Kurtle Squad Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Yeah, it's something ridiculously high like that for the rest of the world. Also might be of interest is that 10-15% of Europeans have a mutation in the CCR5 receptor which increases resistance to HIV. And the 1% or so that have two copies of the mutation are near enough immune to HIV. Not sure how those two compare in any way but there ya go. I've heard that before too. Supposedly if two people with such a mutation have a child, there's suppsoed to be a pretty high chance of them being basically HIV immune. I'm not sure how true that is however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Yeah that's what I meant by the two copies. As in, if both parents have at least one copy of the mutation, and the resultant child obtains one mutated copy of the gene from each parent then they have a kind of super-immunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyellowbloke Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Rice milk is my favourite thing in the world, absolutely love it. Yeah Wheat intolerance is a bugger, I only got diagnosed recently. Means I can't have beer =( There are a few gluten free beers out there. One of my friends buys a ton of these whenever he goes to Sainsbury's and as a bonus they're apparently vegan friendly as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolness Bears Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I'll follow up with another joke then: Dynastygal. Banter. lulz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arab_freak Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 So you think there's nothing wrong with that? Well what separates animals from humans then? Why not kill and exploit them as well? I think there's nothing wrong with that because using animals this way is natural. That's right, I'm saying mother nature wants us to have this sort of relationship--it's the circle of life. We wouldn't have made it so far up the food chain nor developed advanced civilizations and technology if it weren't for the animals that helped us get here. No matter how you cut it, there's no such thing as "fairness" in the natural world; you either eat or get eaten. Claws, talons, and teeth are nothing compared to the best survival tool we've had: the human mind. And if we've been equipped with a mind and a conscience then it'll be a shame not to use them. You might say your conscience is what should keep you from killing animals altogether, but I like to think it's there to tell you you should just treat them humanely. And despite the fact that there are places in the world where humans are being killed and exploited, the reason I don't treat humans the same way as animals is because... well, they're human. Like the rest of you I have an unspoken allegiance with the human race and I'm not going to tell anyone they should stop using something we depend on to survive and develop just because it has a heartbeat. Animals were made for us to use/eat them. What a pessimistic view! "If you can't save them all, don't save any." Yeah...if we followed that line of reasoning, we might just stop all progress on earth. "Well, we can't cure ALL people, so why even try..." Like wtf, man... I share the exact same sentiments as Penn and Teller do in the above video: "You want compassion and truth? Okay. Teller and I would personally kill every chimp in the world with our bare hands to save one street-junkie with AIDS." Try your best, do what you can. Bring about as much positive change as you can. Even a little is better than nothing! http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi#PETA So what exactly constitutes as "prevention" of animal suffering? The moral vegetarians (not the ones who do it for religious or health reasons) love to chant "we're trying to limit the suffering." What the hell does that mean? If you eat wheat or soy, you're not limiting anything. Unless you plant, grow and pick your own crops, you're not doing everything you can to "limit" the suffering. You know deep down that you could help limit a whole lot more suffering, but you've chosen not to. You've chosen not to because your lifestyle is too convenient, and you'd have to give up too much, but nevermind that--you have a conscience to feel good about, and you can't let a little thing like millions of violent deaths of field animals get in the way of your moral trip. Srsly, why are those the only possible reasons I would want to do it? I just want to see what it's like. Most vegans/vegetariens say they feel more energetic but I'm not going to know unless I try. I might even expand my pallet while I'm at it. I don't give a rat's ass about animals or the environment. I'm doing it because I want to challenge my assumptions about my diet. Maybe I should have pointed out I don't have a problem with vegans or vegetarians. It's only when they speak out about how they seriously believe that they're morally superior because of their diet that I get annoyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Don't fucking anthropomorphise nature, and use phrases like "circle of life" in a debate, you absolute arsecandle. I also find it dickish and tiny minded to cite Maddox, of all universal fucktards as anything approaching a serious argument. Finally; what the fuck is that in your avatar? Edited June 21, 2011 by The Bard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtle Squad Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Animals were made for us to use/eat them. No. I share the exact same sentiments as Penn and Teller do in the above video: "You want compassion and truth? Okay. Teller and I would personally kill every chimp in the world with our bare hands to save one street-junkie with AIDS." I'd rather the opposite. Edited June 21, 2011 by Kurtle Squad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eenuh Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Animals weren't "made" for us. Nothing was made for anyone or anything. It all just happened. And mankind just evolved in such a way that they figured they would try and control everything, be it animal or nature or even other people. Your argument probably also could be applied to other things. Why not say when slaves were still around: "Black people were made for us to be used as slaves". Or "Women were made for us men to sexually exploit and abuse (and cook us dinner)". It doesn't work that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arab_freak Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Don't fucking anthropomorphise nature, and use phrases like "circle of life" in a debate, you absolute arsecandle. What, are you going to try and flame me for telling you the truth as I see it? I haven't anthropomorphised shit. It doesn’t have to fit your skewed definition of “nature†to be natural. It just is. I also find it dickish and tiny minded to cite Maddox, of all universal fucktards as anything approaching a serious argument. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he can't come up with some good points. A serious argument, on a Nintendo forum? Really? I'd hate to see what you think constitutes a petty one. Animals weren't "made" for us. Nothing was made for anyone or anything. It all just happened. And mankind just evolved in such a way that they figured they would try and control everything, be it animal or nature or even other people. Your argument probably also could be applied to other things. Why not say when slaves were still around: "Black people were made for us to be used as slaves". Or "Women were made for us men to sexually exploit and abuse (and cook us dinner)". It doesn't work that way. Point taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Animals were made for us to use/eat them. And thus we learn that most of everything you say is essentially a regurgitation of muslim doctrine. This is a typically Islamist idea (I should know, since I was born into a muslim family), and one that really had no place in a world outside imaginary causes and an imaginary teleology. The world isn't anthropocentric. Look outside the doctrine of your culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramar Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 you absolute arsecandle. *writes that one down for future pwnage* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 What, are you going to try and flame me for telling you the truth as I see it? I haven't anthropomorphised shit. It doesn’t have to fit your skewed definition of “nature” to be natural. It just is. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he can't come up with some good points. A serious argument, on a Nintendo forum? Really? I'd hate to see what you think constitutes a petty one.. Really, so in your mind, applying the term "mother" to nature, doesn't constitute an anthropomorphisation or at least the insinuation of sentience onto something which has no actual intent? I always thought you were a bit stupid, but not to the point of being unable to navigate a dictionary. Secondly, yes, if you can't make a point without citation of someone who whose core constituency consists of the dregs of the internet, then you are a fucknut. Finally, yes, I can see that your expectations for serious discussion on this forum are reflected in your own input, in which case, just go away. Nobody missed you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arab_freak Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 And thus we learn that most of everything you say is essentially a regurgitation of muslim doctrine. No, not really. I have plenty of atheist friends who think the only purpose animals have is to be used by us. They don't believe in an all-knowing and benevolent creator, but their reasoning leads them to believe that there is a sublime system to life and we all take part in it. Of course I'm not saying that's how all atheists think, but it goes to show that you can believe in the same concepts. And for the record, I like to think I'm pretty secular with my reasoning. My wording might still insinuate otherwise, but I was an atheist once and it's had a huge impact on the way I think about everything. Hell, I'm even working on the set of a show that's promoting a secular government for our upcoming elections. This is a typically Islamist idea It works for all religions that worship the Abrahamic God. The world isn't anthropocentric. Look outside the doctrine of your culture. If you catch my drift: the world doesn't revolve around us, but our world revolves around ourselves. I believe life itself is will to power. The "doctrine of my culture" doesn't necessarily have to tell me anything, nor does it have to define everything about me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 No, but the doctrine of your culture does seem to underlie everything you're saying, at least until you moderate it with a subsequent post. Also, yeah, "above all a living being seeks to discharge its strength," I'm not unfamiliar with Nietzschean maxims, but the beast of prey and the unwavering pitilessness that characterises his blonde beast doesn't really exist in our world. Inevitably, you do realise that your speaking of, and attempting to reconcile Abhramic gods, and Nietzschean ideals in the same post may actually consititute the most glaring contradiction imaginable, right? The Abhramic gods are actually the most decadent and most representative of an opposition to the will to power that you will find in any ideology or religion. Quit bullshitting/ spouting indefensible nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Secondly, yes, if you can't make a point without citation of someone who whose core constituency consists of the dregs of the internet, then you are a fucknut. Which bits was he wrong on? As is mentioned he isn't the most savoury character around, but with his regards to Vegetarians he raises some nice points. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill Ignore the insults [which cuts around a 1/3 off] and it still makes sense. Edited June 21, 2011 by EEVILMURRAY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Which bits was he wrong on? None, but he simplified the argument. He argued why animals aren't humans; that's easy enough to do, but it's not the point. The main question is: Why is it okay for us to eat and exploit animals? Just because they're not humans? A hypothetical thought experiment: A civilisation of aliens come to Earth and conquer it. They enslave humankind and start to eat and exploit us like we do animals. Would we find this fair? I don't actually know where I stand on this issue myself, so I'll mostly just be following the debate with great interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 None, but he simplified the argument. He argued why animals aren't humans; that's easy enough to do, but it's not the point. The main question is: Why is it okay for us to eat and exploit animals? Just because they're not humans? I didn't mean on the video I posted, I mean more on the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arab_freak Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 if you can't make a point without citation of someone who whose core constituency consists of the dregs of the internet, then you are a fucknut. Whether or not you consider Maddox's writing to be tripe is a matter of taste. I referenced him because he pretty much summed up my opinion; his wordplay would have meant nothing had it had some substance. If you think he doesn't make any convincing argument at all then that's a whole different story. I think he does, ergo, I linked his article. Finally, yes, I can see that your expectations for serious discussion on this forum are reflected in your own input, in which case, just go away. Nobody missed you. I can see your tolerance for opinions that are different from your own are reflected in your posts as well. Also, yeah, "above all a living being seeks to discharge its strength," I'm not unfamiliar with Nietzschean maxims, but the beast of prey and the unwavering pitilessness that characterises his blonde beast doesn't really exist in our world. Inevitably, you do realise that your speaking of, and attempting to reconcile Abhramic gods, and Nietzschean ideals in the same post may actually consititute the most glaring contradiction imaginable, right? The Abhramic gods are actually the most decadent and most representative of an opposition to the will to power that you will find in any ideology or religion. Which is why I'm not the Muslim everyone thinks I should be. Then again, who is? From what I've seen from living at the epicenter of religious dogma, there's a shitload of Muslims but hardly any Islam. Every sect has its heretics and interpretations, and we all apply human logic in an attempt to understand a being that is presented to us in a form that is supposedly beyond our comprehension. I don't want to dwell on this too much, but my thoughts and beliefs are a personal choice and there's nothing wrong with the solace they bring me unless it comes at the price of someone else's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I didn't mean on the video I posted, I mean more on the link. You had only posted the video at the time, so that's what you appeared to refer to. There's nothing wrong with what he says in the link, either, but he still hasn't actually defended why it's morally okay for humans to exploit animals. I can easily think of a number of arguments for why it is okay, but the point I'm trying to make right now is that he hasn't made a single of such arguments. Instead, he has taken it for granted that it's self-evident and resorted to insults. This is the reason I dislike people like him and (sometimes) Penn & Teller: Because their arrogance often leads to them regard their own opinions as self-evident and thus fail to properly argue them. And when their points really are self-evident, surely there should be no need to bash the opposition since the evidence should speak for itself, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 There's nothing wrong with what he says in the link, either, but he still hasn't actually defended why it's morally okay for humans to exploit animals. I can easily think of a number of arguments for why it is okay, but the point I'm trying to make right now is that he hasn't made a single of such arguments. True, he hasn't attempted to make a case for himself, more than to poke holes in the defence. But he does make some good points. And now the same can be done to him. What are your arguments? Penn & Teller I really need to look into these guys. I find out Drell is actually a magician, and now he and his buddy do more than just magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 True, he hasn't attempted to make a case for himself, more than to poke holes in the defence. But he does make some good points. And now the same can be done to him. What are your arguments? I really need to look into these guys. I find out Drell is actually a magician, and now he and his buddy do more than just magic. True enough, he does make some good points. It's why I don't hate him in any way, I just dislike his general tone. The same goes for Penn & Teller; they're pretty awesome most of the time, but their "Bullshit!" series really did annoy me at times. The arguments I'd give for the consumption and exploitation of animals have already been covered in this thread; survival of the fittest, the circle of life etc. But as I mentioned, I'm actually very undecided on this topic, and I've found that both sides of the debate make some great points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tissue Town Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 The concept of Veganism is ridiculous, and the holier than thou attitude that Vegans have is also annoying. That said, I think there are more important matters to worry about. Like the ban on battery farming and ritual slaughter. A putrid turd on human society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Skimmin' the thread because I'm in the mood. because I live in a world where I can walk into a shop and buy something plucked from a tree the other side of the world, where you can buy meals already cooked, where the average ingredient list seems to contain 30 things (of which there are at least I don't even know what they are), eating meat is fairly distant from the source. If I had to kill the animal to eat it I'd probably be vegetarian for a fair length of time (eggs and milk are like... yeah. Attainable. Eggs moreso, ofc) before the hunger gets to me, or I see a glint in my pet pig Mercutio's eyes that encourages me to do the deed. Fact is we don't have to do the nitty-gritty part of preparing meat so we tend not to think about it. A while ago, though, I was staring at a chicken wing that was resting in my fingers and I couldn't help but see the similarities between it and a babie's arm. Put me off chicken for a fair while. Getting bored. Essentially, if it was me vs. nature I'd kill it as often as I was emotionally able to. If it's me or the dog... then I'll eat the dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted June 21, 2011 Author Share Posted June 21, 2011 I ate a burrito today. It had pork in it. It tasted oh so good. I both FAIL and WIN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I occasionally feel a twinge of guilt for the myriad of sources for my ridiculous daily meat consumption, but ironically, I'm intolerant to milk, wheat (and I'm suspicious of eggs also needing to be included in this - which is clinically unconfirmed at this point). Even eating a small amount of this ish makes me groggy, slow and prone to bouts of irreconcilable depression. Also, I've always found it weird to eat stuff that comes out of a cloaca. Dude I'm making diary, wheat and nut free goodies on Thursday night (not sure what yet but cupcakes, cookies etc). Come hunt me down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts