(July 1, 2013 at 7:36 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: I am thinking that we have established that the OP is incorrect in his/her assumption that "childhood-indoctrination" is stopping people from embracing a vegan/vegetarian diet

You can establish for yourself whatever you want, but don't encroach on the judgement of others. Anyway, in between the noise and ad-hominems your side did raise some interesting points and I've certainly learned a great deal about problems of veganism through this discussion, it provided lots of food for thought, so thanks for that!

Quote:I think I would rather get my vitamins and minerals from my food than the pseudo-supplements

Completely agree, I (reluctantly) take exactly one supplement, which is B12. But before you get started, B12 deficient food is more a function of an over-sanitized food production system than it is of veganism per-se.

(June 29, 2013 at 3:21 am)littleendian Wrote: I don't understand why you keep pondering the petrochem thing, I am not advertising conventional ag and I haven't bought conventionally grown crops for years, what I eat is all organic and more and more local.

Where do they get their fertility? Do you want to know? If they aren't going "conventional" the field just narrowed to a host of things I don't think you'll appreciate.

What you guys are talking about is the difference between values and their pragmatic execution. Yes, it is harder to live as a vegan, or even a vegetarian. Humans are obviously omnivores, and meat is a good source of some of our nutrition.

However, while I think "indoctrination" is too leading a term to be useful in a fair debate, it's obvious that culture has as much to do with who is willing to take steps to be vegetarian and who isn't. Go to Texas and tell people to give up steaks, and you're probably wasting your time. Go to Seattle or San Francisco, and you're much more likely to be received positively. This is because at least in part of values that people learned from their parents.

In the end, it's going to come down to economics. Either we stop the growth of humanity, or we have to realize that there IS no natural way to support 10 billion or more people. We'll have either to prevent reproduction, to kill a percentage of the population (through war, or a eugenic holocaust, or through secret viruses or whatever). Overall, a mixed approach is most economic. Some land simply is not arable enough to justify being cultivated by farming.

I personally think we are going to end up with giant food towers, starting with algae, and adding various genetically-modified plants to maximize nutrition. These will provide food to the giant towers of people surrounding them. Obviously, any kind of transported food is unnecessarily expensive: getting fruit from thousands of miles away will be reserved for the rich.

(July 1, 2013 at 7:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: getting fruit from thousands of miles away will be reserved for the rich.

Would they even buy it that way if vertical gardens rendered such useless?

(July 1, 2013 at 7:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I personally think we are going to end up with giant food towers, starting with algae, and adding various genetically-modified plants to maximize nutrition. These will provide food to the giant towers of people surrounding them. Obviously, any kind of transported food is unnecessarily expensive: getting fruit from thousands of miles away will be reserved for the rich.

Fueling conspiracy theories that will outlive me..but..yes, in all likelihood, with the building boom and real estate crash and our ever increasing pop....eventually, just with the tech we have, there will be "food towers". It actually became economically feasible of late - which has always been the sticking point-...so....

As summer mentioned...with vert towers, there isn;t anything you might want to buy that cant be grown locally. I'm gonna take a moment to predict the future....cacao, north of the 49th....gonna make somebody a billionaire in my lifetime.

Here is a very well referenced article about the environmental damage done by animal agriculture: http://terrastendo.net/2013/07/26/do-the...many-cows/

Basically, the people who called me an environmental vandal for using synthetic fibres instead of leather/wool/fur can jump in the lake. Also, as we move towards cleaner energy sources (and we will have to) that particular argument will diminish further.

---

(July 1, 2013 at 7:36 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: I think I would rather get my vitamins and minerals from my food than the pseudo-supplements put forth by the various pharmacological companies thank you...

The animals who are enslaved, exploited, mutilated and slaughtered might have a different opinion if they could talk. In any case, the companies that manufacture vitamins are entirely distinct from big pharma, so your comment is absurd. Vitamins are not drugs. Drugs target specific receptors in the body, whereas vitamins act as cofactors for enzymes in your body. Drugs have side effects and carry dangers of overdosing, but vitamin B12 has no such issues. We shit out the excess no matter how much we ingest.

Vitamin B12 is produced by bacteria, and not by animals. Taking the supplement is actually a much cheaper and more efficient way of obtaining it than by consuming Salmonella-ridden meat/dairy/eggs, since we live in a clean environment with a sanitised water supply.

---

(June 16, 2013 at 6:14 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: animals being used for scientific research gets a big plus from me. I'd be dead without it.

Here is a link explaining the fallacy you have committed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Animal testing for human medicine is scientific fraud, and involves some of the worst abuse imaginable. The people who profit from it try to justify it ethically by saying that the animals are different from us, and then try to justify it scientifically by saying that the animals are the same as us. There is no logically consistent way to justify animal testing without subscribing to that contradiction.

(July 1, 2013 at 7:07 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote:

(July 1, 2013 at 7:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: getting fruit from thousands of miles away will be reserved for the rich.

Would they even buy it that way if vertical gardens rendered such useless?

Well, in MY totally-made-up future, all those vertical gardens will consist of special GM crops designed much more to sustain future troops, and to recycle human waste, than to taste great-- which won't matter, because those people won't ever have tasted real fruit-- just like my children have never tasted real strawberries.

So the rich will truck in natural fruits and vegetables, and even the knowledge of how they taste will be something for them to talk about in the spa.

(July 28, 2013 at 11:48 am)Forbinator Wrote: Here is a link explaining the fallacy you have committed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Animal testing for human medicine is scientific fraud, and involves some of the worst abuse imaginable. The people who profit from it try to justify it ethically by saying that the animals are different from us, and then try to justify it scientifically by saying that the animals are the same as us. There is no logically consistent way to justify animal testing without subscribing to that contradiction.

Animals are similar, genetically at least (depending on the animal, naturally) and are used thanks to that genetic similarity without having to test on humans directly (not exclusively the case).

There is no logical inconsistency unless you want to give animals that are bread the precise reason of testing methodlolgies that could be fatal to a human the exact same rights as a human. I read an inference in your OP that this is exactly the position you take. Thus any further converstaion would result in an impasse as I am for medical advancement and you seemingly are for eliminating all research that would be conducted on animals, effectively wiping entire fields of medicine that saves lives on a daily basis (such as me).

There is a cause for that argument, but it is not one I would subscribe to.

Question: What would you do if you were diagnosed as a T1 diabetic?

I would also say that there are clear advances in medical science that would be impossible to achieve without first conducting testing on animals (unless you wanted to just test on humans instead). Prion based research on misfolding proteins for example. There is currently no way to test for prions such as CJD in animals unless they exibit symptoms (scrapie) or until they're dead. Same with humans. The only way to analyse and test (and hopefully one day cure) diseases such as CJD and MCD is to test them in controlled environments on animals.

You'll have to explain further how clear results from medical testing on animals that result in treatments/cures thanks to the methodological enterprise that was conducted as such is a post hoc fallacy. Becuase it isn't. Unless you're saying someone magically invented a cure after conducting research on animals and then just invented a link.

You will also need to explain and expand on "worst abuse(s) imaginable", and then continue to expand on how this informs all research as conducted on animals.

Another question: How do you define 'animals'?

(July 29, 2013 at 8:27 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Animals are similar, genetically at least (depending on the animal, naturally) and are used thanks to that genetic similarity without having to test on humans directly (not exclusively the case).

Not ever the case actually. All drugs tested on animals have to then be tested on humans, making the animal testing redundant. If the testing was reliable and valid, the drugs would go straight onto the market without needing clinical trials in humans first.

(July 29, 2013 at 8:27 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: ...the exact same rights as a human. I read an inference in your OP that this is exactly the position you take.

No, I just expect their interests to be recognised. The exact same rights as humans would be silly, since animals don't need public schooling and lack many of the interests that we have. Animals (in particular mammals, birds and fish) have the same interest in not being force-fed toxins or injected with cancerous cells as we do.

(July 29, 2013 at 8:27 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Question: What would you do if you were diagnosed as a T1 diabetic?

I would take insulin, of course: http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/in...nd-Insulin

(July 29, 2013 at 8:27 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: I would also say that there are clear advances in medical science that would be impossible to achieve without first conducting testing on animals (unless you wanted to just test on humans instead). Prion based research on misfolding proteins for example. There is currently no way to test for prions such as CJD in animals unless they exibit symptoms (scrapie) or until they're dead. Same with humans. The only way to analyse and test (and hopefully one day cure) diseases such as CJD and MCD is to test them in controlled environments on animals.

This may be the case in a select few examples. In cases such as CJD and MCD however, why expend such great resources looking for a cure when we already know how to prevent the disease(s)? Don't engage in cannibalism, and don't feed beef meal to cows. This is already known. There are other cases when excessive resources are expended towards a cure, when prevention would actually save more lives. There's no money in prevention though...

(July 29, 2013 at 8:27 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: You'll have to explain further how clear results from medical testing on animals that result in treatments/cures thanks to the methodological enterprise that was conducted as such is a post hoc fallacy.

1. A drug exists.
2. It is tested on animals.
3. It is then tested in people.
4. It works.

You have assumed that (4) occurred as a result of (2), simply because (4) occurred after (2). This is obvious post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, unless you can prove that the advancement couldn't have occurred without the animal testing. Since the drug already existed whether it was tested on animals or not, you can't possibly claim that the animal testing was necessary for the development of the drug. http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/in...-guesswork

(July 29, 2013 at 8:27 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: You will also need to explain and expand on "worst abuse(s) imaginable", and then continue to expand on how this informs all research as conducted on animals.

If we're talking about medical research on animals, then you have to experimentally induce a disease in a large sample of animals, and then try to treat it in different ways. There is no humane way to do this. Painkilling drugs have a tendency to confound the results and prevent symptoms from being noted. In any case, if the perpetrators view these animals simply as objects to be exploited, how can we reasonably expect them to care about the animals' individual needs? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPtj89MzoZk

(July 29, 2013 at 8:27 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Another question: How do you define 'animals'?

I should use the phrase "non-human animals", but for the purpose of debate it makes sense to focus on the sentient animals that we exploit the most, and who are known to experience suffering and distress much the same as we do (mammals, birds, fish, crustaceans).

Medical research is very important, and needs to be done reliably, not by scientific fraud. http://www.neavs.org/alternatives/in-testing

(July 29, 2013 at 9:54 am)Forbinator Wrote:

(July 29, 2013 at 8:27 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Animals are similar, genetically at least (depending on the animal, naturally) and are used thanks to that genetic similarity without having to test on humans directly (not exclusively the case).

Not ever the case actually. All drugs tested on animals have to then be tested on humans, making the animal testing redundant. If the testing was reliable and valid, the drugs would go straight onto the market without needing clinical trials in humans first.

Ignoring the salient fact that, should something go wrong with the testing process on animals, then people would die in large numbers (depending on sampling) that could otherwise have been avoided.

Would it thus not be preferable to test on animals first to eliminate the possibility to the largest degree possible?

(July 29, 2013 at 9:54 am)Forbinator Wrote:

(July 29, 2013 at 8:27 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: ...the exact same rights as a human. I read an inference in your OP that this is exactly the position you take.

No, I just expect their interests to be recognised. The exact same rights as humans would be silly, since animals don't need public schooling and lack many of the interests that we have. Animals (in particular mammals, birds and fish) have the same interest in not being force-fed toxins or injected with cancerous cells as we do.

And yet the results demonstrate the efficacy of the methodology, regardless of how much you want to disregard it on anti-vivisection conspiracy sites.

(July 29, 2013 at 9:54 am)Forbinator Wrote:

(July 29, 2013 at 8:27 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Question: What would you do if you were diagnosed as a T1 diabetic?

I would take insulin, of course: http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/in...nd-Insulin

anti-vivisection propaganda countered with pro-animal testing propaganda.

http://www.understandinganimalresearch.o...-diabetes/

(July 29, 2013 at 9:54 am)Forbinator Wrote:

(July 29, 2013 at 8:27 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: I would also say that there are clear advances in medical science that would be impossible to achieve without first conducting testing on animals (unless you wanted to just test on humans instead). Prion based research on misfolding proteins for example. There is currently no way to test for prions such as CJD in animals unless they exibit symptoms (scrapie) or until they're dead. Same with humans. The only way to analyse and test (and hopefully one day cure) diseases such as CJD and MCD is to test them in controlled environments on animals.

This may be the case in a select few examples. In cases such as CJD and MCD however, why expend such great resources looking for a cure when we already know how to prevent the disease(s)? Don't engage in cannibalism, and don't feed beef meal to cows. This is already known. There are other cases when excessive resources are expended towards a cure, when prevention would actually save more lives. There's no money in prevention though...

I know you've taken this from WIKI because the article on there actually excludes/copies and pastes a lot from different web pages that give a a basic understanding of the protein(s) involved in Prion contraction and replication.

I agree, prevention is a preferable solution over the cure, but the fact remains that prion infections do occur in a myriad of ways that medical science simple doesn't understand yet to the fullest degree.

Again, it is impossible to detect the existance of prions in an infected perosn unless they display symptoms that are obvious, or when they are dead. It is impossible to prevent a diseases unless you know about it in its entirety. Cannibalism and the ingesting to brain/spinal tissue is but one facet of a very large and poorly understood field of medicine.

Controlled experiments are the only way to examine in greater detail to discover better ways of prevention, not to mention new manifestations that may have otherwise been impossible to detect owing the difficulty of measuring prions in an animals system, most notably humans.

EG:http://www.microbiologybytes.com/virology/Prions.html

PRPsc may not simply be as a result of ingesting infected tissue. They could also be spread via aerosol, or through fungal infections.

The point is that science isn't fully developed, and it would be naive to exclude animal testing, even if the results it yields turns out to be 0

(July 29, 2013 at 9:54 am)Forbinator Wrote:

(July 29, 2013 at 8:27 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: You'll have to explain further how clear results from medical testing on animals that result in treatments/cures thanks to the methodological enterprise that was conducted as such is a post hoc fallacy.

1. A drug exists.
2. It is tested on animals.
3. It is then tested in people.
4. It works.

You have assumed that (4) occurred as a result of (2), simply because (4) occurred after (2). This is obvious post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, unless you can prove that the advancement couldn't have occurred without the animal testing. Since the drug already existed whether it was tested on animals or not, you can't possibly claim that the animal testing was necessary for the development of the drug. http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/in...-guesswork

No, this is a misrepresentaiton of the scientific method.

The reason a treatment is first tested on animals is to detect its viability and ultimatley its safety. You can assume that "it works on humans so why bother testing it on animals", but it's to determine whether it works on animals that is the key. By ignoring this you are ignoring the basic premise of the methodology and inferring that animal testing is done just for the hell of it. Your accusation of a post hoc fallacy is found wanting.

Imagine a scenario, as above, where a drug is tested on humans and results in a myriad of deaths within the sample. You are forwarding the thesis that if x amount of humans died it is no different to if x amount of animals died in the same scenario.

To prevent this, this is where the testing on animals is required, and this also appears to the be the point you are ignoring.

It is not fallicious reasoning unless you ascribe to the position that animals must have the same rights as humans. And I'm not talking about education et al, I'm talking about the view that animals are equal to humans on ever basic level.

As I said, there is an argument that can be but forward for this position, but it's not one that I subscribe to. Call it utilitarian, but I view the life of a sentient human being in this given scenario as preferable to that of a animal.

The website you post is, again, anti-vivsection propaganda with a slight in favour of anti-vivsection methodologies. I'd want hard evidence in the form of researched and published articles that outline their experimentation. I see a lot of citations that says "The truth of vivisection revealed". These are nonsense citations that are rightly dismissed. Others from research journals on toxicology and medical research journals are worth more inspection. But really, I'll just post anti-anti-vivisection propaganda in response as that's all you've done.

And this ignores the fact that the article is guilt of further fallicious reasoning. If we accept prima facie (nope) that a large number of medical research methodologies have ignored/ not found the side effects of tested drugs, then it does not follow that this is a universal rule for all expiermentation yet to be carried out.

(July 29, 2013 at 9:54 am)Forbinator Wrote:

(July 29, 2013 at 8:27 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: You will also need to explain and expand on "worst abuse(s) imaginable", and then continue to expand on how this informs all research as conducted on animals.

If we're talking about medical research on animals, then you have to experimentally induce a disease in a large sample of animals, and then try to treat it in different ways. There is no humane way to do this. Painkilling drugs have a tendency to confound the results and prevent symptoms from being noted. In any case, if the perpetrators view these animals simply as objects to be exploited, how can we reasonably expect them to care about the animals' individual needs? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPtj89MzoZk

Now you're lapsing into fallicious reasoning. You're inferring behvaiour traits on people you have absolutely no knowledge of.

Ethical review boards, and repeated ethical review implications for flouting their guidelines and restrictions, ensure to a good degree in contemporary research that no undue suffering is caused to animals in the enacting of the research methodology.

No doubt for you this is unacceptable. Well, it's the process of the scientific method and the way that medical research is carried out. IF there's a better alternative that yeilds equitable or better results in every case where testing on animals is required, then as a pragmatist I'd be willing to listen, no doubt scientists would also. But I know of no such methodology.

(July 29, 2013 at 9:54 am)Forbinator Wrote:

(July 29, 2013 at 8:27 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Another question: How do you define 'animals'?

I should use the phrase "non-human animals", but for the purpose of debate it makes sense to focus on the sentient animals that we exploit the most, and who are known to experience suffering and distress much the same as we do (mammals, birds, fish, crustaceans).

Medical research is very important, and needs to be done reliably, not by scientific fraud. http://www.neavs.org/alternatives/in-testing

You keep inferring fraud. This is emotive langauge with no place in a debate.

There is no evidence to suggest it as such aside from anti-animal testing propaganda. That article you've posted cites 6 references which I cannot check up on as I'm currently on a break from work, so I will have to do that another time. However the weight of medical evidence that suggests animal testing does produce results quicker and more efficiently than currently known alternatives is vast.

Allow me to post propaganda of my own:

http://www.understandinganimalresearch.o...t_research

http://www.pro-test.org.uk/facts.php

I can see that very little will sway you from your thinking. There is an argument to be said for limiting animal testing. and certainly not to use it as a cost-cutting method. However, I think the anti-vivsection lobby is full of loons who have no medical training or scientific background whatsoever. The anti-vivisection websites that spring up read more like conspiracy pages than ones based on evidence and reason, who see the benefits of animal testing for what they are.

I bow out of the debate at this point because I've had debates with folk such as yourself in the past. It's a crusade of emotion, not an exploration of reason. If you ever do get ill (and I really hope you don't), I hope that the drugs made avaliable to you have not been tested on animals. But if they have been, what would you do?

Go well.