Turning vegeterian is ridiculous and unless it's part of your religion, total suicide. I mean, there is almost no runner that has made a record that was vegeterian. The iron is as rich only in meat, and that's how your hemoglobin gets oxygen. The iron builds your muscles, and it's takes way less area than plantations. True agriculture is a major way in which we survive, but without meat we're basically screwed.
Interesting, though, the ancient Indians (Harrapans) used cow dung to light fires for cooking. They were vegetarian, too, and considered the cow sacred, but that's why they got slaughtered by the Aryans (them suckers!)
Split from: 4D vegetarians by BobXP
Vegetarians are unhealthy
70 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Vegetarians are unhealthy
by RQ » Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:11 am
- RQ
- Tetronian
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:07 pm
- Location: Studio City, California
by PWrong » Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:43 am
Look, I really didn't want to get into an argument about vegetarianism on here. That was a pretty rude thing to say, and in any case, totally wrong.
1. Why is it suicide for an atheist to be vegetarian but not a religious person? Vegetarianism is often considered a "pagan" practise by christianity, because most religions regard the human being as "sacred".
2. The myth about meat being the best source of iron has been around for decades. Iron is in everything, just like protein, and the average person gets about three times as much as they need. Look at the iron and protein content of a good cereal or something.
4. Meat doesn't take less area than plantations. Animals are fed huge amounts of grains and plants in their tiny cages in factory farms, and the food comes from ordinary farms that could be used to feed humans. I can't remember the statistics, but it takes an obscene amount of water and land to produce a tiny amount of meat. I also heard that pigs and cows are occasionally fed other animals, even other pigs and cows.
3. Is it total suicide to not hold a record in running? Where's yours? In fact, there are several vegetarian marathon runners and athletes, such as Dave Scott, a triathlete, and and even more vegetarian academics and geniuses. Dave Scott and Sally Eastall are the only athletes I can remember offhand, but other famous vegetarians include Leonardo Da Vinci, Shakespeare, Einstein, and many of the ancient Greek philosophers, not to mention hundreds of modern vegetarian celebrities.
4. As for your comment about the Harrapans, I have no idea what you're on about. Not all Indians were vegetarian, and I doubt vegetarianism was the reason they were slaughtered.
Your arguments are typical of many non-vegetarians, and completely unfounded. If you have to argue with someone about it, go to http://www.veganoutreach.org/
I think they have a forum there, and they do have a great introduction, and a more complicated philosophical essay that covers all of the common non-vegetarian arguments.
Anyway, we're talking about the evolution of carnivores in the fourth dimension, which doesn't require anyone to try to ridicule the benefits of 3D vegetarianism.
1. Why is it suicide for an atheist to be vegetarian but not a religious person? Vegetarianism is often considered a "pagan" practise by christianity, because most religions regard the human being as "sacred".
2. The myth about meat being the best source of iron has been around for decades. Iron is in everything, just like protein, and the average person gets about three times as much as they need. Look at the iron and protein content of a good cereal or something.
4. Meat doesn't take less area than plantations. Animals are fed huge amounts of grains and plants in their tiny cages in factory farms, and the food comes from ordinary farms that could be used to feed humans. I can't remember the statistics, but it takes an obscene amount of water and land to produce a tiny amount of meat. I also heard that pigs and cows are occasionally fed other animals, even other pigs and cows.
3. Is it total suicide to not hold a record in running? Where's yours? In fact, there are several vegetarian marathon runners and athletes, such as Dave Scott, a triathlete, and and even more vegetarian academics and geniuses. Dave Scott and Sally Eastall are the only athletes I can remember offhand, but other famous vegetarians include Leonardo Da Vinci, Shakespeare, Einstein, and many of the ancient Greek philosophers, not to mention hundreds of modern vegetarian celebrities.
4. As for your comment about the Harrapans, I have no idea what you're on about. Not all Indians were vegetarian, and I doubt vegetarianism was the reason they were slaughtered.
Your arguments are typical of many non-vegetarians, and completely unfounded. If you have to argue with someone about it, go to http://www.veganoutreach.org/
I think they have a forum there, and they do have a great introduction, and a more complicated philosophical essay that covers all of the common non-vegetarian arguments.
Anyway, we're talking about the evolution of carnivores in the fourth dimension, which doesn't require anyone to try to ridicule the benefits of 3D vegetarianism.
-
PWrong - Pentonian
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
- Location: Perth, Australia
by RQ » Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:29 am
Look, from a biological point of view, we would have a much lesser chance of survival if we didn't eat meat. I said, unless it's part of your religion to be vegetarian like Hinduism, or any personal beliefs such as your own, eating meat is much healthier than being a vegetarian. Don't argue on things you don't even know the facts about. I took a health course last semester so I probably remember more stuff than you, and I do remeber being a vegetarian is PRACTICALLY suicide. OK?
- RQ
- Tetronian
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:07 pm
- Location: Studio City, California
by PWrong » Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:59 am
Your health teacher actually told you that vegetarianism is unhealthy? If a teacher said that here they'd probably get fired. That's not the opinion of most health organisations anyway. In Australia, high school students do a health course every semester, it's not optional. What makes you think I would even be a vegetarian if I didn't know any facts? It occurs to me that not many people make a conscious, informed desicion to become a non-vegetarian, they just make the decision to stay that way. Anyway, I just told you the facts. Meat isn't neccessary for anyone. I don't believe anything different from anyone else, I just act on what I know. I told you, not all Hindus are vegetarian. A lot of Buddhists are, but only because they know the benefits of it. But religion has nothing to do with health, you're just saying that to sound politically correct. A vegetarian Hindu might not be any healthier than an atheist or Christian vegetarian (unless of course a Hindu god is protecting their health, which is possible).
Now, back to the topic. Regardless of whether vegetarianism is healther here, in 3D, it obviously can't be that much healthier, or carnivores would be extinct. But in 4D, since we don't even know whether iron, protein etc exists, we can only look at the actually energy/mass of the foods, and other things we can assume about 4D life.
Speaking of which, to discuss this properly, we should define some terms and make reasonable assumptions about 4D. This should properly be done by a biologist or a student learning biology, but it shouldn't need more than a basic understanding of biology, since there's no specifics. So I'll have a go, and if I assume anything that might be wrong, someone can correct me.
We've already defined an "animal" as something that moves, so we can assume that they need certain internal body parts in order to move. I would define a 4D "muscle" to be a part of the body that allows the animal to move. I think we also should assume that they have "fat" to store energy, and "blood vessels" to transport "air"(oxygen is too specific) around the body. They also need organs, but each organ is different, so it's too complicated for now. None of these need be anything like what we have in 3D, but there are some things that they should do.
Fat: Any cell that stores extra energy from food and takes up some mass. We should consider fat cells as a good thing, since humans are probably the only species where fat is bad. Since energy dissipates more easily in 4D, fat will be designed to hold the enery in, so fat cells might be thicker, and might need to take up more space than 3D fat. Fat might not even be practical or neccessary in 4D, if it's too difficult to hold energy for long.
Muscle: Required to move the animal around. They require energy to work, and mass to make them. Animals with stronger muscles will presumably be more fit than other animals, and preffered by evolution.
Blood vessel: Transports "blood", around the body. Blood is probably a liquid, but I suppose it could be a gas. Blood carries some required chemical, "air", around the body. This is probably taken from the air, like oxygen, but maybe they suck it out of the ground, or it comes in a liquid form like water, or it only exists around certain areas, and they can hold their breath for days. But no matter what the "air" is, they need to get it to every part of the body, so 4D blood vessels probably obey certain rules to achieve this. Both 3D and 4D bodies have these requirements:
1. Get every point in the body within a certain distance from a blood vessel. Some places need more blood than others.
2. Keep the total volume of blood vessels to a minimum.
They can achieve this in either dimension by following these simple rules.
1. Grow close to other blood vessels,
2. But not too close.
3. If there aren't many blood vessels nearby, grow thick, and sprout slightly thinner blood vessels.
4. If there are blood vessels nearby, stay thin
These rules, or rules like these, probably lead to fractal patterns like 3D blood vessels.
I think we can assume that blood is less healthy to eat than the surrounding tissue. Maybe not for 4D vampires, but maybe other animals. So it might be helpful to find out whether 4D blood vessels take up a higher ratio to flesh than 3D blood vessels. If they do, that would make 4D flesh less healthy. I might be able to find a cellular automata on the net that simulates blood vessel development, and then calculate the ratio in both 3D and 4D.
An animal that eats muscle will presumably gain mass to build its own muscle, while an animal that eats fat will probably gain energy, once it extracts it from the fat. Since fat is designed to hold energy in, which is more difficult in 4D than 3D, it's probably more difficult for an animal to extract the energy. So fat might be even harder to digest in 4D than 3D.
Ok, I haven't quite covered animals, but I might as well make a start on 4D plants. Assuming that 4D life exists on a planet where they have continuous access to sunlight, it's likely that they would evolve some form of photosynthesis. There's not many other sources of energy, except geothermal, but I think you'll agree that sunlight is much more intuitive. Maybe it's not light they absorb, maybe it's some other radiation, but we'll assume it's light. No physics on this thread, please!
Plants get energy from the sun, mass from nutrients in the ground (probably from organic matter). The amount of energy they gain from photosynthesis is irrelevant, because this is directly related to the total energy in the ecosystem (even carnivores get energy indirectly from plants), and has no effect on compared two different food sources.
I read that leaves tend to arrange themselves in a Fibbonacci sequence to get the most possible sunlight; there may be a similar effect in 4D than we could calculate, and thus find useful information about the size and number of leaves.
There are a few parts of plants in 3D that we can categorise with respect to eating them. Leaves, bark, fruits/vegetables, and grains. Some plants breed by allowing animals to eat their seeds, then spit them out at a different location, which is why they evolved fruit to look and taste good. We can assume that the same thing could happen in 4D, so fruit is probably an option. Mmm... gongyl-shaped apple... Speaking of which, I once saw some fruit that some farmer had bred into a torus-shape.
I'm not sure about leaves, bark, and grains though. Clearly most animals eat leaves, and most don't eat bark, but I don't know exactly why. I'm not sure how to define them irrespective of the dimension, or how to decide whether they would exist in 4D. So I'll leave them for someone else.
Ok, I think that's enough. I'll let someone else have a turn now. I thought quite hard about this, and I think it's clear enough that the above words almost certainly have analogues in the 4th dimension. But if I've made assumption I shouldn't have, or if there's a good reason why they shouldn't exist, let me know, because I don't really know much about biology, just the basic stuff. There's probably completely new things I haven't thought of at all. There's still a lot of work for 4D biologists, but at least we're finally on a topic that we've been trying to discuss ever since the forum started.
Now, back to the topic. Regardless of whether vegetarianism is healther here, in 3D, it obviously can't be that much healthier, or carnivores would be extinct. But in 4D, since we don't even know whether iron, protein etc exists, we can only look at the actually energy/mass of the foods, and other things we can assume about 4D life.
Speaking of which, to discuss this properly, we should define some terms and make reasonable assumptions about 4D. This should properly be done by a biologist or a student learning biology, but it shouldn't need more than a basic understanding of biology, since there's no specifics. So I'll have a go, and if I assume anything that might be wrong, someone can correct me.
We've already defined an "animal" as something that moves, so we can assume that they need certain internal body parts in order to move. I would define a 4D "muscle" to be a part of the body that allows the animal to move. I think we also should assume that they have "fat" to store energy, and "blood vessels" to transport "air"(oxygen is too specific) around the body. They also need organs, but each organ is different, so it's too complicated for now. None of these need be anything like what we have in 3D, but there are some things that they should do.
Fat: Any cell that stores extra energy from food and takes up some mass. We should consider fat cells as a good thing, since humans are probably the only species where fat is bad. Since energy dissipates more easily in 4D, fat will be designed to hold the enery in, so fat cells might be thicker, and might need to take up more space than 3D fat. Fat might not even be practical or neccessary in 4D, if it's too difficult to hold energy for long.
Muscle: Required to move the animal around. They require energy to work, and mass to make them. Animals with stronger muscles will presumably be more fit than other animals, and preffered by evolution.
Blood vessel: Transports "blood", around the body. Blood is probably a liquid, but I suppose it could be a gas. Blood carries some required chemical, "air", around the body. This is probably taken from the air, like oxygen, but maybe they suck it out of the ground, or it comes in a liquid form like water, or it only exists around certain areas, and they can hold their breath for days. But no matter what the "air" is, they need to get it to every part of the body, so 4D blood vessels probably obey certain rules to achieve this. Both 3D and 4D bodies have these requirements:
1. Get every point in the body within a certain distance from a blood vessel. Some places need more blood than others.
2. Keep the total volume of blood vessels to a minimum.
They can achieve this in either dimension by following these simple rules.
1. Grow close to other blood vessels,
2. But not too close.
3. If there aren't many blood vessels nearby, grow thick, and sprout slightly thinner blood vessels.
4. If there are blood vessels nearby, stay thin
These rules, or rules like these, probably lead to fractal patterns like 3D blood vessels.
I think we can assume that blood is less healthy to eat than the surrounding tissue. Maybe not for 4D vampires, but maybe other animals. So it might be helpful to find out whether 4D blood vessels take up a higher ratio to flesh than 3D blood vessels. If they do, that would make 4D flesh less healthy. I might be able to find a cellular automata on the net that simulates blood vessel development, and then calculate the ratio in both 3D and 4D.
An animal that eats muscle will presumably gain mass to build its own muscle, while an animal that eats fat will probably gain energy, once it extracts it from the fat. Since fat is designed to hold energy in, which is more difficult in 4D than 3D, it's probably more difficult for an animal to extract the energy. So fat might be even harder to digest in 4D than 3D.
Ok, I haven't quite covered animals, but I might as well make a start on 4D plants. Assuming that 4D life exists on a planet where they have continuous access to sunlight, it's likely that they would evolve some form of photosynthesis. There's not many other sources of energy, except geothermal, but I think you'll agree that sunlight is much more intuitive. Maybe it's not light they absorb, maybe it's some other radiation, but we'll assume it's light. No physics on this thread, please!
Plants get energy from the sun, mass from nutrients in the ground (probably from organic matter). The amount of energy they gain from photosynthesis is irrelevant, because this is directly related to the total energy in the ecosystem (even carnivores get energy indirectly from plants), and has no effect on compared two different food sources.
I read that leaves tend to arrange themselves in a Fibbonacci sequence to get the most possible sunlight; there may be a similar effect in 4D than we could calculate, and thus find useful information about the size and number of leaves.
There are a few parts of plants in 3D that we can categorise with respect to eating them. Leaves, bark, fruits/vegetables, and grains. Some plants breed by allowing animals to eat their seeds, then spit them out at a different location, which is why they evolved fruit to look and taste good. We can assume that the same thing could happen in 4D, so fruit is probably an option. Mmm... gongyl-shaped apple... Speaking of which, I once saw some fruit that some farmer had bred into a torus-shape.
I'm not sure about leaves, bark, and grains though. Clearly most animals eat leaves, and most don't eat bark, but I don't know exactly why. I'm not sure how to define them irrespective of the dimension, or how to decide whether they would exist in 4D. So I'll leave them for someone else.
Ok, I think that's enough. I'll let someone else have a turn now. I thought quite hard about this, and I think it's clear enough that the above words almost certainly have analogues in the 4th dimension. But if I've made assumption I shouldn't have, or if there's a good reason why they shouldn't exist, let me know, because I don't really know much about biology, just the basic stuff. There's probably completely new things I haven't thought of at all. There's still a lot of work for 4D biologists, but at least we're finally on a topic that we've been trying to discuss ever since the forum started.
-
PWrong - Pentonian
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
- Location: Perth, Australia
by PWrong » Fri Jul 23, 2004 2:59 pm
I never said it did. What exactly do you mean by that? To say that "it doesn't exist in 4D" has no meaning, since you can't possibly know that. Do you mean it can't possibly be that way, or just that it might not be that way?
That's why I never said "it does exist in 4D". I'm trying to make reasonable assumptions that lead to a kind of 4D life that you can describe with the same terminology as 3D life.
Take "blood" for instance. I'm not saying that 4D blood is anything like a 3D animal's blood. In fact, it couldn't be, since chemistry is probably completely different in 4D. But if life exists in 4D, there must be something it needs to survive, and something has to distribute it through the body. So why not call it "blood"?
That's why I never said "it does exist in 4D". I'm trying to make reasonable assumptions that lead to a kind of 4D life that you can describe with the same terminology as 3D life.
Take "blood" for instance. I'm not saying that 4D blood is anything like a 3D animal's blood. In fact, it couldn't be, since chemistry is probably completely different in 4D. But if life exists in 4D, there must be something it needs to survive, and something has to distribute it through the body. So why not call it "blood"?
-
PWrong - Pentonian
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
- Location: Perth, Australia
by RQ » Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:45 am
A 4 dimensional universe, can only be understood if it were an analogy from our 3 dimensional one. This is because we are either integrated in it, or it is parallel to us, having totally different rules and different properties. Maybe in that universe 1=2 (don't quote me here), and what you perceive as 4 dimensional blood can be anything. True in 4D you could be a vegetarian, I just said that for the anthropic principle, you shouldn't.
- RQ
- Tetronian
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:07 pm
- Location: Studio City, California
by PWrong » Tue Jul 27, 2004 9:34 am
RQ wrote:A 4 dimensional universe, can only be understood if it were an analogy from our 3 dimensional one.
Exactly. And since Emily's world is a fictional tool to help us understand 4D, we should make it as close to an analogy of Earth as possible, so that the only difference between ours and hers is the extra dimension.
RQ wrote:This is because we are either integrated in it, or it is parallel to us, having totally different rules and different properties. Maybe in that universe 1=2 (don't quote me here), and what you perceive as 4 dimensional blood can be anything.
True, but if there is one parallel universe, there are probably many. So we can pick a universe in which 1=1, give it the same rules as our dimension, and tweak physical constants if neccessary, to make it similar to our own.
We need a way to describe things in 4D using English. Alkaline's already done this. Read the bit about 4D rivers. They're nothing like our rivers, but we call them rivers because we define a river as "a body of water that is long in one dimension, and thin in all the others". This allows us to call something a river in any number of dimensions, except in 2D, where it can be proven conclusively that a river is the same as a lake.
I'm gradually trying to prove that if we define certain features of 4D, to make it similar to Earth in many respects. 4D animals will be less likely to evolve the need to eat each other. It'll never be a conclusive proof, but I have found a few good reasons. Anyway, regardless of my "ulterior motive", at least we're finally talking about 4D biology now, rather than just dismissing it as pointless like we used to.
It might be enough for me to show other vegetarians, who wouldn't have a clue about 4D anyway. I hardly think it'll come high on the list of reasons to go vegetarian anyway. From their point of view, it's just an amatuer mathematician's way of doing his part. I think it's pretty funny myself. It's like a joke in New Scientists, about marine geologists, silkworm larvae specialists, and entomologists, who were claiming that "their work could make vital contributions to the war on terror".
-
PWrong - Pentonian
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
- Location: Perth, Australia
by PWrong » Tue Aug 03, 2004 12:49 pm
Well, yes, but natural selection usually maximises efficiency. If it's not efficient to eat something that moves, the behaviour won't evolve.
If we ever simulate a 4D ecosystem somehow, (a 4D cellular automata?) it might be better to ignore the lack of carnivores though. It might be easier to develop a system similar to ours.
If we ever simulate a 4D ecosystem somehow, (a 4D cellular automata?) it might be better to ignore the lack of carnivores though. It might be easier to develop a system similar to ours.
-
PWrong - Pentonian
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
- Location: Perth, Australia
by PWrong » Tue Aug 03, 2004 12:54 pm
Well, yes, but natural selection usually maximises efficiency. If it's not efficient to eat something that moves, the behaviour won't evolve.
If we ever simulate a 4D ecosystem somehow, (a 4D cellular automata?) it might be better to ignore the lack of carnivores. It might be easier to develop a system similar to what we're used to. But if we developed a hypothetical 4D ecosystem based on maths, physics and a made up 4D chemistry, then the ecosystem will always have certain features.
If we ever simulate a 4D ecosystem somehow, (a 4D cellular automata?) it might be better to ignore the lack of carnivores. It might be easier to develop a system similar to what we're used to. But if we developed a hypothetical 4D ecosystem based on maths, physics and a made up 4D chemistry, then the ecosystem will always have certain features.
-
PWrong - Pentonian
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
- Location: Perth, Australia
by pat » Wed Aug 04, 2004 6:26 pm
PWrong wrote:Well, yes, but natural selection usually maximises efficiency. If it's not efficient to eat something that moves, the behaviour won't evolve.
Eh, the same argument could be made that no fish would eat other fish. There are three degrees of freedom for the fish to get away. It's not efficient.
And, you might say, there are four degrees of freedom in 4-d oceans. But, one can't take advantage of more than three degrees of freedom (for the most part). Assuming that the animals can stop on a dime, there are only three vectors concerned in a hunt: the velocity of the prey, the velocity of the predator, the direction from the predator to the prey. Three vectors span at most, a three-space. (Of course, if the animals cannot stop on a dime, then acceleration vectors are also relevant... and would take this to more than a 3-D problem.)
- pat
- Tetronian
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 5:30 pm
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
by mightymrbob » Wed Aug 04, 2004 7:55 pm
So wouldn't it be more 'efficient' for an animal to eat plants in 4D? If evolution is efficiency, then wouldn't carnivores die out? Maybe...
Tell me I’m the anchor of my own ascension
Tell me I’m a tourist in the 4th dimension
FFX-2 Forums -- My Forum
Tell me I’m a tourist in the 4th dimension
FFX-2 Forums -- My Forum
-
mightymrbob - Trionian
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 5:42 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, England
by PWrong » Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:19 pm
RQ wrote:No matter the dimension, meat will always be biologically better.
Lol! That's a nice summary of your opinions. Thank you for imparting your infinite wisdom upon us, RQ. I can see you've done a lot of research on this subject and you've made a conscious decision to become a meat-eater. From now on, I will ignore all the experts, statistics and logic, and forget about the cruelty and suffering. I will take your advice and never eat another vegetable, in order to become "biologically better".
pat wrote: Eh, the same argument could be made that no fish would eat other fish. There are three degrees of freedom for the fish to get away. It's not efficient.
But, one can't take advantage of more than three degrees of freedom (for the most part). Assuming that the animals can stop on a dime, there are only three vectors concerned in a hunt: the velocity of the prey, the velocity of the predator, the direction from the predator to the prey. Three vectors span at most, a three-space. (Of course, if the animals cannot stop on a dime, then acceleration vectors are also relevant... and would take this to more than a 3-D problem.)
That's a good, point, but acceleration would have to be relevant, otherwise the animal wouldn't be using energy, so the argument wouldn't have much point.
The main problem would be changing direction all the time, against 4D friction. Friction probably has a greater effect on 4D land than in 3D water, so they're not necessarily the same. I don't know exactly how 4D motion would work, so I won't make any more claims about 4D animal motion until I do, but I'll start a new thread about motion in 4D. I guess we could just talk about 4D biology on this thread. The topics are broad enough without keeping them in the same thread. -
PWrong - Pentonian
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
- Location: Perth, Australia
by mightymrbob » Sun Aug 08, 2004 12:50 pm
Lol! That's a nice summary of your opinions. Thank you for imparting your infinite wisdom upon us, RQ. I can see you've done a lot of research on this subject and you've made a conscious decision to become a meat-eater. From now on, I will ignore all the experts, statistics and logic, and forget about the cruelty and suffering. I will take your advice and never eat another vegetable, in order to become "biologically better".
Woo!
Nice one.
Tell me I’m the anchor of my own ascension
Tell me I’m a tourist in the 4th dimension
FFX-2 Forums -- My Forum
Tell me I’m a tourist in the 4th dimension
FFX-2 Forums -- My Forum
-
mightymrbob - Trionian
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 5:42 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, England
by RQ » Sun Aug 15, 2004 2:16 am
Mr. PWrong who has his facts straight:
In none of my posts did I say you shouldn't eat vegetables. In fact you should. It's just meat on this world, is most nutritious, takes less space and time(see how everything is related to the 4th dimension that's practical and efficient) to kill an animal than to grow a crop and wait for it to be harvested. People who choose to be vegetarian is because of either their religion or they're a tree hugger, or feel sorry for a living thing that is practically nonexistent to nature. This is the main reason why pregnant women eat meat no matter what they believe in. Meat is biologically better, and if there were any vegetarians in prehistoric times, they have died out of natural selection.
In none of my posts did I say you shouldn't eat vegetables. In fact you should. It's just meat on this world, is most nutritious, takes less space and time(see how everything is related to the 4th dimension that's practical and efficient) to kill an animal than to grow a crop and wait for it to be harvested. People who choose to be vegetarian is because of either their religion or they're a tree hugger, or feel sorry for a living thing that is practically nonexistent to nature. This is the main reason why pregnant women eat meat no matter what they believe in. Meat is biologically better, and if there were any vegetarians in prehistoric times, they have died out of natural selection.
- RQ
- Tetronian
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:07 pm
- Location: Studio City, California
by mightymrbob » Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:29 pm
That's kind of strange, 'cos I seem to remember you saying vegetarianism was "practically suicide". Hmm...?
Tell me I’m the anchor of my own ascension
Tell me I’m a tourist in the 4th dimension
FFX-2 Forums -- My Forum
Tell me I’m a tourist in the 4th dimension
FFX-2 Forums -- My Forum
-
mightymrbob - Trionian
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 5:42 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, England
by PWrong » Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:33 pm
RQ wrote:Mr. PWrong who has his facts straight:
Uh, thanks. :? I spent two weeks researching them before I converted.
By the way, I should probably explain my username, even though it's really funny that you're calling me Mr Pwrong.
My name is Paul Wright, so naturally my nickname was Paul Wrong, until somebody thought of this witty abbreviation, which is now my username for nearly everything. And I'm 17, so being called Mr seems a bit strange.
RQ wrote: It's just meat on this world, is most nutritious, takes less space and time(see how everything is related to the 4th dimension that's practical and efficient) to kill an animal than to grow a crop and wait for it to be harvested.
And how many crops would you have to feed this poor animal to keep it as fat as possible? Not to mention the drugs and growth hormones they pump into them. Maybe a few hundred years ago, it wouldn't be a problem. But today, the meat industry is struggling to keep up with an enormous population of humans who insist on stuffing their faces with expensive flesh. So far, the solution has been to keep animals in smaller, cheaper cages, and maximise profits based on supply and demand. Efficiency, in this case, is based on profit and popular demand, rather than what is best for the world. There are parallels with the cigarette industry here. For every reason to eat meat there is an equally good reason to smoke. In the end, it's not the industry's fault; they only make it because it sells, even if it takes an obscene amount of land and water to produce a kilogram of beef.
RQ wrote:People who choose to be vegetarian is because of either their religion or they're a tree hugger, or feel sorry for a living thing that is practically nonexistent to nature.
Actually, vegetarianism is based on sound logic and ethics, certainly more sound than tree-hugging. Basically, ethics is all about preventing suffering. Believe it or not, most biologists would tell you that trees don't feel pain, so they have no inherent moral value (they do have indirect moral value though). However, it is generally accepted that all animals do in fact feel a degree of pain, and some even feel more complex suffering, like the pain of being separated from a child.
Animal rights is closely related to the abortion debate and euthanasia. They all deal with the idea that preventing suffering can sometimes be more important than preventing death. This is something the world is slowly coming to realise.
RQ wrote:This is the main reason why pregnant women eat meat no matter what they believe in.
I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. Most health organisations (not directly aligned with any vego organisations) say that pregnant women can be just healthy on a well-planned veggie diet as anyone else. In any case, I don't see why a vegetarian would suddenly start eating meat if she became pregnant. It sounds ridiculous.
RQ wrote:Meat is biologically better, and if there were any vegetarians in prehistoric times, they have died out of natural selection.
That's obviously false, or how could I be writing this? But more importantly, if that was the case, we might not have relativity, light bulbs, the Mona Lisa, Pythagorus's Theorum, or some of the concepts of electricity. All of these were created by vegetarians or partial vegetarians, so be careful when you try to kill people off with "natural selection".
I hope you read and understand all this, because it's really time we stopped arguing about it here, unless we can find some application to 4D.
-
PWrong - Pentonian
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
- Location: Perth, Australia
by RQ » Tue Aug 17, 2004 6:24 am
Many less crops than it takes to feed a human. We don't eat grass, but cows do. We eat grass, and look it up anywhere that without meat we are biologically inferior.
Animals don't matter because they can be replaced, unless you are emotionally attached to them, nobody would, how should I say this, give a damn about them whether they are dead or not. Now I know gorillas and monkeys might be different, but all other animals have no consciousness of awareness of other animal's loss.
Oh and if pregnant women don't eat meat they have A NATURAL ABORTION.
Edit by BobXP: Removed double post.
Animals don't matter because they can be replaced, unless you are emotionally attached to them, nobody would, how should I say this, give a damn about them whether they are dead or not. Now I know gorillas and monkeys might be different, but all other animals have no consciousness of awareness of other animal's loss.
Oh and if pregnant women don't eat meat they have A NATURAL ABORTION.
Edit by BobXP: Removed double post.
Last edited by RQ on Tue Aug 17, 2004 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
- RQ
- Tetronian
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:07 pm
- Location: Studio City, California
by pat » Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:07 pm
bobxp wrote:That's the most rediculous idea I've ever heard.
It certainly is right up there. Someone will have to tell the women in India that. It's quite amazing that such a largely vegetarian culture should be so overpopulated.
- pat
- Tetronian
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 5:30 pm
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
by RQ » Wed Aug 18, 2004 7:09 am
They still eat meat, they might be a vegetarian culture but when they are pregnant they have no choice, otherwise they themselves die too and that's not very biologically allowed; the baby cannot grow without meat period. Pregnancies do need meat otherwise the baby might prove unhealthy which is lower a chance if the woman eats meat, that's why for every two babies in India that are born, one dies (not a baby necessarily).
- RQ
- Tetronian
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:07 pm
- Location: Studio City, California
by Geosphere » Wed Aug 18, 2004 2:11 pm
RQ, I am an environmentalist by nature - my screen name has nothing to due with geometry. Hanging out with environmentalst friends also puts me in groups of vegetarians and vegans. I, however, love cheeseburgers.
I know no less than 4 life vegetarian moms who have healthy children. One is strict vegan. One of her sons, TJ, is now 8 and in my son's karate class. The kid is ripped. And 100% vegan. He was vegetarian until the age of 6, when he decided to go all out Vegan for love of animals.
Among these families, there are 9 kids. 5 of those kids are also vegetarian and have been since birth. None of them show any health problems. One is an annoying moron, but that's not diet related.
Your astoundingly misinformed posts have left me absolutely livid. I cannot believe the absurdity of "the baby cannot grow without meat period" and the "natural abortion"concept.
To think that the deaths in India have to do with diet rather than the absence of food as well as medical care is such an outstanding lack of logic and understanding that it befuddles me.
I am sorry, but your ignorance goes directly against the grain of enlightened environmentalists with such severe incorrect knowledge it is absolutely offensive to me.
I find your posts to be the most disgusting and degenerate I have read on the internet, filled with a de facto bigotry that rivals the worst.
A properly educated vegan is actually in a far better state of health than an omnivore. Tofu is far better for the body than beef. OK, I'll grant that fish is the best, but that's only these odd aquavegites who will eat no land dwelling animal. They might be the best off.
Please do a little more real world research into the subject before declaring meat a necessity to life. In truth, I have quite a few close friends who have proven that animal products in any form are far from necessary.
I know no less than 4 life vegetarian moms who have healthy children. One is strict vegan. One of her sons, TJ, is now 8 and in my son's karate class. The kid is ripped. And 100% vegan. He was vegetarian until the age of 6, when he decided to go all out Vegan for love of animals.
Among these families, there are 9 kids. 5 of those kids are also vegetarian and have been since birth. None of them show any health problems. One is an annoying moron, but that's not diet related.
Your astoundingly misinformed posts have left me absolutely livid. I cannot believe the absurdity of "the baby cannot grow without meat period" and the "natural abortion"concept.
To think that the deaths in India have to do with diet rather than the absence of food as well as medical care is such an outstanding lack of logic and understanding that it befuddles me.
I am sorry, but your ignorance goes directly against the grain of enlightened environmentalists with such severe incorrect knowledge it is absolutely offensive to me.
I find your posts to be the most disgusting and degenerate I have read on the internet, filled with a de facto bigotry that rivals the worst.
A properly educated vegan is actually in a far better state of health than an omnivore. Tofu is far better for the body than beef. OK, I'll grant that fish is the best, but that's only these odd aquavegites who will eat no land dwelling animal. They might be the best off.
Please do a little more real world research into the subject before declaring meat a necessity to life. In truth, I have quite a few close friends who have proven that animal products in any form are far from necessary.
- Geosphere
- Trionian
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 6:45 pm
- Location: ny
by RQ » Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:34 am
OK, enough with this senseless crap. Whoever can believe whatever they want, with or without facts to back it up. I don't want to answer ridiculous crap anymore, I don't care what anyone thinks about this topic, don't ask me anymore.
Edit by BobXP: removed profanity
Edit by BobXP: removed profanity
- RQ
- Tetronian
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:07 pm
- Location: Studio City, California
by mightymrbob » Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:20 am
I haven't been here for a while, as you may or may not have noticed (most probably the latter!), 'cos I had broadband to set up. Then I found out that C:\ Windows was corrputed, like, bigtime, so I had to install Windows to a different directory (C:\ Windows1). But then Norton wouldn't install to a directory other than C:\ Windows, so I had to get Mc Afee Personal Firewall off A-O-Hell...
Anyway, there's an interesting introduction to a rant!
RQ, pretty much everything you've posted on this topic has been incorrect in one way or another. Saying that "animals can be replaced" and "no-one gives a damn about them whether they are dead or not" is insane. How do you mean that? So far cloning hasn't taken off, and the only way to "replace" an animal is to breed. But then you need two to start the process in the first place. Animals can only be "replaced" in the same way that humans can.
If no-one gave a damn about whether animals were dead or not, no one would be veggie! And evidently, a hell of a lot of people are.
Wow! At least now we know you have some sense of moral boundary! You wouldn't eat a monkey or a gorilla but you'd be perfectly happy to go and eat the hind legs off a dog.
I suggest that the next time you decide to insult people's beliefs, make snide remarks and generally annoy everyone who comes near you, you actually research the topic and get some genuine facts instead of thinking you know all about everything and no-one else can possibly be right because you're RQ and you're the best; that you have encyclopaedic knowledge of everything and anything.
And then the moment someone proves that you are completely and utterly wrong, you bog off saying you don't care about the subject. Talk about self-contradiction! If you didn't care then I strongly doubt you'd have begun to make pathetic comments in the first place.
As bobxp summed up, you are a coward. You refuse to take on board the fact that you aren't always right, and it's disgusting.
Anyway, there's an interesting introduction to a rant!
RQ, pretty much everything you've posted on this topic has been incorrect in one way or another. Saying that "animals can be replaced" and "no-one gives a damn about them whether they are dead or not" is insane. How do you mean that? So far cloning hasn't taken off, and the only way to "replace" an animal is to breed. But then you need two to start the process in the first place. Animals can only be "replaced" in the same way that humans can.
If no-one gave a damn about whether animals were dead or not, no one would be veggie! And evidently, a hell of a lot of people are.
Wow! At least now we know you have some sense of moral boundary! You wouldn't eat a monkey or a gorilla but you'd be perfectly happy to go and eat the hind legs off a dog.
I suggest that the next time you decide to insult people's beliefs, make snide remarks and generally annoy everyone who comes near you, you actually research the topic and get some genuine facts instead of thinking you know all about everything and no-one else can possibly be right because you're RQ and you're the best; that you have encyclopaedic knowledge of everything and anything.
And then the moment someone proves that you are completely and utterly wrong, you bog off saying you don't care about the subject. Talk about self-contradiction! If you didn't care then I strongly doubt you'd have begun to make pathetic comments in the first place.
As bobxp summed up, you are a coward. You refuse to take on board the fact that you aren't always right, and it's disgusting.
Tell me I’m the anchor of my own ascension
Tell me I’m a tourist in the 4th dimension
FFX-2 Forums -- My Forum
Tell me I’m a tourist in the 4th dimension
FFX-2 Forums -- My Forum
-
mightymrbob - Trionian
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 5:42 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, England
by PWrong » Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:47 am
Wow, and I thought I was in danger of ranting. 
Oh well, it looks like I've made some allies . I'm surprised at the number of veggies and veggie-supporters here. I guess it's evidence that vegetarianism is more frequent in intellectual circles. Although my friends generally see vegetarianism as on a par with believing in extra dimensions. I only know two other veggies. Both are intelligent and healthy, but one is a bit wierd, so there aren't many vegetarian rolemodels. My school doesn't exactly encourage vegetarianism either.
Oh well, it looks like I've made some allies . I'm surprised at the number of veggies and veggie-supporters here. I guess it's evidence that vegetarianism is more frequent in intellectual circles. Although my friends generally see vegetarianism as on a par with believing in extra dimensions. I only know two other veggies. Both are intelligent and healthy, but one is a bit wierd, so there aren't many vegetarian rolemodels. My school doesn't exactly encourage vegetarianism either.-
PWrong - Pentonian
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
- Location: Perth, Australia
70 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to Where Should I Post This?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests