Shock & Awe - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Shock & Awe

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby acsguitar » Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:04 pm

Omaha Red Sox wrote:
willy-t wrote:I'm not opening this vid as I'm at work, but it sounds pretty brutal. I don't want to open a can of worms because I am a meat eater and I'm in no position to be principled, but I think vegetarians have a sound rationale really, animals are just a less intellegent species than us (depending on whether you are a creationist or a darwenist) and it could be argued it's wrong to kill them for any reason.

Still, thats a different debate to this, what goes on in some parts of the world is deplorable, cosmetic animal testing, battery farming, fur trade, inhumane slaughtering, dancing bears etc etc etc.


With this rationale, being just another species, then it would be the same principle as it is in the wild. When a lion kills a wildebeest or a shark eats a seal. It's a food chain and we're at the top.


There is debate over if people were meant to eat meat in the first place. Still I'm not saying that we shouldn't eat meet. I think it is wrong to cruelly treat animals but obviously I am a hypocrite on this as I do eat chicken. Its hard to break trends that you've followed though since you were born (ie...eating lots of chicken)

Although i really dislike birds but I don't really eat them to spite them.

There are a few reasons I don't eat beef though.

1. I don't think it tastes that good.
2. Its really not that healthy for ya
3. I somewhat feel bad for the cows I guess but not enough to not eat hoho's (beef stock), or if there is something with small amounts of beef.
4. Mad Cow Disease government coverup
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26722
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Postby Coppermine » Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:29 pm

I think our teeth alone pretty much secure humanity's place on the evolutionary scale as omnivorous. Doesn't the appendix have something to do with aiding our ancestor's ability to digest certain animal parts? And,in fact, almost all primates are omnivorous anyway.

Humans also have one of the most adaptive diets in the animal kingdom.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby acsguitar » Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:36 pm

Coppermine wrote:I think our teeth alone pretty much secure humanity's place on the evolutionary scale as omnivorous. Doesn't the appendix have something to do with aiding our ancestor's ability to digest certain animal parts? And,in fact, almost all primates are omnivorous anyway.

Humans also have one of the most adaptive diets in the animal kingdom.


Right...but I think looking at older fossils of humane relatives it is debatable if its "Necessary" To eat meat.

Anyways I'm all for eating meat...cool with me.

Really like I said taste and texture are my biggest things with meat eating.
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26722
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Postby Coppermine » Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:44 pm

acsguitar wrote:
Coppermine wrote:I think our teeth alone pretty much secure humanity's place on the evolutionary scale as omnivorous. Doesn't the appendix have something to do with aiding our ancestor's ability to digest certain animal parts? And,in fact, almost all primates are omnivorous anyway.

Humans also have one of the most adaptive diets in the animal kingdom.


Right...but I think looking at older fossils of humane relatives it is debatable if its "Necessary" To eat meat.

Anyways I'm all for eating meat...cool with me.

Really like I said taste and texture are my biggest things with meat eating.


Well it's certainly not necessary; that's why vegetarians don't die (right away anyway, haha). But, our body does require a certain amount of protein, which would suggest that we require the consumption of meat. This of course can be offset by eating large amounts of soy and other protein-rich plants, and I do think that perhaps our earliest ancestors were herbivores.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby Omaha Red Sox » Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:13 pm

Coppermine wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:
Coppermine wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:
willy-t wrote:I'm not opening this vid as I'm at work, but it sounds pretty brutal. I don't want to open a can of worms because I am a meat eater and I'm in no position to be principled, but I think vegetarians have a sound rationale really, animals are just a less intellegent species than us (depending on whether you are a creationist or a darwenist) and it could be argued it's wrong to kill them for any reason.

Still, thats a different debate to this, what goes on in some parts of the world is deplorable, cosmetic animal testing, battery farming, fur trade, inhumane slaughtering, dancing bears etc etc etc.


With this rationale, being just another species, then it would be the same principle as it is in the wild. When a lion kills a wildebeest or a shark eats a seal. It's a food chain and we're at the top.


That rationale doesn't really work though; no one is going to eat those racoons as they're not being killed for our survival. Which is unique to us, let alone our propensity to kill for sport or profit. I guess that advanced thinking alone could put us in another category altogether, but to compare that video to a lion killing a wildebeast really undermines the biological necessity for a food chain.


I haven't seen the video. I've resisted opening it to this point. I was referring to the bolded part of willy's post and the way I interpreted it.


What I don't understand about the bolded portion of the text is that he infers that whether or not you believe animals are less intelligent than humans is somehow based on whether you're a creationist, or "darwinist"[sic - should be evolutionist probably]. I think that an animals intelligence is one of the few things those two groups may agree on... we're certainly a superior species in every respect. Whether you believe we evolved from lesser species or if we were all created at the same time doesn't really affect, in my opinion, how one would perceive an animal's intellect.


I guess my point would be that it may be assumed that an evolutionist would consider the topic more sensitive, in the sense that all species are equal, but just at different stages of our evolution. We call came from the same place. I was countering that idea prematurely, I guess, with the reference to the lion/wildebeest and a human's consumption of meat. A creationist, typically, is going to put humans on another platform above all other species.
Omaha Red Sox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 11420
(Past Year: 10)
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Probably over there

Postby Coppermine » Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:40 pm

Omaha Red Sox wrote:
Coppermine wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:
Coppermine wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:
willy-t wrote:I'm not opening this vid as I'm at work, but it sounds pretty brutal. I don't want to open a can of worms because I am a meat eater and I'm in no position to be principled, but I think vegetarians have a sound rationale really, animals are just a less intellegent species than us (depending on whether you are a creationist or a darwenist) and it could be argued it's wrong to kill them for any reason.

Still, thats a different debate to this, what goes on in some parts of the world is deplorable, cosmetic animal testing, battery farming, fur trade, inhumane slaughtering, dancing bears etc etc etc.


With this rationale, being just another species, then it would be the same principle as it is in the wild. When a lion kills a wildebeest or a shark eats a seal. It's a food chain and we're at the top.


That rationale doesn't really work though; no one is going to eat those racoons as they're not being killed for our survival. Which is unique to us, let alone our propensity to kill for sport or profit. I guess that advanced thinking alone could put us in another category altogether, but to compare that video to a lion killing a wildebeast really undermines the biological necessity for a food chain.


I haven't seen the video. I've resisted opening it to this point. I was referring to the bolded part of willy's post and the way I interpreted it.


What I don't understand about the bolded portion of the text is that he infers that whether or not you believe animals are less intelligent than humans is somehow based on whether you're a creationist, or "darwinist"[sic - should be evolutionist probably]. I think that an animals intelligence is one of the few things those two groups may agree on... we're certainly a superior species in every respect. Whether you believe we evolved from lesser species or if we were all created at the same time doesn't really affect, in my opinion, how one would perceive an animal's intellect.


I guess my point would be that it may be assumed that an evolutionist would consider the topic more sensitive, in the sense that all species are equal, but just at different stages of our evolution. We call came from the same place. I was countering that idea prematurely, I guess, with the reference to the lion/wildebeest and a human's consumption of meat. A creationist, typically, is going to put humans on another platform above all other species.


Ah, understood... and I think you're right. It sort of goes back to the geocentric view that that, during the Middle Ages, it was believed the Earth was at the center of the universe by the assumption that God would have placed his greatest triumph--man--at its center. Although I should point out there is a good deal of people today who still believe in a geocentric universe. Galileo of course went to jail for it and the heliocentric model may have been a catalyst for the scientific Renaissance.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby acsguitar » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:12 pm

Coppermine wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:
Coppermine wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:
Coppermine wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:
willy-t wrote:I'm not opening this vid as I'm at work, but it sounds pretty brutal. I don't want to open a can of worms because I am a meat eater and I'm in no position to be principled, but I think vegetarians have a sound rationale really, animals are just a less intellegent species than us (depending on whether you are a creationist or a darwenist) and it could be argued it's wrong to kill them for any reason.

Still, thats a different debate to this, what goes on in some parts of the world is deplorable, cosmetic animal testing, battery farming, fur trade, inhumane slaughtering, dancing bears etc etc etc.


With this rationale, being just another species, then it would be the same principle as it is in the wild. When a lion kills a wildebeest or a shark eats a seal. It's a food chain and we're at the top.


That rationale doesn't really work though; no one is going to eat those racoons as they're not being killed for our survival. Which is unique to us, let alone our propensity to kill for sport or profit. I guess that advanced thinking alone could put us in another category altogether, but to compare that video to a lion killing a wildebeast really undermines the biological necessity for a food chain.


I haven't seen the video. I've resisted opening it to this point. I was referring to the bolded part of willy's post and the way I interpreted it.


What I don't understand about the bolded portion of the text is that he infers that whether or not you believe animals are less intelligent than humans is somehow based on whether you're a creationist, or "darwinist"[sic - should be evolutionist probably]. I think that an animals intelligence is one of the few things those two groups may agree on... we're certainly a superior species in every respect. Whether you believe we evolved from lesser species or if we were all created at the same time doesn't really affect, in my opinion, how one would perceive an animal's intellect.


I guess my point would be that it may be assumed that an evolutionist would consider the topic more sensitive, in the sense that all species are equal, but just at different stages of our evolution. We call came from the same place. I was countering that idea prematurely, I guess, with the reference to the lion/wildebeest and a human's consumption of meat. A creationist, typically, is going to put humans on another platform above all other species.


Ah, understood... and I think you're right. It sort of goes back to the geocentric view that that, during the Middle Ages, it was believed the Earth was at the center of the universe by the assumption that God would have placed his greatest triumph--man--at its center. Although I should point out there is a good deal of people today who still believe in a geocentric universe. Galileo of course went to jail for it and the heliocentric model may have been a catalyst for the scientific Renaissance.


I guess we are the superior species on the planet...but!

Some animals live longer I.E. Parrots. Tortises
Lots are faster and stronger
Some don't get cancer Sharks
Many are better predators.

Now we can say Man is the top of the food chain because we can kill whatever animal we want into extinction.

However, I disagree we could never kill off all the bugs in the world
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26722
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Postby Coppermine » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:02 pm

acsguitar wrote:
Coppermine wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:
Coppermine wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:
Coppermine wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:
willy-t wrote:I'm not opening this vid as I'm at work, but it sounds pretty brutal. I don't want to open a can of worms because I am a meat eater and I'm in no position to be principled, but I think vegetarians have a sound rationale really, animals are just a less intellegent species than us (depending on whether you are a creationist or a darwenist) and it could be argued it's wrong to kill them for any reason.

Still, thats a different debate to this, what goes on in some parts of the world is deplorable, cosmetic animal testing, battery farming, fur trade, inhumane slaughtering, dancing bears etc etc etc.


With this rationale, being just another species, then it would be the same principle as it is in the wild. When a lion kills a wildebeest or a shark eats a seal. It's a food chain and we're at the top.


That rationale doesn't really work though; no one is going to eat those racoons as they're not being killed for our survival. Which is unique to us, let alone our propensity to kill for sport or profit. I guess that advanced thinking alone could put us in another category altogether, but to compare that video to a lion killing a wildebeast really undermines the biological necessity for a food chain.


I haven't seen the video. I've resisted opening it to this point. I was referring to the bolded part of willy's post and the way I interpreted it.


What I don't understand about the bolded portion of the text is that he infers that whether or not you believe animals are less intelligent than humans is somehow based on whether you're a creationist, or "darwinist"[sic - should be evolutionist probably]. I think that an animals intelligence is one of the few things those two groups may agree on... we're certainly a superior species in every respect. Whether you believe we evolved from lesser species or if we were all created at the same time doesn't really affect, in my opinion, how one would perceive an animal's intellect.


I guess my point would be that it may be assumed that an evolutionist would consider the topic more sensitive, in the sense that all species are equal, but just at different stages of our evolution. We call came from the same place. I was countering that idea prematurely, I guess, with the reference to the lion/wildebeest and a human's consumption of meat. A creationist, typically, is going to put humans on another platform above all other species.


Ah, understood... and I think you're right. It sort of goes back to the geocentric view that that, during the Middle Ages, it was believed the Earth was at the center of the universe by the assumption that God would have placed his greatest triumph--man--at its center. Although I should point out there is a good deal of people today who still believe in a geocentric universe. Galileo of course went to jail for it and the heliocentric model may have been a catalyst for the scientific Renaissance.


I guess we are the superior species on the planet...but!

Some animals live longer I.E. Parrots. Tortises
Lots are faster and stronger
Some don't get cancer Sharks
Many are better predators.

Now we can say Man is the top of the food chain because we can kill whatever animal we want into extinction.

However, I disagree we could never kill off all the bugs in the world


Is it true sharks can't get cancer? Lucky
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby acsguitar » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:38 pm

Coppermine wrote:
acsguitar wrote:
Coppermine wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:
Coppermine wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:
Coppermine wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:
willy-t wrote:I'm not opening this vid as I'm at work, but it sounds pretty brutal. I don't want to open a can of worms because I am a meat eater and I'm in no position to be principled, but I think vegetarians have a sound rationale really, animals are just a less intellegent species than us (depending on whether you are a creationist or a darwenist) and it could be argued it's wrong to kill them for any reason.

Still, thats a different debate to this, what goes on in some parts of the world is deplorable, cosmetic animal testing, battery farming, fur trade, inhumane slaughtering, dancing bears etc etc etc.


With this rationale, being just another species, then it would be the same principle as it is in the wild. When a lion kills a wildebeest or a shark eats a seal. It's a food chain and we're at the top.


That rationale doesn't really work though; no one is going to eat those racoons as they're not being killed for our survival. Which is unique to us, let alone our propensity to kill for sport or profit. I guess that advanced thinking alone could put us in another category altogether, but to compare that video to a lion killing a wildebeast really undermines the biological necessity for a food chain.


I haven't seen the video. I've resisted opening it to this point. I was referring to the bolded part of willy's post and the way I interpreted it.


What I don't understand about the bolded portion of the text is that he infers that whether or not you believe animals are less intelligent than humans is somehow based on whether you're a creationist, or "darwinist"[sic - should be evolutionist probably]. I think that an animals intelligence is one of the few things those two groups may agree on... we're certainly a superior species in every respect. Whether you believe we evolved from lesser species or if we were all created at the same time doesn't really affect, in my opinion, how one would perceive an animal's intellect.


I guess my point would be that it may be assumed that an evolutionist would consider the topic more sensitive, in the sense that all species are equal, but just at different stages of our evolution. We call came from the same place. I was countering that idea prematurely, I guess, with the reference to the lion/wildebeest and a human's consumption of meat. A creationist, typically, is going to put humans on another platform above all other species.


Ah, understood... and I think you're right. It sort of goes back to the geocentric view that that, during the Middle Ages, it was believed the Earth was at the center of the universe by the assumption that God would have placed his greatest triumph--man--at its center. Although I should point out there is a good deal of people today who still believe in a geocentric universe. Galileo of course went to jail for it and the heliocentric model may have been a catalyst for the scientific Renaissance.


I guess we are the superior species on the planet...but!

Some animals live longer I.E. Parrots. Tortises
Lots are faster and stronger
Some don't get cancer Sharks
Many are better predators.

Now we can say Man is the top of the food chain because we can kill whatever animal we want into extinction.

However, I disagree we could never kill off all the bugs in the world


Is it true sharks can't get cancer? Lucky


Well they can but its suprisingly low...theirs big debate over it with the Biology losers

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ancer.html
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26722
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Postby Omaha Red Sox » Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:45 am

I got a chance to attempt to watch this video. I made it through the first animal, a raccoon I believe, and couldn't proceed. Nearly made me sick to my stomach. I certainly hope your students weren't exposed to this, bigh0rt. To think that there are people like that in the world is appalling. There is no benefit to such acts and I consider a person capable of such things mentally ill.
Omaha Red Sox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 11420
(Past Year: 10)
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Probably over there

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: unioreimi and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Wednesday, Apr. 16
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Atlanta at Atlanta
(12:35 pm)
NY Yankees at NY Yankees
(12:35 pm)
Chi Cubs at Chi Cubs
(1:05 pm)
Detroit at Detroit
(1:10 pm)
Cleveland at Cleveland
(3:40 pm)
Washington at Miami
(7:05 pm)
indoors
Seattle at Texas
(7:05 pm)
Kansas City at Houston
(7:08 pm)
Toronto at Minnesota
(7:10 pm)
Boston at Chi White Sox
(8:05 pm)
LA Angels at LA Angels
(8:10 pm)
Oakland at Oakland
(8:10 pm)
San Diego at San Diego
(8:10 pm)
Colorado at Colorado
(10:05 pm)
San Francisco at San Francisco
(10:10 pm)
LA Dodgers at LA Dodgers
(10:15 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact