Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[Kwayera]

I roll over on naming the exact substances, admittedly, but the point is that there ARE substances, which I assume are ones a developing child can't really do without, than cannot be provided by non-animal food sources. If an adult chooses to artificially supply themselves with these substances that's fine, but I have issues with inflicting someone's "morals" detrimentally on a child.

Milk and eggs, if you agree they need to be available readily for children, wouldn't be able to be produced in enough amounts to be able to rule out expensive and expansive food crops for the animals that produce them.

And I believe that there is a lot of evidence that the risks associated with unfermented soy outweigh its benefits, and again I wouldn't inflict those on a child.

*sigh* I wish I knew more hard facts about this.

 

[KFunk]

If an adult chooses to artificially supply themselves with these substances that's fine, but I have issues with inflicting someone's "morals" detrimentally on a child.

Sure, but this doesn't hold if the supplements prevent detrimental outcomes.

Also, Vegemite! (yeast, etc...)

 

[Kwayera]

Sure, but this doesn't hold if the supplements prevent detrimental outcomes.

Yes it does yes it does! *stamps foot*

Hehe but seriously, I would be uncomfortable putting my own kid on supplements when everything can be obtained naturally; many supplements aren't regulated or prescribed so people can go overboard and overdose their kids. I've seen it before.

I am an omnivore. I likes my meat and I needs my meat.

 

[KFunk]

And that's fair enough. It's worth noticing that in the same way I push a moral agenda, you push an aesthetic one.

 

[Slidey]

I roll over on naming the exact substances, admittedly, but the point is that there ARE substances, which I assume are ones a developing child can't really do without, than cannot be provided by non-animal food sources. If an adult chooses to artificially supply themselves with these substances that's fine, but I have issues with inflicting someone's "morals" detrimentally on a child.

I said you could name them on one hand because I can't think of any. And I have fairly exhaustively checked literature. I'm not going to make you figure out if they exist, but yeah I really am not aware of any.

Milk and eggs, if you agree they need to be available readily for children, wouldn't be able to be produced in enough amounts to be able to rule out expensive and expansive food crops for the animals that produce them.

We have chickens in our back yard. I think you underestimate how little it takes to feed them vs what they give back; you feed them your scraps and they produce more eggs than you can give away to all your friends and neighbours.

Based on stories my mum tells about the cows on her farm as a kid, I imagine it's a similar case with them.

And as I said, milk and eggs aren't the only source of protein. Much of it can be consumed from plant sources. The few amino acids that ARE rare in plants the body only needs small amounts of.

And I believe that there is a lot of evidence that the risks associated with unfermented soy outweigh its benefits, and again I wouldn't inflict those on a child.

*sigh* I wish I knew more hard facts about this.

I wasn't really aware of risks of soy. Anyway, soy is a very ubiquitous substance, vegetarian or not. It's used in many foods, and is very common in fast food. Phytooestrogen exposure, for example is very weakly binding to oestrogen receptors. Ignoring that phytooestrogens are found in most foods, including cereal and meat, phytooestrogen consumption of the level found in soy is not near enough for hormonal change.

If we are bringing up health issues associated with vegetarian diets, perhaps it would be prudent to bring up health issues associated with meat-eating diets? Weighing the two it would seem the vegetarian diet is the better choice consider the decreased risks of cancers and diseases (including heart disease and diabetes).

Wikipedia provides a better summary than I can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism#Health_issues

 

[Kwayera]

I don't know. I just find it hard to reconcile the morality here. It's immoral to mistreat animals, yes, and I have strong opinions regarding that; however, I am also a member of H. sapiens sapiens, and we are omnivores.

Personally my ideal situation would be a return to sustainable small-scale farming, as you have described, but that just doesn't work when applied to 6 billion people (a large proportion of which live in cities). And I don't think that forcing everyone to go vegetarian is the right answer.


I fully admit that I have been lax in providing any science to back up my claims. I'll go looking for some evidence.

 

[KFunk]

I am also a member of H. sapiens sapiens, and we are omnivores.

That's a nice descriptive statement of typical H. sapiens sapiens eating habits, but I challenge you to derive an 'ought' or a prescriptive statement from it (espcially given that we have argued that meat is not necessary for our survival). We also typically develop cancer or cardiovascular disease after a certain age - should we pursue this also?

Humans have domesticated animals, we are able to live healthily on an environmentally friendly vegetarian diet, but what are humans if not naturally hedonistic?

Again, cancer may be deemed 'natural' in the right light. However, you need to distinguish between a natural tendency and an inevitability. Some things can be changed or augmented, perhaps for the better? (take note, of course, that I am a moral relativist)

 

[Slidey]

I don't know. I just find it hard to reconcile the morality here. It's immoral to mistreat animals, yes, and I have strong opinions regarding that; however, I am also a member of H. sapiens sapiens, and we are omnivores.

Personally my ideal situation would be a return to sustainable small-scale farming, as you have described, but that just doesn't work when applied to 6 billion people (a large proportion of which live in cities). And I don't think that forcing everyone to go vegetarian is the right answer.


I fully admit that I have been lax in providing any science to back up my claims. I'll go looking for some evidence.

I'm not the type to try and force vegetarianism on somebody. I just sometimes find it important to dismiss myths about a vego diet.

I think the economic arguments holds water, too. It should be noted it isn't about making the world vegetarian, but minimising meat consumption (to whatever amount satisfies nutritional requirements without worrying about diet - likely about a quarter of current consumption) and thus maximising plant yield.

I believe cattle use 6 times as much food as is produced by eating them. Cut the amount of cattle meat eaten down to a quarter and you've now got 75% of grain/crop available for human consumption instead. You feed a hell of a lot more people that way without any recourse to a vegetarian diet (or having to worry about nutrition levels).

Not to mention you'd decrease government and personal expenditure on healthcare by a shitload due to cutting back on red meat. No small feat.

 

[KFunk]

Exactly, your morals are irrelevant to mine

Agreed, funnily enough, except to some degree in a practical setting of course. It still helps to be able to compromise / resolve conflict when disagreement arises.

 

[KFunk]

Bradcube: The other reason I forgot to mention, which Slidey reminded me of, is health related. I eat better as a vegetarian - I knocks out most fast food chains and a lot of meat based meals full of saturated fats. My cardiovascular system will thank me when I'm older.

 

[BradCube]

Sorry to Kwayera and 3unitz for not posting up my examples on irreducible complexity. To be honest, I'm just over debating for the moment. I feel as though I am just attacked after every comment I make. It could just be my thoughts, but their seems to be a fair amount of hostility in this thread. Having said that, I will try to eventually bring some points up. I'll do some more reading first to refresh my memory

Free will:

I don't hold that you have the burden of proof right from the start of the debate. Rather, I feel that the burden is shifted to you given the arguments that I have put forward. In particular I have tried to show how the traditional conception of free will results in consequences that are very much contrary to what we know and believe about human minds and behavior. The rough argument, which I won't go over again in detail (unless you need certain aspects recapped), was that you either have determinism or indeterminism in the context of the will. Indeterminism amounts to randomness and randomness cannot account for the world relevance of our actions, i.e. our actions would not correspond so well to the world, or our supposed values and beliefs. That is, in the case where the will is random rather than being constrained / determined by these factors. Given that I have provided an argument showing the traditional conception of free will to be incoherent I expect you to either a) show why my argument is incorrect or b) provide a different, coherent acount of free will.

Yup, so we both agree that the will is obviously not random since it does not fit with the order in the world we see today. My point I think lies in the "a)" response. Not so much in the sense that your argument is incoherent, but that the conclusions you draw from it seem to be. Even if our reasoning process defines what the will puts into action, I don't see how this means "free will" as a whole is degraded. The will is able to try and carry out any action upon which the individual has decided is most rational. So in this way, the will is only limited by what it is told to do (obvious I realize). The problem then lies for me in that you are saying that I am only able to choose one option when presented with a choice. Now this is certainly true in the past tense (ie I chose "a" over "b") but I don't believe so in the present tense (I am choosing "a" over "b") In a present tense situation, the individual has the ability at any stage to choose another option as long as they can provide themselves with sufficient reasoning for doing so. It is this individuals ability to decide/choose which I would claim enables their will to be free (since their will is linked to their choices).

I am finding great difficulty in actually trying to express what I am saying here. There seems to be so many double meanings

So again, the only proof that I could offer of my ability to choose "a" over "b" would be to go back in the past and show that I could have chosen the other option. Now this isn't going to happen any time soon, and as a result I am left thinking that such a belief in free will is properly basic.

Interesting to see how much the vegetarian opinion has developed since I brought it back up again. I'm of the opinion that if there are indeed no objective morals, then all of such discussion in the end is ultimately meaningless right?

Another separate note, is it just me, or does anything in regard to ID on Wikipedia have a really negative spin on it? I feel like I almost reading an essay rather than an encyclopedia. This isn't a criticism, only an observation.

 

[HalcyonSky]

Interesting to see how much the vegetarian opinion has developed since I brought it back up again. I'm of the opinion that if there are indeed no objective morals, then all of such discussion in the end is ultimately meaningless right?

Another separate note, is it just me, or does anything in regard to ID on Wikipedia have a really negative spin on it? I feel like I almost reading an essay rather than an encyclopedia. This isn't a criticism, only an observation.

Why would the discussion be rendered meaningless? Eat less meat, live longer, have healthier babies; it's an advantage to the future evolution of the persons bloodline as well as a future advantage for the individual, so theres plenty of incentive to not eat meat without any form of morality even coming into question.

And yes, ID will have a negative spin anywhere you read about it, unless it is from a creationist website. If you take an objective view on it, you will take into account the overwhelming rejection of it by the scientific community, and there's your negative spin.
To believe in ID, you really have to admit you're basing it on faith rather than fact

 

[Slidey]

Another separate note, is it just me, or does anything in regard to ID on Wikipedia have a really negative spin on it? I feel like I almost reading an essay rather than an encyclopedia. This isn't a criticism, only an observation.

Wikipedia is always meant to produce both points of view (as well as try and assess each one's legitimacy). When it doesn't do this somebody puts a note at the top saying "This article is unencyclopaedic" or "This article may be biased". I see no notes for the ID article, however.

I read the article just now and I don't see it reading like an essay. It's certainly not putting ID in a favourable light, but it's not putting bias on it either; anything negative you read from the article is probably due to cognitive dissonance - you can see how ID is silly if the article is correct, thus you don't believe the article is correct.

I'm sorry you feel like you're being attacked in this thread Brad. That's going to be hard to reconcile anywhere you go though, as Intelligent Design and Creationism are simply not considered acceptable scientific viewpoints and often also not considered acceptable religious viewpoints. I've said that many times before in this thread. I'll let the American Botanical Association's statement on evolution end this thread with a less argumentative summary of my views:

http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php

 

[Kwayera]

Not to mention you'd decrease government and personal expenditure on healthcare by a shitload due to cutting back on red meat. No small feat.

Well hey now, that only holds when the type of red meat you are eating is high in fat (I'm only using the fat example, as I'm guess it's that part of the meat that causes cancers and other cardiovascular. Meats like lamb and American-style beef (which can be highly marbled) are indeed fatty and shouldn't be consumed all that much if one's aiming for a healthier diet, but I find it extremely hard to believe that those who limit their meat intake to the much leaner cuts (chicken breast, to an extent, lean beef steaks, and - most especially - kangaroo, which is 99% fat free) experience much of an increase in cancers at all.

 

[Slidey]

Well hey now, that only holds when the type of red meat you are eating is high in fat (I'm only using the fat example, as I'm guess it's that part of the meat that causes cancers and other cardiovascular. Meats like lamb and American-style beef (which can be highly marbled) are indeed fatty and shouldn't be consumed all that much if one's aiming for a healthier diet, but I find it extremely hard to believe that those who limit their meat intake to the much leaner cuts (chicken breast, to an extent, lean beef steaks, and - most especially - kangaroo, which is 99% fat free) experience much of an increase in cancers at all.

Fat most usually causes cardiovascular disease, not the majority of other red meat health problems like most cancers, bone degradation & arthritis, DNA mutations, and arguably diabetes mellitus. These things are mostly caused by carcinogens and chemicals found in the meat (many natural) and over-consumption stresses on the body.

Thus ensuring your meat is lean will help decrease your risk of cardiovascular disease, but that's about all.

The human body isn't designed for long-term meat consumption because natural selection basically stops dead after 30 in humans, which is the start of when things like cancer and disease begin causing problems.

 

[Omium]

Ill SHOW ya something thats More IMPORTANT THAN GOD EXISTING?

http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=169788

 

[Slidey]

um why are u guys talking about god and i cant believe that somepeople say i hate relgions what have they done to you that you hate them OMG

Oh my god... Chandler Bing?

 

[KFunk]

In a present tense situation, the individual has the ability at any stage to choose another option as long as they can provide themselves with sufficient reasoning for doing so. It is this individuals ability to decide/choose which I would claim enables their will to be free (since their will is linked to their choices).

Look at the part I quoted in italics. It doesn't really say a lot to claim that a person can make a number of different choices provided that they are backed up by a sufficient line of reasoning for each kind of choice. It seems kind of like saying that a person can make a number of different choices provided that their experiences in the last 24 hours differ appropriately. Sure, in these counterfactual situations a person may end up willing something different (as a result of having slightly different memories or a different line of reasoning). You have to note, however, that you are speaking in conditional terms: "as long as they can" --> i.e. if they can (insert capacity... ) then free will is made possible.

The problem, then, is that I don't think you have established that it is possible for a person to reason differently than they do. Here debates about dualism/materialism enter the picture because if we are working with a hard, computational materialism then it would seem that reasoning is deterministic and I'm not sure what room there is for a 'free' capacity of reason. Essentially I feel that the arguments I have provided against a 'free' will similarly apply to a 'free' faculty of reason (and so I'm not sure how introducing such a faculty saves your concept of free will?). Counterfactual conditionals are all well and good but unless you can show that the antecendent holds (or at least that it is possible, if you even want to keep your position tenable) then I don't think you have made much of a case.

Interesting to see how much the vegetarian opinion has developed since I brought it back up again. I'm of the opinion that if there are indeed no objective morals, then all of such discussion in the end is ultimately meaningless right?

Yes and no. Yes, in so far as I don't think a debate will eventually reveal the Truth (capital 'T'). On the other hand, I'm not sure why the debate should be seen as entirely meaningless if our claims aren't objective. Is discussion of music, artwork, literature or music meaningless? What about preferred film genres or individuals we find most attractive? Even if we acknowledge that aesthetic, or preference based, claims within such kinds of discourse are never objectively true, but are instead statements of preference, we do not therefore debase the discourse to the point of being meaningless. We're not just talking past one another.

Think of the importance of conflict resolution. Even if two parties hold contrary values they can still seek a compromise. It is often quite enlightening to learn and talk about values and how they differ, especially if we are to try to live in harmony and seek some kind of peaceful equilibrium (or as close to one as possible). So sure, while a claim like 'causing pain is wrong' has an element of meaningless I still think debates of this sort can be quite useful. Understanding is valuable.

 

[KFunk]

Also, metaethical discouse will naturally remain coherent. We can examine the categories used to make ethical claims without making ethical claims ourselves, similar to the way in which "there are no objectively true moral claims" is not itself a prescriptive statement (though it has a lot implications for our moral lives!). Just as one might compare Bach and Vivaldi or Beatles and the Rolling Stones we can similarly compare moral systems. We don't, ultimately, have to say one is right/better. Features can still be identified and contrasted. Such an approach may also prove quite useful (for reasons such as those mentioned above).

In particular I find moral psychology quite enlightening as it tries to explain the origins and neurobiological & cognitive bases of morality. I'm quite interested to see how such knowledge might potentially contribute to how we deal with cases of moral conflict.

 

[Kwayera]

Fat most usually causes cardiovascular disease, not the majority of other red meat health problems like most cancers, bone degradation & arthritis, DNA mutations, and arguably diabetes mellitus. These things are mostly caused by carcinogens and chemicals found in the meat (many natural) and over-consumption stresses on the body.

I speak from genuine ignorant incredulity here, I'm sorry, but which chemicals cause bone degradation (I would have thought that the calcium content of meat near the bone would mitigate that) and DNA mutations?

Thus ensuring your meat is lean will help decrease your risk of cardiovascular disease, but that's about all.

The human body isn't designed for long-term meat consumption because natural selection basically stops dead after 30 in humans, which is the start of when things like cancer and disease begin causing problems.

Sorry but for this I have to call BS. We have guts and digestive processes (as well as teeth) designed for processing plant AND animal matter as efficiently as possible. There is no evidence to suggest that people are more negatively affected by a diet including meat past that age, unless I'm missing something.