiking gear, excusing the lapse given that she only used it where there was no alternative and that the usage was of miniscule impact. In other words, it was a fully conscious and worked out position. I myself am not again a vegetarian, but I go out of my way to avoid littering or producing waste. (The checkout girl can never understand why I don't want a plastic bag to put my gallon of milk in. I buy live plants, not cut flowers for presents, and do go out of my way to avoid killing anything unnecessarily. These are not absolutes for me, and I will compromise depending upon the circumstances. But the satisfaction is worth the effort.

TSK

Post 145

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 11:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
World Hunger!!!
1. 20 vegetarians can live off the land required by one meat eater .
2. If Americans reduced their meat consumption by 10% it would free 12,000,000 tons of grain - enough to feed 60,000,000 people (the population of Great Britain).
3. If all Americans became vegetarian, it would free enough grain to feed 600,000,000 people (the population of India).
4. The UK imports £46,000,000 worth of grain from third world countries to feed thier livestock.
5. Due to overgrazing 850,000,000 people live on land threatened by desertification & over 230,000,000 already live on land so severely desertified that they are unable to sustain their existence & face imminent starvation.
6. 1 acre yields 165 lbs of beef or 20,000 lbs of potatoes.
7. It takes 16lbs of high protein soya to produce 1 lb of beef.



The Land!!!
1. If we continue to clear American forests to raise cattle at the present rate, in 50 years there will be none left.
2. Since 1945 in the UK they have lost 95% of flower meadows, 50% of ancient woodlands, 40% of heathlands, 50% of wet lands & 224,000 km of hedgerows all due to animal farming.
3. If everyone went vegetarian upto 90% of land used for animal farming could be taken out of production & used to replant woodlands, leisure activities etc.
4. 25% of Central america's forests have been destroyed for cattle grazing since 1960.
5. Between 1966-1983 38% of the Amazon rain forest was destroyed for cattle grazing.
6. 90% of cattle ranches established on cleared forest land go bankrupt in less than 8 years as the land becomes barren due to nutrient loss & overgrazing.
7. Overgrazing by cattle is destroying the land & increasing desertification, nearly 430 million acres in the USA alone has suffered a 25-50% reduction in yield since first grazed


The Air!!!
1. The 1,300,000,000 cattle in the world emit 60,000,000 tons of methane per year (methane is a greenhouse gas & leads to global warming).
2. Burning of forests, grasslands & agricultural waste associated with animal farming releases 50-100,000,000 tons of methane per year.
3. Combining these figures, 25% of methane emissions are due to animal farming (not including the billions of sheep, pigs & poultry so the real figure is much higher).
4. Ammonia from animal urine also pollutes the atmosphere.


The Water!!!
1. 25 gallons of water to produce 1lb of wheat & 2500 gallons to produce 1lb of meat.
2. UK farm animals produce 200,000,000 tonnes of slurry (liquid excrement) every year, the majority of which ends up in thier rivers.
3. In the USA every second humans produce 12,000 lbs of effluent while farmed animals produce 250,000 lbs.
4. Meat & dairy farming uses 70 litres of water per day per animal in the UK or 159,250,000,000 litres per year in total.
5. The water used to produce 10 lbs of steak is equivalent to the average consumption of water for an entire household for an entire year.


Efficiency!!!
1. To produce 1calorie of energy from meat takes 60 calories of petrol, whereas growing grains & legumes to directly feed people produces 20 calories for each calorie of fuel used ( thats 1200 times more efficient).
2. Meat & dairy farming uses billions of gallons of oil to run tractors, fuel ships & lorries (to move animal feed & animals), pump billions of gallons of water to irrigate fields & run slaughterhouses, power refrigeration units to prevent the corpses from decomposing & to power sewage plants to clean up some of the pollution produced.
3. Cattle convert only 6% of their energy intake (mainly grains & soya) into flesh, the remaining 94% is wasted as heat, movement (which is why they keep many animals in very close confinement), hair, bones, faeces etc.
4. 1lb of beef takes 1 gallon of petrol to produce.
5. In the USA in 1979 145,000,000 tons of crops were fed to cattle resulting in only 21million tons of animal bodies - the cost of the wasted crops was $20,000,000,000.
6. 70% of all grain is fed to animals.



...enjoy your Big Macs!

Post 146

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 11:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dustin,

You already abstained from rational argumentation on this issue. Why should we bother to refute anything you say? Why do you keep posting in this thread when you rationally dealt with anyone arguments and, in fact, failed to even understand the posting about vegetarianism that you were intially attacking.

Enjoy your veggies, they've gone to your head.

Ethan


Post 147

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 11:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan,

I am not sure what you're getting at. You're not being very rational/reasonable. Cut the post-modern banter and respond to my rational ( and very reasonable) argumentation.
(Edited by Dustin
on 9/06, 11:50am)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 148

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 12:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dustin,

I am not sure what you're getting at.
Why am I not surprised?

You're not being very rational/reasonable.
So say most irrational and unreasonable trolls.

Cut the post-modern banter
Do you even know what post-modern is?

and respond to my rational
irrational

( and very reasonable)
unreasonable

argumentation.
non-arguements.


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 149

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 12:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Very well, to begin with - your water figures are off because much of that water cited is recycled....

your figures for the land use of veggies per beef is off via the protein content per area  - beef wins by a tonnage....

your air figures are off because other animals - antelopes and other ungulates -would take the slack in methan production, to say nothing of the immense cattle roaming for the Hindu sake, spewing methane without benefiting humanity....

the manure figures do not take in account the amount gained by becoming veggies - a TREMENDOUS increase would result, as opposed to the amount tendered via beef, et al....

the cry against importing grains is a cry pleading a return the agrarian estates - a throwback to an earlier age, not a future orientedness...... [if a farmer ye want to be, go for it - but not presume others agree that is the joy de vie...

Need I go on?

(Edited by robert malcom on 9/06, 12:38pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 150

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 12:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sufferin' Succotash!

Dustin, your arguments won't get anywhere with objectivists. Your moral premises are altruistic, and your economics flawed, among other things. Do you think that aesthetic value alone is not enough to justify your choice? (See post 139) or do you feel that vegetarianism is a political imperative?

"World Hunger!!!"
-Their problem
"1. 20 vegetarians can live off the land"
-Whose land?
"2.& 3." Mere altruism
"4. The UK imports �46,000,000 worth of grain from third world countries to feed thier livestock."
-And now you DON'T care about third world farmers?
"5. Due to overgrazing..."
-Poor land-management is whose fault?
"6. 1 acre yields 165 lbs of beef or 20,000 lbs of potatoes..."
-And 10,000 grave sites - so?
"The Land!!!"
"1. If we continue to clear American forests to raise cattle at the present rate..."
-Ever heard of diminishing returns?
-If my nephew continues to grow at the present rate he'll be 16 feet tall by age 20...
-Etc., etc...

To whom do all these resources you mention belong? I have tried to show how your views might be met half way, but your arguments here carry no weight with any objectivist. Do my arguments in 139 carry no weight with you?

Ted



(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/06, 2:50pm)


Post 151

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 1:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Very well put, Rev' and Ted.

Ed


Post 152

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 3:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Resources are Never the Limit

The last class I took to complete my major in Bio. at Rutgers was Limnology - the sudy of fresh-water systems. Our lecturer, a rabid eco-freak, assigned the class a project to determine how much fresh water, available now in usable form (i.e, not in icepacks) existed on the planet. We came up with an estimate of 100+ years worth, at the current rate. She threw a fit when we presented her with our results, she had downloaded a study off the internet that claimed there was less than 10 years.
She checked our math and sources (a tedious 4-hour session) and then reluctantly, but with good faith, accepted our results.

I made the point to her that as water became scarce, the market would incentivize desalination and other such solutions. She had not considered this, she said. When I explained that the same equations that apply in population & resource ecology apply in economics & market pricing, she was quite surprised, but also admitted the plausibility.

Ted Keer, 6th Sep, 2006, NYC
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/06, 7:49pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 153

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 3:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A quick play by play of the thread:
Post 1: Dustin claims that he does not hold animal life to be the standard of good, but claims that factory farm animals suffer a "brutal" death.
Post 3: Dustin claims that there is some science behind his beliefs: fat and cholesterol are two thing that are exclusive to meat. Apparently he doesn't understand the definition of exclusive, as he makes clear with...
Post 9: "Well, I said fat and cholesterol are exclusive to meat. I didn't say food outside of meat is fat free or cholesterol free. Oh well. Enjoy colon cancer." He provides no basis for his colon cancer claim and he never admits he has no idea what exclusive means.
Post 34: "A Vegetarian or Vegan is probably the best candidate to judge the health benefits of eating animal-free, not some average Joe who eats McDonalds and Burger King in the name of his manly, ethically pure meat consumption." Dustin's statement here is obviously false, as a person's diet has no influence on their knowledge of nutrition.
Post 44: Michael F Dickey points out that "One can eat unhealthy on an omnivorous diet or a vegan diet." Dustin never addresses this.
Post 44: "Joe, You think an individual shouldn't decide how they feel based on their diet, they should use science to determine it for them." ~ Dustin
Post 45: I object to Dustin's assertion that feelings are more important than reason(i.e. science.)
Post 54: Dustin admits, "I don't even get what you're asking."
Post 57: Dustin asserts my questions are meaningless and loaded.
Post 59: In the face of Dustin's confusion, I point out that one can "feel" great and die suddenly from a heart attack caused by clogged arteries.
Post 60: Instead of responding, Dustin says, "I just don't see what you're getting at!" and calls my arguments, "streched thin and not productive."
Post 61: Teresa points out that Dustin is evading meaningful discussion.
post 62: Dustin retorts, "Well, I gave what I decided to say on the issue, sorry that I'm not going to waste my time arguing meaninglessness with you"
Post 63: Teresa addresses Dustins arguments for vegetarianism as requested.
Post 64: Ed begins blasting science at Dustin!
Post 65: Instead of addressing Teresa's arguments, Dustin arbitrarily declares them "miniscule" and admits we won't get an argument out of him: "Sorry it frustrates you so much that you won't get an argument, but at least I've gotten a point of view. In such a sense, I win, you lose."
Post 67: In an attempt to ward off Ed's science blasts, Dustin offers the following gem of "reasoning": "I've had those studies used "against me" before. They're basically undeniable since they're proven, but in the same respect, there are studies that claim Marijuana can prevent Cancer. There's studies for/against everything." It's enough to make a rational person's head explode.

(Edited by Jonathan Fauth on 9/06, 4:33pm)


Post 154

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 4:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Play by play continued...
Post 72: Hong points out there are objective criteria for determining whether or not studies are valid. Dustin never addresses this.
Post 75: Since he can't refute Ed's science, Dustin criticizes the validity by claiming the studies were found on Google.
Post 123: Overwhlemed by science blasts, Dustin again accuses Ed of using questionable sources.
Post 138: In the face of Dustin's continued claims that Ed is using unreliable sources, Jody explains that he found Einstein's paper on relativity on Google, and questions whether Dustin would deny the claims made in it because the paper was found using Google.
Post 141: Dustin claims he wasn't talking about Einstein, and proves he suffers from an anti-conceptual mentality.
Post 145: Instead of responding to previous arguments, Dustin prevents a slew of  "facts" (probably found on Google ;-)

The preceding is submitted as evidence of Dustins anti-concpetual mentality, sub-par reasoning skills, and "trollness". The prosecution rests! How does the jury find?

(Edited by Jonathan Fauth on 9/06, 4:36pm)


Post 155

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 4:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
guilty

Post 156

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 4:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Guilty.

Post 157

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 4:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Guess it's thumbs down, huh.......

Post 158

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 8:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So the gavel has sounded eh?

Post 159

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 8:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've made a lot of smart ass comments here, admittedly. I've even contradicted myself and only read a sentance here and there of many posts. A lot of what I've done is simply urge the people who will type pages and pages of argument on to do so. I have, however, recieved a lot of argument from the opposing side while linking tons of friends to the site to check out your arguments and the debate. Thanks to everyone who gave me a different point of view, it will come in handy at a later date.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.