|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 14, 2020 16:20:47 GMT
Plants may be living things but they aren't sentient, and that makes them very different from animals. There's basically three main arguments for eliminating or greatly reducing factory farming and meat in our diets:
1. The moral argument - Some find this compelling more so than myself. Though I don't deny there's much animal cruelty that happens in factory farming, there's just as much animal cruelty that happens in nature, which is, probably in general, far crueler than humans are because nature/animals have no remorse or sympathy for suffering.
2. The health argument - This is more compelling. Frankly, the science is pretty well settled that a diet high in fruits and vegetables and low(er) in meat is quite healthy for us; the only real issue is how much meat, and what kind of meat, is healthy for us? I don't think the science is in on that, yet. Until it is, I will continue to occasionally eat fish (mostly) and chicken (rarely).
3. The environmental argument - This is also compelling as we (meaning science and people who trust science; ie, not Arlon) now know that factory farming is arguably the biggest contributing factor for global warming. This alone should be enough to inspire people to choose plant-based options whenever possible.
Personally, my diet is now mostly plant-based, but I do eat fish somewhat regularly and chicken maybe once a week. I've been eating veggie burgers for years now and, frankly, don't miss beef. Never was much of a steak fan either, so no loss there.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 14, 2020 20:46:34 GMT
I remember saying something about how statistical analysis cannot obtain the required precision with such a vast data set as the entire atmosphere of the planet. Did you intend to address that claim? This year? You say a lot of things Arlon - always without substantiation. Let it go. The scientific consensus is overwhelming with repeated, replicable, research from across a number of disciplines and growing stronger. The earth is warming and there is a climate emergency, so get over it. On second thoughts though - don't get over it. Get angry, do something positive and stop making yourself look silly.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 14, 2020 22:26:21 GMT
I am now and always have been exceptionally more intelligent than average as measured everywhere except the internet. Damn you, now I have to wash my coffee-stained shirt. Why were you so surprised at the Dunning Kruger motto?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 14, 2020 22:38:45 GMT
Damn you, now I have to wash my coffee-stained shirt. Why were you so surprised at the Dunning Kruger motto? Not really surprised, but funny as hell.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Jan 14, 2020 23:06:13 GMT
I got round the whole "is it better to eat plants or animals" issue by eating people. There are way too many of them anyway and by eating people it means that there are less people out there eating plants or animals which in turn helps the environment.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 15, 2020 4:55:02 GMT
Toasted Cheese said: [ full text here] < clips >
1) Do vegetarians consume Venus Fly Traps? 2) A plant operates on a different energy\vibrational level. It can rejuvenate easily. Kill an animal and plant it and see if you can grow it back. 1) You tell me. 2) That seems to indicate that plants are more alive than animals. Is that what you meant to say?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 15, 2020 5:17:33 GMT
Damn you, now I have to wash my coffee-stained shirt. Why were you so surprised at the Dunning Kruger motto? You say that as if I graded my own papers. No, the internet grades its own papers. Therein lies the problem with the internet and a developing problem with democracy. Dunning-Kruger has some interesting analysis of how a self image develops, but it does not address the major problem, people disregarding science in favor of argumentum ad populum (although appropriate in politics, not in science). I really did score highest in my senior class on the college entrance exam given at my four star high school, the ACT. Actually I tied for first with Nigel, a guy recently moved from England. Earlier in the 9th year of elementary (or 3rd of middle school) I took third place in the state on interscholastic competitions in the category of trigonometry. On Stanford-Benet I have always scored in the top one percent. You might choose to believe I dreamed all that up to compensate for feelings of inadequacy. I really don't care. I do not depend on those measures myself. I would agree that a man who sits by a lake holding a fishing pole all day is highly intelligent if it keeps food on his table.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 15, 2020 5:28:58 GMT
Why were you so surprised at the Dunning Kruger motto? You say that as if I graded my own papers. No, the internet grades its own papers. Therein lies the problem with the internet and a developing problem with democracy. Dunning-Kruger has some interesting analysis of how a self image develops, but it does not address the major problem, people disregarding science in favor of argumentum ad populum (although appropriate in politics, not in science). I really did score highest in my senior class on the college entrance exam given at my four star high school, the ACT. Actually I tied for first with Nigel, a guy recently moved from England. Earlier in the 9th year of elementary (or 3rd of middle school) I took third place in the state on interscholastic competitions in the category of trigonometry. On Stanford-Benet I have always scored in the top one percent. You might choose to believe I dreamed all that up to compensate for feelings of inadequacy. I really don't care. I do not depend on those measures myself. I would agree that a man who sits by a lake holding a fishing pole all day is highly intelligent if it keeps food on his table. I don't give a single shit about your ancient history. TODAY you have limited understanding of any academia and science and a Dunning Krugeresque value of your own abilities which is clearly nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 15, 2020 5:50:05 GMT
You say that as if I graded my own papers. No, the internet grades its own papers. Therein lies the problem with the internet and a developing problem with democracy. Dunning-Kruger has some interesting analysis of how a self image develops, but it does not address the major problem, people disregarding science in favor of argumentum ad populum (although appropriate in politics, not in science). I really did score highest in my senior class on the college entrance exam given at my four star high school, the ACT. Actually I tied for first with Nigel, a guy recently moved from England. Earlier in the 9th year of elementary (or 3rd of middle school) I took third place in the state on interscholastic competitions in the category of trigonometry. On Stanford-Benet I have always scored in the top one percent. You might choose to believe I dreamed all that up to compensate for feelings of inadequacy. I really don't care. I do not depend on those measures myself. I would agree that a man who sits by a lake holding a fishing pole all day is highly intelligent if it keeps food on his table. I don't give a single shit about your ancient history. TODAY you have limited understanding of any academia and science and a Dunning Krugeresque value of your own abilities which is clearly nonsense. So you can't win an argument by any means, even your own?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 15, 2020 11:41:06 GMT
Why were you so surprised at the Dunning Kruger motto? Dunning-Kruger has some interesting analysis of how a self image develops, but it does not address the major problem, people disregarding science in favor of argumentum ad populum (although appropriate in politics, not in science). You ignore science whenever it suits you. In our recent discussion on marijuana I posted a peer-review paper that said, in its abstract, that the study showed a link between the marijuana high and runner's high on two factors. First you called the peer-review paper's abstract merely a claim (as if peers would've let it publish if the actual study didn't show what it said it did in the abstract), then when you looked at the study you concocted ridiculous "reasons" why it didn't actually show what it said. You "doubt" stuff like General Relativity which every damn physicist in the world believes in. You "doubt" stuff like global warming which nearly every damn climate scientist believes in. When you think you know better than every physicist about physics, and every climatologist about the climate, that's not intelligence, that's the very epitome of Dunning-Kruger effect. See, I won't even doubt what you say about scoring high on IQ tests and being good at trigonometry, but high-IQ people can and usually do have serious biases and blind-spots like everyone else. What's more concerning is that higher IQ people are better at rationalizing their biases and blind spots, absorbing information that agrees with them and finding ways to dismiss whatever doesn't. One might say there's a difference between IQ and wisdom. You may have the former, but you're seriously lacking in the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 15, 2020 11:49:03 GMT
Dunning-Kruger has some interesting analysis of how a self image develops, but it does not address the major problem, people disregarding science in favor of argumentum ad populum (although appropriate in politics, not in science). You ignore science whenever it suits you. In our recent discussion on marijuana I posted a peer-review paper that said, in its abstract, that the study showed a link between the marijuana high and runner's high on two factors. First you called the peer-review paper's abstract merely a claim (as if peers would've let it publish if the actual study didn't show what it said it did in the abstract), then when you looked at the study you concocted ridiculous "reasons" why it didn't actually show what it said. You "doubt" stuff like General Relativity which every damn physicist in the world believes in. You "doubt" stuff like global warming which nearly every damn climate scientist believes in. When you think you know better than every physicist about physics, and every climatologist about the climate, that's not intelligence, that's the very epitome of Dunning-Kruger effect. See, I won't even doubt what you say about scoring high on IQ tests and being good at trigonometry, but high-IQ people can and usually do have serious biases and blind-spots like everyone else. What's more concerning is that higher IQ people are better at rationalizing their biases and blind spots, absorbing information that agrees with them and finding ways to dismiss whatever doesn't. One might say there's a difference between IQ and wisdom. You may have the former, but you're seriously lacking in the latter. I'm the equal opportunity skeptic here. I treat all claims whether religious, scientific or otherwise the same. I accept nothing on faith except general principles. I do understand English. I do understand mathematics. I do understand physics, chemistry, economics, and statistical analysis. If you are still having difficulty persuading me of anything then you should check your understanding of those disciplines.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 15, 2020 11:59:25 GMT
You ignore science whenever it suits you. In our recent discussion on marijuana I posted a peer-review paper that said, in its abstract, that the study showed a link between the marijuana high and runner's high on two factors. First you called the peer-review paper's abstract merely a claim (as if peers would've let it publish if the actual study didn't show what it said it did in the abstract), then when you looked at the study you concocted ridiculous "reasons" why it didn't actually show what it said. You "doubt" stuff like General Relativity which every damn physicist in the world believes in. You "doubt" stuff like global warming which nearly every damn climate scientist believes in. When you think you know better than every physicist about physics, and every climatologist about the climate, that's not intelligence, that's the very epitome of Dunning-Kruger effect. See, I won't even doubt what you say about scoring high on IQ tests and being good at trigonometry, but high-IQ people can and usually do have serious biases and blind-spots like everyone else. What's more concerning is that higher IQ people are better at rationalizing their biases and blind spots, absorbing information that agrees with them and finding ways to dismiss whatever doesn't. One might say there's a difference between IQ and wisdom. You may have the former, but you're seriously lacking in the latter. I'm the equal opportunity skeptic here. I treat all claims whether religious, scientific or otherwise the same. I accept nothing on faith except general principles. I do understand English. I do understand mathematics. I do understand physics, chemistry, economics, and statistical analysis. If you are still having difficulty persuading me of anything then you should check your understanding of those disciplines. Except it's ridiculous to treat all claims with equal skepticism. "I ate a ham sandwich today" is hardly equally likely as "I walked on water today." Likewise, claims that must pass peer-review have already been parsed by skeptics (aka scientists) for flaws in the reasoning or methodology; this doesn't happen in religion as there is no methodology for making/proving claims. You may understand those subjects on some level, but you do not understand them better than people who've spent a lifetime studying them. Knowing when to rely and trust in experts is what's known as wisdom; thinking you know better than them, or even that you have the sufficient knowledge to doubt them, is stupidity and arrogance, no matter your IQ.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 15, 2020 12:09:15 GMT
I'm the equal opportunity skeptic here. I treat all claims whether religious, scientific or otherwise the same. I accept nothing on faith except general principles. I do understand English. I do understand mathematics. I do understand physics, chemistry, economics, and statistical analysis. If you are still having difficulty persuading me of anything then you should check your understanding of those disciplines. Except it's ridiculous to treat all claims with equal skepticism. "I ate a ham sandwich today" is hardly equally likely as "I walked on water today." Likewise, claims that must pass peer-review have already been parsed by skeptics (aka scientists) for flaws in the reasoning or methodology; this doesn't happen in religion as there is no methodology for making/proving claims. You may understand those subjects on some level, but you do not understand them better than people who've spent a lifetime studying them. Knowing when to rely and trust in experts is what's known as wisdom; thinking you know better than them, or even that you have the sufficient knowledge to doubt them, is stupidity and arrogance, no matter your IQ. And yet your persuasive skills could use more honing. I am far less interested in what your sources can prove than what you can, else I would not be here.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 15, 2020 14:22:31 GMT
And yet your persuasive skills could use more honing. I am far less interested in what your sources can prove than what you can, else I would not be here. So you come to a forum where the use of reliable sources is the most credible way to back up empirical claims, and then say you're not interested in the use of those sources? You're like someone who would go to a golf course, watch a golfer hit a 250 yard drive from the tee, and then tell him, "I am far less interested in how far you send the ball with a club than in how far you can throw it with your arm, else I would not be here."
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 15, 2020 14:52:12 GMT
Except it's ridiculous to treat all claims with equal skepticism. "I ate a ham sandwich today" is hardly equally likely as "I walked on water today." Likewise, claims that must pass peer-review have already been parsed by skeptics (aka scientists) for flaws in the reasoning or methodology; this doesn't happen in religion as there is no methodology for making/proving claims. You may understand those subjects on some level, but you do not understand them better than people who've spent a lifetime studying them. Knowing when to rely and trust in experts is what's known as wisdom; thinking you know better than them, or even that you have the sufficient knowledge to doubt them, is stupidity and arrogance, no matter your IQ. And yet your persuasive skills could use more honing. I am far less interested in what your sources can prove than what you can, else I would not be here. Why the fuck are you interested in what I can prove? Am I a scientist? Did I ever claim to be? And how, pray tell, would anyone here prove something like General Relativity to you? The original experiment involved an eclipse, powerful telescopes, and minute astronomical calculations. Nobody here can do that, so that means it wasn't done?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2020 15:48:03 GMT
Choose kindness, choose compassion, GO VEGAN!
Meet your meat. Don't kid yourself with the fake notion of 'humane' slaughter... It doesn't exist. It's a lie you tell yourself to assuage your guilty conscience.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 15, 2020 16:13:34 GMT
You ignore science whenever it suits you. In our recent discussion on marijuana I posted a peer-review paper that said, in its abstract, that the study showed a link between the marijuana high and runner's high on two factors. First you called the peer-review paper's abstract merely a claim (as if peers would've let it publish if the actual study didn't show what it said it did in the abstract), then when you looked at the study you concocted ridiculous "reasons" why it didn't actually show what it said. You "doubt" stuff like General Relativity which every damn physicist in the world believes in. You "doubt" stuff like global warming which nearly every damn climate scientist believes in. When you think you know better than every physicist about physics, and every climatologist about the climate, that's not intelligence, that's the very epitome of Dunning-Kruger effect. See, I won't even doubt what you say about scoring high on IQ tests and being good at trigonometry, but high-IQ people can and usually do have serious biases and blind-spots like everyone else. What's more concerning is that higher IQ people are better at rationalizing their biases and blind spots, absorbing information that agrees with them and finding ways to dismiss whatever doesn't. One might say there's a difference between IQ and wisdom. You may have the former, but you're seriously lacking in the latter. I'm the equal opportunity skeptic here. I treat all claims whether religious, scientific or otherwise the same. I accept nothing on faith except general principles. I do understand English. I do understand mathematics. I do understand physics, chemistry, economics, and statistical analysis. If you are still having difficulty persuading me of anything then you should check your understanding of those disciplines. Perhaps on a rudimentary level, but I question whether it goes beyond that. I would expect someone with a good understanding of math to not blame a random number generator for their programming errors. I would expect someone with a good understanding of physics to not mischaracterize the nature of the discrepancy between classical and relativistic measurements when applied to GPS systems. From what I can see, Eva's grasp of these subjects greatly exceeds yours, even though I suspect his background doesn't include as much formal education in these subjects as yours.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 15, 2020 17:03:21 GMT
I'm the equal opportunity skeptic here. I treat all claims whether religious, scientific or otherwise the same. I accept nothing on faith except general principles. I do understand English. I do understand mathematics. I do understand physics, chemistry, economics, and statistical analysis. If you are still having difficulty persuading me of anything then you should check your understanding of those disciplines. Perhaps on a rudimentary level, but I question whether it goes beyond that. I would expect someone with a good understanding of math to not blame a random number generator for their programming errors. I would expect someone with a good understanding of physics to not mischaracterize the nature of the discrepancy between classical and relativistic measurements when applied to GPS systems. From what I can see, Eva's grasp of these subjects greatly exceeds yours, even though I suspect his background doesn't include as much formal education in these subjects as yours. First, thank you; second, I have zero formal background in these subjects. I just read/learn/study on my own for fun. I suspect Arlon would be better at many forms of math than myself, since the bulk of my knowledge comes from the practical application of stuff like algebra and Bayes' Theorem for poker.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 15, 2020 17:25:54 GMT
Perhaps on a rudimentary level, but I question whether it goes beyond that. I would expect someone with a good understanding of math to not blame a random number generator for their programming errors. I would expect someone with a good understanding of physics to not mischaracterize the nature of the discrepancy between classical and relativistic measurements when applied to GPS systems. From what I can see, Eva's grasp of these subjects greatly exceeds yours, even though I suspect his background doesn't include as much formal education in these subjects as yours. First, thank you; second, I have zero formal background in these subjects. I just read/learn/study on my own for fun. I suspect Arlon would be better at many forms of math than myself, since the bulk of my knowledge comes from the practical application of stuff like algebra and Bayes' Theorem for poker. My pleasure. I think Arlon has the capacity to do well in these subjects (not everyone does), but I think he's being held back by a lack of critical self-evaluation and an overestimation of his abilities (i.e. the D-K).
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 15, 2020 19:47:46 GMT
First, thank you; second, I have zero formal background in these subjects. I just read/learn/study on my own for fun. I suspect Arlon would be better at many forms of math than myself, since the bulk of my knowledge comes from the practical application of stuff like algebra and Bayes' Theorem for poker. My pleasure. I think Arlon has the capacity to do well in these subjects (not everyone does), but I think he's being held back by a lack of critical self-evaluation and an overestimation of his abilities (i.e. the D-K). … and the reliance he has on confirmation bias due to him being a religious creationist which is an untenable situation IF you actually have any scientific and mathematical knowledge so has possibly spent his life trying to justify the unjustifiable.
|
|