Mother bear kills cub and then itself

[BigPhi84]

Brillat-Savarin- "Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you what you are."






Do people actually eat douch-nozzles? LOL. j/k

[Adam Of Angels]

Ghost: science doesn't consider cultural standards, and neither do I.

Phi: I'm not saying that we're herbivores, but science is not saying that we're omnivores. The facts I'm referring to is that we can survive, and in most cases even benefit from avoiding the use of animal products. Therefore, they're not necessary. Disagreeing with me by saying that you think it's alright to kill animals in a humane way is seriously slow. I'm starting to hate myself for saying that again

This debate has reached the point of stupid.

[BigPhi84]

Originally Posted by Adam Of Angels

The facts I'm referring to is that we can survive, and in most cases even benefit from avoiding the use of animal products.

How so? I will say that I do believe that America has a big problem with huge portion sizes and meat/produce/grain ratios. But, none of my research has shown that moderate meat consumption harms the human body in ANY way.

"Moderation, moderation, in all things, moderation." Kinda my motto in life. (Except for ss.org. GAWD, I'm addicted!!!)

Originally Posted by Adam Of Angels

This debate has reached the point of stupid.

Well, that's what happens when you have two sides that are so firm in their beliefs that neither will budge.

[ghstofperdition]

Originally Posted by bostjan

Wow, I'm gone for a couple days and the thread about a tragedy involving pretty vulgar abuse of bears got turned into pro- vs. anti- dairy?

I feel really sad for the bears in the story. It just broke my heart.

Another voice of reason! I tried to say the same thing to begin with. I think we got vegetrolled dude.

¿¡Y u no realize internet is cereal bidness!?

But I still you all, even the anonymous user that called me astonishingly ignorant. Can we kiss and have make up sex now? I heard an urban legend that chinese bear bile makes a great aphrodisiac.....

[Adam Of Angels]

Originally Posted by BigPhi84

How so? I will say that I do believe that America has a big problem with huge portion sizes and meat/produce/grain ratios. But, none of my research has shown that moderate meat consumption harms the human body in ANY way.

"Moderation, moderation, in all things, moderation." Kinda my motto in life. (Except for ss.org. GAWD, I'm addicted!!!)

I said that in some cases, a person can benefit from not consuming animal products. The fact I mentioned is that we don't need animal products, and that science doesn't hold it as a fact that we're actually omnivores by necessity, just that we're able to digest meat.

Originally Posted by BigPhi84

Well, that's what happens when you have two sides that are so firm in their beliefs that neither will budge.

....ing Oy. Again, this has nothing to do with belief. Its not my belief that we don't need animal products, it's fact. Why is this so hard to address?

[Adam Of Angels]

Originally Posted by ghstofperdition

Another voice of reason! I tried to say the same thing to begin with. I think we got vegetrolled dude.

¿¡Y u no realize internet is cereal bidness!?

But I still you all, even the anonymous user that called me astonishingly ignorant. Can we kiss and have make up sex now? I heard an urban legend that chinese bear bile makes a great aphrodisiac.....

Again, no. There is every reason to have had the discussion we did. Why is that so hard to see? I'm not even a vegetarian, so this is not an example of vegan elitists taking advantage if a conversation. Unnecessary abuse or killing of animals takes place in bear bile production and family owned farms just the same, because nobody needs those products to live or even be happy. That is the point.

[ghstofperdition]

Oy. You win. I will burn in hell with a 128oz porterhouse. Please pass the brimstone and A1 sauce.

Now back to:
Those heartless bastards killed yogi!

[BigPhi84]

Originally Posted by Adam Of Angels

I said that in some cases, a person can benefit from not consuming animal products.

There are some people that benefit from consuming animal products consequently. Calcium deficiencies, Iron deficiencies, Wheat and Gluten Intolerances, Coeliac Desease. Meat and dairy can help in these cases, by supplementing vital nutrients.

Originally Posted by Adam Of Angels

The fact I mentioned is that we don't need animal products, and that science doesn't hold it as a fact that we're actually omnivores by necessity, just that we're able to digest meat.

You're getting your terms confused, Adam (is the cleverest of ways, too.) By definition, no omnivores NEED to eat meat. What "omnivore" means is that the digestive tract is able to digest animal proteins, along with the plant material. Sure, you can feed your pet dog only vegetables and grains and he'll live a long life, albeit miserable (Yeah, that's just my joking opinion)... but this leads into my next point.

Trying to use only three terms of Carnivore, Omnivore, and Herbivore, to classify animals is ineffective. Dogs descended from Wolves, who are obviously carnivores. Over the years though, dogs developed the ability to digest fruits and vegetables, so if anything, we should call them "Omnivores with a Carnovore Bias." Technically, I guess you would call humans, "Omnivores with an Herbivore Bias (and a craving for sweet, sweet meat )."

Originally Posted by Adam Of Angels

....ing Oy. Again, this has nothing to do with belief. Its not my belief that we don't need animal products, it's fact. Why is this so hard to address?

"We don't need animal products" is a fact. "We shouldn't use animal products" is your belief.

If this was just you beating us with facts, then, there wouldn't be much of a discussion, would there. But, if you've ever thought, "Man, the world would be a better place if everyone became Vegans" or "Man, humans would be much healthier if they didn't eat meat," "Dairy products are wrong", or "Humans that consume animal products are wrong", then you have beliefs, beliefs that are not based in Science. Rather, as you have admitted earlier in this thread, your views are rooted in Philosophy. The fact that you're getting angry (or atleast annoyed) shows that you have some vested interest.


I'm going to try to make this my last post in this thread (Damn you, Adam, for sucking me in, even though I didn't want any part!!!!! ). Just know, that I'll be continue reading this thread and analyzing all the logical fallacies on BOTH sides of this argument. (The Meat-eaters are guilty of this as well.)





EDIT: For once, I'd love it if highlordmugfug "liked" one of my posts in this thread. Pretty-please???

[TheHandOfStone]

Okay, I've read the whole thread now, and I suddenly share momma bear's urge to It's not anyone in particular, but right now I'm going to address Adam of Angels ('cuz hating on him seems like the hip and trendy thing to do for some reason ).

Adam, I'm going to try and summarize your argument. Feel free to correct me on anything I'm missing:

1) We have absolutely no need for animal products - in fact, we're better off without them in some cases.
2) We possess a higher-level intellect compared to other animals; therefore, we should not condone unnecessary suffering.
3) Harvesting animal products usually (always?) causes suffering to the animal we take them from.

If you agree with all of these premises, what logically follows is that veganism (or something close to it) is the *only* morally-defensible stance to take on this issue. Adam, you're confusing me because you put forth a similar argument, but then you say you're not even a vegetarian.

No one should be immune to the consequences of their own philosophy. What do you wish to accomplish by convincing us of your position, and how do you justify the fact that you consume meat products? Not trying to come off as a dick, but your actions don't make sense to me in light of your arguments.

***EDIT: See my next post.***

[Sicarius]

I believe he's said that he's not in a financial situation that would allow him to be a Vegan/Vegetarian.

I am also waiting to see this scientific facts that he's talked about. Just a simple website, that is neutral, that says that these facts are indeed facts.

that's not asking for much.

[bostjan]

Actually, dogs are classified taxonomically as carnivores, along with cats, bears, and otters.

Bears and wolves tend to be more willing to eat vegetable matter than cats and otters. Primates tend to prefer more vegetable matter in their diets than carnivora, but I think all primates have meat in their diets in their natural environments.

I happen to be a vegetarian, but I don't think that everyone should be totally vegetarian or vegan, unless they decide to do so themselves. It can be a fulfilling lifestyle for those who choose it.

[TheHandOfStone]

Originally Posted by Sicarius

I believe he's said that he's not in a financial situation that would allow him to be a Vegan/Vegetarian.

Ahh okay, I must have missed that. I believe that is a fair exception.

[Sicarius]

I guess I underestimate the price of vegetables. I don't see how it's too hard, financially, to eat nothing but veggies. If anything it's what poor college kids could do instead of ramen and cheap Wal-Mart TV dinners :/

[bostjan]

A can of mixed veggies is, what, $0.49? The same amount of cheap hamburger is at least $0.89. Just FYI. Even high-protein beans are only about $0.69.

[TheHandOfStone]

I'll consider trying a vegetarian diet, because once I go back to college I won't have my family to offer me free delicious steaks. Just gotta be sure to get my 8 non-manufacturable amino acids and plenty of protein for the crew season.

[Adam Of Angels]

I actually never said I wasn't in a financial position to eat as a vegetarian, I said that I had temporary reasons for not doing so. Don't make stuff up because not everybody has the motivation to read the whole thread. I've been traveling for the better part of 6 months and haven't had the option of eating a strictly vegetarian diet. If I did, I'd go days without eating in some instances. I hate it, but I'll deal with my guilt. In the same way, I know I shouldnt drink, but I do drink once or twice a week lately. Anyway, even though I am not currently abiding by the rules of my own arguments, that doesn't mean that what I'm saying is not true. I'm just saying that it's stupid to say that I'm wrong by combating my objective position with your subjective position.

Anyway, as a rule of thumb, don't ask for a link to an informational website when a simple Google search will suffice. It will save me time, and you can perhaps sleep better tonight knowing that you gave up your own convenience for the sake of somebody else's. Just search for "do humans need meat?"

[BigPhi84]

Originally Posted by TheHandOfStone

Okay, I've read the whole thread now, and I suddenly share momma bear's urge to It's not anyone in particular, but right now I'm going to address Adam of Angels ('cuz hating on him seems like the hip and trendy thing to do for some reason ).

TheHandOfStone, I know you were joking, but I just wanted to clarify and state that I do not hate Adam, in fact, it's very much the opposite. I really get along with him well, and his views and mine are eerily similar (except for this thread..... and maybe that one thread back in the day about Extraterrestrial life. You didn't think that I remembered that thread, did ya? ) Take it as you will, but Adam is one of the only SS.org people that I allowed on my facebook friends list.

[BigPhi84]

Originally Posted by bostjan

Actually, dogs are classified taxonomically as carnivores, along with cats, bears, and otters.

Bears and wolves tend to be more willing to eat vegetable matter than cats and otters. Primates tend to prefer more vegetable matter in their diets than carnivora, but I think all primates have meat in their diets in their natural environments.

The problem becomes, "Where do you draw the line" when it comes to defining an omnivore then? Unlike herbivores and carnivores, omnivores don't have a distinct set of common features that can be used to classify the "group", unlike the other two categories. That's why I don't like the 3-category system. There's way too much grey area.

[Adam Of Angels]

Phi: There's not a disorder on the planet that absolutely requires somebody to eat meat. There are ways around it in every instance. This is the only position I'm defending. I don't actually have a super duper problem with people that eat meat. I don't completely condone it, but after all, I do eat fish and poultry at times.

For the record, I have NO personal issue with a single person on this board... Well, there's a few, but they know what they've done, and those issues are strictly circumstantial. These discussions are nothing more than debates to me and I would never allow them to create enemies.

[Sicarius]

Originally Posted by Adam Of Angels

I actually never said I wasn't in a financial position to eat as a vegetarian, I said that I had temporary reasons for not doing so. Don't make stuff up because not everybody has the motivation to read the whole thread. I've been traveling for the better part of 6 months and haven't had the option of eating a strictly vegetarian diet. If I did, I'd go days without eating in some instances. I hate it, but I'll deal with my guilt. In the same way, I know I shouldnt drink, but I do drink once or twice a week lately. Anyway, even though I am not currently abiding by the rules of my own arguments, that doesn't mean that what I'm saying is not true. I'm just saying that it's stupid to say that I'm wrong by combating my objective position with your subjective position.

Anyway, as a rule of thumb, don't ask for a link to an informational website when a simple Google search will suffice. It will save me time, and you can perhaps sleep better tonight knowing that you gave up your own convenience for the sake of somebody else's. Just search for "do humans need meat?"

"I think he said" != "I know he said"

just saying bro.

But why should I waste my own time? It's your argument that you've constantly brought up. I don't have to do it for you, nor will I.

If you can't even provide a link to it, then it's obviously not important, and can be disregarded.

[Adam Of Angels]

If you won't even open up an Internet browser and search Google, then you don't care, so don't ask me for a link. Nobody else is defending their emotions with links, so why should I defend my assertions with one? It's not like I'm claiming something that lays beyond the boundaries of common knowledge. If I said "Pumpkins are orange", what you require a link from me to support that notion?

[Sicarius]

Of course I don't care, lol. It's not my argument I'm trying to support.

I had no idea that asking you to provide 1 link to an unbiased source that supported your argument of "factual" evidence, was requiring you to defend your emotions with web links.

I'm not going to go out of my way, just so I don't have to inconvenience you of doing the exact same simple task.

[Adam Of Angels]

I didn't say I was defending my emotions by providing a link, I was implying that the arguments against my own are nothing more than emotional responses.

T

[Adam Of Angels]

If you don't care, get out of the thread. What I argued is common knowledge, not something that needs to be referenced.

[Sicarius]

So, what you're saying is that because the opponent of your argument is using emotion to respond to your "factual" claim, that you don't have to support it with evidence?

You see, I live in an environment, that is dominated by meat eaters, and either in my lack of interest in Veganism/Vegetarianism or simple apathy to most things, this "factual common knowledge" isn't so for me. I've never heard these claims before.

I merely asked that you provide a link, and you can't/ won't do it.

I care about the bear, bro, not about you, your cause, or your argument.