Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Discussion / Re: Five most serious problems?
« Last post by Unlimited on Today at 11:27:05 PM »
genetically engineered virus
Nanotechnology
3d printing/nuclear weapons
genetically engineered plague sickness whatever that causes x - and crashes tree of life on earth
super volcanoes

- edit - im thinking of so many more right now but aside from solar flares these are the likely bad guys imo  :P

Wow, that’s some crazy-ass bullshit.

Crazy as in unlikely so shouldn't worry about it? Or crazy as in these things arent possible?

1. Seems like we are almost there already and in 10 years any asshole with a laboratory and a million dollars will be able to create tailor made virus' in his basement - imo the most plausible and most likely to cause real damage from this list.
2. Grey goo
3. 3d printing is really new and crappy right now but in 10 years it might be really really good and why wouldn't it be possible for some crazy asshole with a million dollars to print his own centrifuge and detonation system?
4. I realize this is viewed by you as some crank conspiracy or something but it has already almost happened here
5. Why can't I be worried about super volcanoes? they are my worries.
2
What in the world are you talking about? Vegetarianism is a dietary choice, not an ideology. People choose to be vegetarians for all kinds of reasons. Some of those reasons may be unskeptical (if, for instance, they are making unevidenced health claims for their diet), but many of the are not—including the ethical concerns that most have been focusing on here.

I'm talking about the subject for the thread. Yes, people choose to be vegetarians for all kinds of reasons. Many not compatible with science.

I would argue that it can be an ideology and when it is, it is not compatible with skepticism.

Very few ideologies are.
3


=( they kill rodents and stuff to grow your lettuce. Convince a meat eating friend to take a whole day off and then add steak to your taco theoretically guilt free?

Not sure about the second part, but...

I think it was Alan Watts who pointed out that in order to live, other things must die. That vegetarians don’t get off scot free, since plants have to die to support them.

When I decide to mow my lawn, or go for a drive or a flight, I accept things will die as a result of that choice. Even taking an antibiotic or antiviral kills something alive.

I think it’s the Jaens who breathe through gauze so as not to accidentally inhale an insect, and sweep in front of them to avoid stepping on insects. They believe that all life reflects the “godhead” and should be protected. That’s a bit extreme to me, but I respect the intent.

To point out the death that goes into cultivating lettuce seems like letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I just try to minimize, not eliminate, the death and suffering my existence on this planet causes for my time here.

Trying not to sound preachy - these are just my thoughts about my choices.
Nah, I wouldn't bother. The whole "but what about ___" is just a bad faith argument unless the knock-on effect is worse. If vegetarian or vegan eating caused more animal death or more abuse of workers, then it would maybe have a point, but the point of vegan or vegetarian isn't that anyone thinks they're totally eliminating death or suffering, but lessening needless suffering or protesting abhorrent practice.

It's just another in the long line of dishonest bullshit.

Hey its you again... I kind of feel like you have a hardon for me now. I'm going to honestly let you know you're barking up the wrong tree with this crusade bs like its time wasted for so many reasons.

More specifically what I meant was you are already making sacrifices (rationalizations) because of the current structure of society and even the concept of humans occupying space animals would otherwise inhabit etc, so what's the harm in just a tiny bit more rationalization? You theoretically already have blood on your hands - and if you get a heavy meat eater to skip a day so you can have 4 ounces of the 50ish billion pounds of beef already consumed in the US each year... It doesn't seem out of bounds of the current rationalizations that are being made. I understand that a person has to be practical and pragmatic when living in our society as far as your range of choices, but if you accept this it means you sort of already accept your "guilty". 

I would say I feel almost no remorse when squashing a mosquito or some other bity insect, but I have recently began to question my judgment on this because of:
Quote
"Here, we  only  showed  that the assumption of some self recognition by ants, in front of their reflection, is not unrealistic."
ARE ANTS (HYMENOPTERA, FORMICIDAE) CAPABLE OF SELF RECOGNITION?

Used to think theres absolutely zero chance of things like ants being anything close to what we would call sentient... but who the hell knows now. Maybe its an evolutionary response to always coming across your own reflection in a bead of water? On the other hand maybe they are little genius' stuck in teeny tiny ant bodies! Probably not. Sound's ridiculous but it seems to me an ant recognizing itself in a mirror when lesser apes and dogs simply cant catch on is, significant. But who wants to live in the world where ants are sentient?

I don't think there's a way to live scot-free not to mention a practical way to do it. I would also say making the choice to be vegetarian or even vegan is a reasonable way to heavily reduce the amount of suffering you cause to animals. Be vigilant in your practicality however, thing's get messy and counter intuitive in an uber complex living system like our economy/food supply. For instance did you know that biking to work can be worse for the environment then driving a prius? ¹

What if you were in a scenario where you really weren't guilty of causing or contributing to an animals death or suffering and were still in a position to consume it? Like maybe your hiking you see some animals fight to the death then the victor just leaves - or perhaps a pig that's genetically engineered so that it wants to be eaten? I would venture a guess that many vegetarians and even more vegans would still not want to consume the guilt free animal flesh in this hypothetical scenario because it feels barbaric or possibly even because its just icky. Both are perfectly good reasons to not eat flesh and really any reason is a good reason if it means less sentient animals suffer.

I think humans should focus much more on something like hydroponic skyscrapers to stop the destruction of natural ecosystems, and laboratory grown ribeye's to satiate my unending cravings for flesh. Imagine if we could stack our farms 25 or 100 stories tall? About half the land on planet earth is used to grow food right now. To me that's simply insanity not to mention a true ecological genocide.
4
TV & Movies / Re: Rate the last movie you just saw.
« Last post by fuzzyMarmot on Today at 10:02:24 PM »
Sorry to Bother You - 9/10

It's basically a 50/50 mix between [Surreal Dark Comedy] and [Social Commentary].  If you like either of those, consider it strongly recommended.

I am SO excited for this. I've loved Boots Riley and The Coup for many years. I'm curious to hear what people on the forum think of it.
5
Some people might just dislike the taste of meat or be disgusted by the idea of eating animal stuff. Or they might have chosen a dietary restriction as a test of personal discipline. Or they might be trying it out as a lifestyle experiment. Or maybe they're doing it for social reasons.

Or they might just prefer not to have an animal killed - directly or indirectly - for their meal, or the suffering that appears to be inflicted on the animals involved. Which kinda sums up my reason.

As an aside, I make no claims as to any health benefits for a vegetarian diet. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some, but it similarly would not surprise me if it had some small negative effect.
6
What in the world are you talking about? Vegetarianism is a dietary choice, not an ideology. People choose to be vegetarians for all kinds of reasons. Some of those reasons may be unskeptical (if, for instance, they are making unevidenced health claims for their diet), but many of the are not—including the ethical concerns that most have been focusing on here.
7
Don't see anyone here making that claim.  The reasons I see are moral ones (and one I agree with, I'm just bad at applying my moral objections to my everyday life)

Sure, fine, but my point is that skepticism pretty much requires scientific evidence and vegetarianism (not just choosing to each only veggies, but adopting it as an ideology) is not skeptical or scientific. For an ideology to not conflict with skepticism it would need to be evidenced-based and open to change based on new evidence
8
Skepticism / Science Talk / Re: Binaural Beats
« Last post by John Albert on Today at 07:05:49 PM »
Is there any evidence for therapeutic benefits?

I'd presume they're just as bullshit as the claims that listening to these tones can get you high.
9
General Discussion / Re: Tornado season
« Last post by Mr. Beagle on Today at 07:00:58 PM »
This is from a couple years ago on the Iowa-Missouri border, the funnel cloud forming soon after it passed overhead, missing the town by about five miles. The cloud had begun to rotate. I have since sold the house but it had a great unobstructed view to the southwest, the direction from which most most tornadoes come.

10
Tech Talk / Re: The Car Maintenance and Repair Thread
« Last post by Desert Fox on Today at 06:08:39 PM »
I replaced the passenger side caliper and bled the brakes.
Finally got the brake light to go out.
Probably want to replace the driver side next time I replace the pads.

Still having an issue with the temperature however.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
personate-rain