Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: I just can't justify eating meat anymore
  • Subject: I just can't justify eating meat anymore
Subject: I just can't justify eating meat anymore

Fortune favors the Bold

The point is that no matter if everyone in the world believed that perception is reality, it will always be an opinion. You can try and call it fact, but it is not.

[Edited on 12.24.2010 8:18 PM PST]

  • 12.24.2010 8:18 PM PDT

I used to have 30s in Halo 2 untill they reset the ranks :(

Theres this thing called nature where animals eat meat aswell. Can you imagine seeing a lion eating lettuce....

  • 12.24.2010 8:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

God?

Religion does not provide a sense of morality, but an obedience to authority.

Join Secular Sevens - A group for atheists, free thinkers, skeptics or theists looking for a good debate.

Posted by: TheDemonicBird O


You have a right to disagree but that does not stop me from understanding that all that 'evidence' is also derived from conception and perception. It does not stop me from realizing the empty nature of all things we perceive and conceive.

Applying logic to the external world will present you with a great number of evidence of specific 'facts,' but applying logic to truth will only present you with one ultimate, and that is, "there is something here and now, in this instant, objected. That is absolute. If there was not something here and now, in this instant, objected, then perception and conception would cease to exist.

I agree that the evidence we use to support our facts is based on our perception of reality. What I am saying is that it is possible that our perception of whether we exist and whether what we perceive is correct can be wrong and I support this in saying that no facts are absolute (mathematics aside). But this doesn't imply that facts=opinions. I am only saying that facts cannot be absolute but they can be supported by so much perceived evidence that it would be perverse to deny them unless one assumed that our entire perception of reality was incorrect which in of itself makes everything pointless. I differentiate facts from opinions by saying that opinions are solely based on what we think is 'morally right or wrong' and not evidence that can be perceived.


[Edited on 12.24.2010 8:44 PM PST]

  • 12.24.2010 8:21 PM PDT

Plant life = growth and nutrition
Animal Life = growth/nutrition/Sense perception
Human = growth/nutrition/sense perception/reason
Humans are capable of reason. We base our decisions to reach a greater good/happines/end
Eating strictly plants or meat gives you pleasure. That will naturally help you towards your end

[Edited on 12.24.2010 8:28 PM PST]

  • 12.24.2010 8:21 PM PDT

This is from the nicomachean ethics. I would go deeper but im on my phone and dont have my book/notes.
Basically eating is a necessity. People choose to eat meat or plants. If your end is to be an athlete. Eating meat would be the best choice. If you feel its not right to eat meat/animals. Eating plants will give you pleasure

  • 12.24.2010 8:24 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

PRYING OPEN MY THIRD EYE. PRYING OPEN MY THIRD EYE. PRYING OPEN MY THIRD EYE. PRYING OPEN MY THIRD EYE. PRYING OPEN MY THIRD EYE. PRYING OPEN MY THIRD EYE. PRYING OPEN MY THIRD EYE. PRYING OPEN MY THIRD EYE. PRYING OPEN MY THIRD EYE.

What about the -blam!- plants you damn vegetarians eat? Did you forget they were alive too or what? Just because it doesn't scream when you plucking it from the ground doesn't mean you're not killing it.

Look at nature. You see how balanced everything is? Everything is set on top of everything else so it all works out. Now comes a retard who is going to step up and claim that nature is flawed and THEY, in their 'ultimate wisdom' know a better way for nature to work. He's a vegetarian.

You got to be some kind of arrogant pinhead to think that NATURE doesn't know what the hell it's doing and mr 9-5 day-job here is going to fix it all.

Vegetarians are a bunch of hypocrites who run around demanding that everyone respects nature and at the same time stick their noses up at the food nature has provided them

You don't have the balls to accept the fact that you need to kill to survive so you conveniently forget that pants are alive and call it 'death free' living so you can satisfy yourself that you're better than the rest of us 'murderers'.

If you want to live, you're going to have to kill something else. DEAL WITH IT.

Killing a plant is no different than killing an animal because it's still taking life.

Sometimes plants can live for WEEKS after being taken out of the ground so chances are you're eating plants while they are still alive. I hope you remember that the next time you shove your mouth full of salad.

  • 12.24.2010 8:29 PM PDT

<( ^ ^ )>

Dont see how this topic got 35 pages.

Either eat meat, or dont. I look at it like this. You have to eat something to stay alive, whether its plants or animals. I like to mix and match, according to what my health requires. You cannot eat anything that wasnt alive at one point. Therefore, its either kill or be killed naturally. I choose to kill.

  • 12.24.2010 8:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Telec
Posted by: WyIdfyre
Can you eat meat raw and stay healthy?
Yes. Some meats you want to cook, but beef can be eaten raw. Indeed, some recipes call for it.


Sushi, Tuna Tartar, Beef Carpaccio, etc.

Still, we eat more cooked meat than raw meat, but that just means we're designed to eat meat, but we evolved to only eat cooked foods. If you don't use it, you lose it.

  • 12.24.2010 8:42 PM PDT

Cultural subjectivity applies to the N.azi not to meat.
N.azi guards claimed that they were raised believing what they believed. The greatest good for the greater number of people. Thus these guards were never prisoners once the war ended.
If cultural subjectivity would apply to meat or plants. It would apply to vegetarians/vegans. They will obviously teach their choldren not to eat meat. Thus enforcing their teachings unto their children.
While a person who eats meat/plants will not teach his or her son anything. Because people naturally eat meat and plants.

[Edited on 12.24.2010 8:47 PM PST]

  • 12.24.2010 8:44 PM PDT

.


Posted by: Gman5434
Posted by: TheDemonicBird O


You have a right to disagree but that does not stop me from understanding that all that 'evidence' is also derived from conception and perception. It does not stop me from realizing the empty nature of all things we perceive and conceive.

Applying logic to the external world will present you with a great number of evidence of specific 'facts,' but applying logic to truth will only present you with one ultimate, and that is, "there is something here and now, in this instant, objected. That is absolute. If there was not something here and now, in this instant, objected, then perception and conception would cease to exist.

I agree that the evidence we use to support our facts is based on our perception of reality. What I am saying is that it is possible that our perception of whether we exist and whether what we perceive is correct can be wrong and I support this in saying that no facts are absolute. But this doesn't imply that facts=opinions. I am only saying that facts cannot be absolute but they can be supported by so much perceived evidence that it would be perverse to deny them unless one assumed that our entire perception of reality was incorrect which in of itself makes everything pointless. I differentiate facts from opinions by saying that opinions are solely based on what we think is 'morally right or wrong' and not evidence that can be perceived.


Technically, what I have said implies that facts are equal to opinions and that facts are not equal to opinions as both concepts exist in the sphere of relatively. The actual definition of a fact is just as subjective as what it is equal to. The same applies for an opinion.

You say that facts are supported by so much perceived evidence that to deny them would be perverse. This 'fact' is truth, yes, but it is a relative truth. That means that this 'fact' may also not be true. why? It may be supported by a incredible number of evidence but there absolutely is not any reason as to why this 'fact' could not be perceived and conceived as something entirely different, so different, in fact, that is may very well be beyond our general spectrum of concepts we can fathom. Now, one might say that this unfathomable concept is just solely incorrect but whether or not that is true is just as subjective as the concept itself. What you believe is true as long as there is someone to view it as truth through logic. It is a relative truth. Subjective, as I have said. And that which is subjective cannot be objected. It cannot be absolute as in trying to define an absolute you, consequently, bring it into the sphere of relativity by subjecting it to your own perception and conception. The ultimate cannot be subjected and remain absolute.

There are such things as illusionary truths, though. Say a man believes, through his logic, that when he leaves his house he will be 'struck by lightning.' Now say this man actually does leave his house and is not 'struck by lighting' as he would define such an event. This is an illusionary truth. Through his logic he saw the 'truth' and the 'truth' did not actually agree with it. Now if this man walks out of his house and is not 'struck by lighting' as you would define such an event but is as he would define it then his 'truth' is thus a relative one. (keep in mind that the concept of being 'struck by lighting' is still subjective and can be defined as anything as long as there is an entity to define it as such. That means that if a man defines the the concept of being 'struck by lightning' as a dog tackling him and licking his face then such is truth. Relatively, of course.)

  • 12.24.2010 8:47 PM PDT

After reading through this entire thread...

Troll- 1
The Flood- 0

  • 12.24.2010 8:51 PM PDT

On a side note. Cabeza de baca traveled for seven years on foot. His body adapted to the change. Beggining his trip. He wasnt able to walk for long nor sleep comforable. Years passed and his body adapted to walking for hours nonstop and sleeping on the ground with no problem. Bodies change so dont say people cant eat raw food. One can get used to it if consumed for long periods of time. Look at vegetarians. They adapted to eating plants, but do you believe cabeza de baca couldve survived just by eating plants...

  • 12.24.2010 8:54 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

What a mind numbing thread.

  • 12.24.2010 8:58 PM PDT

They act all big and tough when their on camera with their friends and their guns. But when you break into their house in the middle of the night and stick a gun barrel in their face. They cry like babies and and piss their pants.
-U.S. Delta force operator on the Taliban.

And I couldn't care less, but I will respect your opinion because it is your choice.

  • 12.24.2010 8:58 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

God?

Religion does not provide a sense of morality, but an obedience to authority.

Join Secular Sevens - A group for atheists, free thinkers, skeptics or theists looking for a good debate.

Posted by: TheDemonicBird O

Posted by: Gman5434
Posted by: TheDemonicBird O


You have a right to disagree but that does not stop me from understanding that all that 'evidence' is also derived from conception and perception. It does not stop me from realizing the empty nature of all things we perceive and conceive.

Applying logic to the external world will present you with a great number of evidence of specific 'facts,' but applying logic to truth will only present you with one ultimate, and that is, "there is something here and now, in this instant, objected. That is absolute. If there was not something here and now, in this instant, objected, then perception and conception would cease to exist.

I agree that the evidence we use to support our facts is based on our perception of reality. What I am saying is that it is possible that our perception of whether we exist and whether what we perceive is correct can be wrong and I support this in saying that no facts are absolute. But this doesn't imply that facts=opinions. I am only saying that facts cannot be absolute but they can be supported by so much perceived evidence that it would be perverse to deny them unless one assumed that our entire perception of reality was incorrect which in of itself makes everything pointless. I differentiate facts from opinions by saying that opinions are solely based on what we think is 'morally right or wrong' and not evidence that can be perceived.


Technically, what I have said implies that facts are equal to opinions and that facts are not equal to opinions as both concepts exist in the sphere of relatively. The actual definition of a fact is just as subjective as what it is equal to. The same applies for an opinion.

You say that facts are supported by so much perceived evidence that to deny them would be perverse. This 'fact' is truth, yes, but it is a relative truth. That means that this 'fact' may also not be true. why? It may be supported by a incredible number of evidence but there absolutely is not any reason as to why this 'fact' could not be perceived and conceived as something entirely different, so different, in fact, that is may very well be beyond our general spectrum of concepts we can fathom. Now, one might say that this unfathomable concept is just solely incorrect but whether or not that is true is just as subjective as the concept itself. What you believe is true as long as there is someone to view it as truth through logic. It is a relative truth. Subjective, as I have said. And that which is subjective cannot be objected. It cannot be absolute as in trying to define an absolute you, consequently, bring it into the sphere of relativity by subjecting it to your own perception and conception. The ultimate cannot be subjected and remain absolute.

There are such things as illusionary truths, though. Say a man believes, through his logic, that when he leaves his house he will be 'struck by lightning.' Now say this man actually does leave his house and is not 'struck by lighting' as he would define such an event. This is an illusionary truth. Through his logic he saw the 'truth' and the 'truth' did not actually agree with it. Now if this man walks out of his house and is not 'struck by lighting' as you would define such an event but is as he would define it then his 'truth' is thus a relative one. (keep in mind that the concept of being 'struck by lighting' is still subjective and can be defined as anything as long as there is an entity to define it as such. That means that if a man defines the the concept of being 'struck by lightning' as a dog tackling him and licking his face then such is truth. Relatively, of course.)

I see what you're saying and I agree with it but honestly I think we are looking far too deeply into this. For all intents and purposes of this thread one can say that facts are things that are supported by perceived evidence and opinions are based solely on people 'moral view' which cannot be right or wrong since morals cannot be defined with perceived evidence.

  • 12.24.2010 8:58 PM PDT

If you think Reach is bad... chances are, you're bad at it.

Meat has protein which is an essential nutrient in our diet. It's who we are.

  • 12.24.2010 9:00 PM PDT

Bungie original Allstar

1-800-555-grunts

i kill animals and eat them so no wast

  • 12.24.2010 9:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: lukkyluke
i was born a vegetarian for 18 years, now i try to eat meat and it tastes like crap, not sure what everyone sees in it


After being vegetarian for a year and a half or so, I had to eat meat at BCT. It tasted way worse than I remembered.

And sure you can always argue that humans were designed to eat meat or whatever, but in present times it's unnecessary and wasteful.

  • 12.24.2010 9:08 PM PDT

.


Posted by: Gman5434
I see what you're saying and I agree with it but honestly I think we are looking far too deeply into this. For all intents and purposes of this thread one can say that facts are things that are supported by perceived evidence and opinions are based solely on people 'moral view' which cannot be right or wrong since morals cannot be defined with perceived evidence.

One can say this, yes, and in doing so they are introducing bias into this equation as they would be trying to object a relative truth. I understand what I have been explaining is exceptionally deep and ultimately renders this debate meaningless, but that will not stop me from trying to show people the ultimate as understanding it will give one a much broader, more open perspective of this debate or any other. A perspective without bias. (or with much less bias)

Understanding the ultimate does not mean one cannot from a specific preference for certain relative beliefs. It just means one is much more likely to understand where others are coming from in exercising the use of empathy. Which conditions much more efficient debating.

[Edited on 12.24.2010 9:11 PM PST]

  • 12.24.2010 9:10 PM PDT

You do realize people need the complete proteins that only meat provides right?

  • 12.24.2010 9:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

God?

Religion does not provide a sense of morality, but an obedience to authority.

Join Secular Sevens - A group for atheists, free thinkers, skeptics or theists looking for a good debate.

Posted by: TheDemonicBird O

Posted by: Gman5434
I see what you're saying and I agree with it but honestly I think we are looking far too deeply into this. For all intents and purposes of this thread one can say that facts are things that are supported by perceived evidence and opinions are based solely on people 'moral view' which cannot be right or wrong since morals cannot be defined with perceived evidence.

One can say this, yes, and in doing so they are introducing bias into this equation as they would be trying to object a relative truth. I understand what I have been explaining is exceptionally deep and ultimately renders this debate meaningless, but that will not stop me from trying to show people the ultimate as understanding it will give one a much broader, more open perspective of this debate or any other. A perspective without bias. (or with much less bias)

Understanding the ultimate does not mean one cannot from a specific preference for certain relative beliefs. It just means one is much more likely to understand where others are coming from in exercising the use of empathy. Which conditions much more efficient debating.

Urgh, you're right. But without established and understood definitions of concepts by both parties this makes every debate more or less meaningless.

ERROR

You broke me congrats. I hope that you're happy, we could have been friends but had to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and...grrrrrrrrr...

CRITICAL ERROR




[Edited on 12.24.2010 9:22 PM PST]

  • 12.24.2010 9:17 PM PDT

I assassinated a bugger in Reach. It asploded! (No knife involved, just a smash to the back).

I'm also a XBOX Live Silver Member now. :( No more cR for me.

Meat atstes good with gravy. Vegetables and tofu tastes yuck with gravy.

  • 12.24.2010 9:19 PM PDT