/sci/ - Science & Math

Actually, I'm on a strict diet of human flesh and live bees. Doctor's orders.

>>5285964
How is that working out for you?

>>5285960
what about the plants. they have dna too, they're not so different from us.

all these niggers, if the quotes are actually true, each had their five minutes of utter retardation.

>>5285979

Plants don't have minds.

>>5285979
Oh shut up. Plants don't scream when you cut their heads off. It literally takes about 13 points of IQ to figure out the difference. If that's your strongest argument to keep supporting murder on a massive scale, then you're simply a dumbass.

vegfags everywhere

I am a vegetarian. My parents were, so I was born one.

>>5285993
Neither do humans. Your point being what?

>>5285993

Prove that you do have a mind Anon.

I advocate the mass murder of animals so I can eat a juicy steak.

Deal with it you mongrels.

>>5285972
pretty well, thanks for asking! Sometimes, though, the bees sting on the way down and I can still feel them flying around until the stomach acids get to them. It's weird, but you do get used to it.

Find a cheap and fast way to create synthetic meat first.

>>5286013
Wait a few more years and your wish might just come true:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/22/fake-meat-scientific-breakthroughs-research

>>5286005
Clearly you're smarter than even Einstein. How grateful we all are that you decided to share your wisdom with us.

>implying I haven't been a vegetarian for 15 years

>>5286029
Apparently there's still hope for humanity.

>>5286030

/thread

>>5286018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority#Fallacious_appeal_to_authority

I never seriously considered vegetarianism for essentially a lack of compelling reasons for such a drastic change of lifestyle. Can somebody provide some arguments in favor of vegetarianism?

I think it's moral to minimize animal suffering, but I don't think being vegetarian actually accomplishes this. Also the concept of "murder" is not very useful. Should we be imprisoning carnivores to protect other animals from "murder" in that case?

>>5285991
Actually they do. They just do it with chemicals instead of sounds.

You know the smell of grass being cut? That smell is actually the chemical released by the grass screaming.

>>5286085
It's much better for your health, and having the amount of animals and the system needed to support it necessary to supply the demand for meat causes a lot of problems.

For example if people didn't eat meat and junk food so much, healthier food would be a lot cheaper, and there'd be more of it to go around. Much less of the worlds people would be starving.

>>5286087
How doesn't the ceasing of funding the animal-murder industry not minimize animal suffering?

As for carnivores, what they do is wrong, but they don't have the understanding ability to live without that we do.

Hey OP, you forgot Hitler. He was also a big advocate of vegetarianism.

Also, lol Einstein. So meat is evil but atomic bombs are okay?

I don't get why vegetarians are so into mass murder.

>EATING MEAT IS MURDER; SAVE A LIFE!
>implying plants and fruits aren't living things too
Where's the line, vegans?

>>5286085
Animals suffer. Since we, ourselves, dislike suffering wouldn't animals also dislike suffering? Because suffering of ourselves isn't different from suffering of others, we should be more reasonable/equal in treatment of animals/others who also do not want to suffer. Reduction of for another does not necessarily have to mean increase of suffering for ourselves. We have the technology/resource to do so.

>>5286101
If your objective is to minimize animal suffering, as oppposed to being able to say "my hands are clean", then you have to consider the suffering of wild animals. Also killing an animal doesn't necessarily cause it to suffer, e.g. with a captive bolt gun.

There is a lot of suffering in the wild, and raising animals for food causes other animals not to exist (by altering the ecosystem). E.g. when you raise 1000 cattle, you are causing many other animals to not exist, and these 1000 cattle are easier to keep track of and take care of than, for example 10,000 smaller animals.

>>5286101
>As for carnivores, what they do is wrong, but they don't have the understanding ability to live without that we do.

wut

>>5286101
>>5286087
A human being doesn't need meat to survive. We have agriculture to supply our food, and killing animals to eat them is for recreation rather than nutrition or survival. Killing something for pleasure rather than necessity is pretty much murder.

Animals can't be guilty of murder, since they really don't have any choice. It's not like they can adopt agriculture to feed themselves. Animals killing each other is a necessary part of the ecosystem too, where as man farming millions of animals in factory like systems is very bad for it.

And in the case where animals DO kill for entertainment, that's not their fault because they're not rational, sentient beings. Just like a human is not guilty of murder if they do it because of insanity, an animal cannot be guilty of murder because it simply can't know any better.

>>5286108
Is it about pain then? Why?
Pain can also be removed via anesthetics or immediate death.

>>5286106
But plants and fruits are faggots.

Pythagoras was batshit and wouldn't eat beans because they reminded him of testicles.

Da Vinci was a homosexual.

Franklin was a whoremonger.

Gandhi was a coward.

Edison was a tool and a manipulator.

Einstein was a Jew, for God's sake. Why listen to anything he said?

>>5286122
Anesthetics doesn't help with anxiety or depression or midlife crisis or fear of death or trivial mental anguishes throughout the life.

>>5286103
Atomic energy runs half of our world. So yes, it's important. And Hitler was actually intelligent, his problem was that he was evil. In full sense of the word.

>>5286137
I'm not sure if you're trolling or you're actually that stupid.

>>5286142
>his problem was that he was evil
No. His problem was he was too human. He wasn't the devil media/people paints him to be. He was entirely human in thought, human in action and human in behavior. He had the bests of human (wanting survival for his people) and the worsts of human (killing everyone not like his people)

>>5286143
You are more stupid than him. He posted a lame troll post, you just posted an utterly retarded and worthless shitpost.

>>5286148
His mania and meth habit probably didn't help either

>>5286143

>These guys did something important we should listen to them when they talk about unrelated things!

Do you go to your plumber to get a tooth capped? You're the worst kind of person.

OP, also notice that all these people, except Ghandi, were white.
Therefore, following your logic, we should all strive to be white and to rid ourselves of that barbaric coloreds.

>>5286148
He caused suffering all over the world. In my book this classifies as evil.

>>5286155
Listening to smart people is wise.

>>5286178
Eat this you racist ass:

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/neil-degrasse-tyson-eating-animals-a-primitive-practice/

>>5286191
>Listening to smart people is wise.
Nope. Accepting anyone as an authority is retarded. Science is about facts, not about authorities.

>>5286184
Then by your definition everyone who supported him is evil since he came into power because of the people. If Hitler is evil then so are every human beings. The definition of evil is purely a ignorant one. Not withstanding any scrupulous exam.

>>5286191
I was only building on your irrefutable arguments of
>someone famous said something
>we should all be following something

4/10 is all I can give you.
Pros:
+Made me reply
Cons:
-Didnt experience any emotions of anger and/or rage
-No activity of facial muscles

>>5286206
>I'd rather listen to dumb people

1. All other things being equal, the best diet for an organism is the one it is most genetically adapted for.
2. The diet humans are most genetically adapted for is an omnivorous diet.
3. Therefore, the best diet for humans is an omnivorous diet.

>>5285991
so it's okay to eat animals, that can't scream?
where does one draw the line?

>>5286214
2/10, rustle harder

>>5286220
Incorrect. Learn what peer review is. You clearly don't understand scientific research. Are you still in high school?

>>5286206
If this were true, then no one would make any advancements of science because everyone would be too busy reinventing the wheel for themselves.

>>5286191
Ignorant bias status:
[ ] Not told
[X] Told
[X] TOLDASAURUS REX
[X] Cash4told.com
[X] No country for told men
[X] Knights of the told Republic
[X] ToldSpice
[x] The Elder Tolds IV: Oblivious
[x] Command & Conquer: Toldberian Sun
[x] GuiTold Hero: World Told
[X] Told King of Boletaria
[x] Countold Strike
[x] Unreal Toldament
[x] Stone-told Steve Austin
[X] Half Life 2: Episode Told
[x] World of Warcraft: Catoldclysm
[X] Roller Coaster Toldcoon
[x] Assassin's Creed: Tolderhood
[x] Battletolds
[x] S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shatold of Chernobyl
[X] Toldasauraus Rex 2: Electric Toldaloo
[x] Told of Duty 4: Modern Toldfare
[X] Pokemon Told and Silver
[x] The Legend of Eldorado : The Lost City of Told
[X] Rampage: Toldal Destruction
[x] Told Fortress Classic
[x] Toldman: Arkham Told
[X] The Good, The Bad, and The Told
[x] Super Mario SunTold
[x] Legend of Zelda: Toldacarnia of Time
[X] Toldstone creamery
[x] Mario Golf: Toldstool Tour
[X] Super Told Boy
[X] Left 4 Told
[X] Battoldfield: Bad Company 2
[x] Toldman Sachs
[X] Conker's Bad Fur Day: Live and Retolded
[x] Lead and Told: Gangs of the Wild West
[x] Portold 2
[x] Avatold: The Last Airbender
[X] Dragon Ball Z Toldkaichi Budokai
[x] Toldcraft II: Tolds of Toldberty
[x] Leo Toldstoy
[x] Metal Gear Toldid 3: Snake Eater
[X] 3D Dot Told Heroes
[x] J.R.R Toldkien's Lord of the Told
[x] Told you that ps3 has no games
[X] LitTOLD Big Planet
[x] Rome: Toldal War
[x] Gran Toldrismo 5
[x] Told Calibur 4
[x] Told Fortress 2
[x] Castlevania: RonTold of Blood
[x] Guilty Gear XX Accent Told
[x] Cyndaquil, Chicorita, and Toldodile
[x] was foretold
[x] demon's told
[x] http//:www.youtold.com
[x] Tolden Sun: Dark Dawn
[x] Tic-Tac-Told
[X] Biotold 2
[X] Toldbound
[x] icetold
[x] Told of the Rings

>>5286206
Yeah, that's why I diagnose my own illnesses and treat myself instead of seeing medical specialists. Just because they trained for years at medical school doesn't mean they're more qualified than I am on the subject.

>>5286211
Clearly you think my aim was to provoke a reaction. It wasn't. My aim was to get you to reconsider the civilised dogmas that you follow. I can accept you not being willing to do this, just don't pretend to be a moron in the meanwhile.

>>5286213
You can't blame anyone for acting out of fear. That was what Hitler's campaign was all about anyway.

>>5286219
Personally I'd go with fruitarianism, if it was more socially acceptable.

>>5286225
They are qualified in whatever they studied. Your doctor studied medicine. He can diagnose and treat illnesses. Consulting him for anything other than medical problems would be retarded. He is not an authority and not omniscient. Please grow up, infant.

>>5286226

>>5286225
You aren't disagreeing with him at all.
He's saying that taking everything that comes out of someone's mouth as fact simply because they have a lot of knowledge in one area is foolish and directly goes against what science is all about.

>>5286223
No, i'm a mathematician.

What good does peer review do me if i don't accept the peers as authorities?

>>5286226
Showing me quotes of famous people who's main area of expertise was not nutrition in order to change my views on nutrition will not make me reconsider my stance.
Your appeal to authority is so weak, I believe you're the "moron" here.

>>5286218
Humans can survive perfectly well on a purely vegetarian diet. There are also a number of health benefits to be gained in doing so.

Also, you have a rational mind and you're capable of making your own decisions. Evolutionary excuses won't get you far.

>>5286227
sounds reasonable. those plants actually want to get eaten to reproduce.

>>5286234
Most retarded post I read today. 4/10, I see you're working on your rustling skills.

>>5286235
>Showing me quotes of famous people who's main area of expertise was not nutrition
There's a good reason why smart people act alike. You see, they actually use brain. A skill you obviously don't possess.

>I believe you're the "moron" here.
Keep believing that.

>>5286218
Humans aren't omnivorous because that's the healthiest diet. Humans are omnivorous because they evolved in an environment where it was difficult as hell to get food, so we had to eat what we could get.

Not only are plants superior for nutrition than meat, but meat causes cancer and fills our arteries with grease.

But when it's winter animals are easier to find than plants, and if you need a large quantity of food quickly it's more efficient to kill a large animal than collect a large number of plants. That's why natural selection favored the ability to eat meat.

But then agriculture came along, and meat has been less and less necessary ever since. Skip to today, when not only is meat unnecessary but it's counter-productive because it requires sustaining an expensive industry that pollutes, only so we can have an unhealthy source of food.

Meat is like an addiction. We'd be better off without it, but it's so rewarding to the brain that we can't let it go.

>>5286226
All humans have pride/guilt/greed/ignorance/prejudice/hate. Hitler is just a normal human being, its nothing special. His specialty wasn't his hate or his greed or his anger or ignorance, but rather his charisma. Charisma is in no way evil by definition. Not all humans have charisma, but all humans have hate/anger/greed/ignorance/etc. So I failed to see how Hitler is evil. Or rather I don't see the point in your choice of word, "evil" to describe Hitler. If anything a more accurate description would be human.

>Implying we'd even be around if we hadn't eaten meat
>Implying meat didn't give us intelligence.

>>5286234
>i'm a mathematician

No, you're not. You're a stupid and uneducated undergrad who doesn't know shit about publishing papers. If you accepted every publication as a statement by authority, then a lot of nonsense would be accepted as fact and a lot of errors would go unnoticed. Get the fuck out of /sci/ with your religious reasoning and your appeals to authority.

>>5286243
Ad hominem and appeal to authority IN ONE POST?
You think this will earn you more points?
I'm thinking of droping down to 3/10 because it's pretty obvious you're pretty fresh to trolling.

>>5286240
They wouldn't if they knew their seeds would end up going down the toilet.

>>5286245
There were plenty people throughout history who demonstrated charisma and didn't kill millions of innocent people. Your arguments are weak and on shaky ground.

>>5285960
http://www.livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

Our brains need the protein from meat. Deal with it.
http://www.livescience.com/24875-meat-human-brain.html

>>5286259
You seriously expect him to "contribute anything intelligent" to an obvious troll and off-topic shitposting thread?

>>5286253
Do us all a favor and just leave this thread. It's obvious you're not contributing anything intelligent to it.

>>5286254
that's why I only shit in my garden

>>5286248
>Implying that matters

>>5286264
(OP here) This is not a troll thread. Please go to >>>/b/ if trolling is what you're after.

>>5286256
>need
I've been a vegetarian over 15 years now. I don't intent to ever change this. If anything, I feel my body is more resilient to disease and my brain is functioning just as good as it was 15 years ago. Your theories are stupid and the articles you posted are laughable.

>>5286259
I won't leave this troll thread. Why should I? You're the one calling people names and acting childish. Why can't I do the same?

>>5286255
>There were plenty people throughout history who demonstrated charisma and didn't kill millions of innocent people
I don't get it. Where did I say charisma = evil? If anything you don't have any evidence for your argument that Hitler is evil. Hitler as a human being is a biologically/historically proven fact. Hitler as an "evil" being is an irrational concept that has no bearing on reality. Until you prove to me that Hitler is evil, your claim that "Hitler is evil" is a purely ignorant one.

>>5286268
Yay, anecdotal evidence. I'm so happy to be posting on the /sci/ence board and not some looney balloney forum ha ha.
>1/10

>>5286272
Fuck off, shitposter. This is a science board. Take your crap to reddit.

>>5286270
Ok, in that case I will just ignore you. It will be easier since you keep posting unfunny pictures. Thanks for that.

>>5286281
Gonna go cry to mom?

>>5286251
ok, call me a mathematician wannabe then. makes no difference to me

>If you accepted every publication as a statement by authority, then a lot of nonsense would be accepted as fact and a lot of errors would go unnoticed.
True, but if i refuse to accept the authority of any publication then i'd have to reproduce the contents of the publication for my self in order to accept it. And i'd also have to reproduce all the science that the publication is built on.

>>5286277
Maybe if you'd spend a week or two in a concentration camp you'd agree with me that his acts were evil. Apparently it's ok to kill and torture innocent people and start wars based on nationalism and racism. Carry on then.

>>5286289
>i'd have to reproduce the contents of the publication for my self in order to accept it

That's how peer review works, you fucking retard.

>>5286283
Say that to my face and see what happens.

>>5286289
> i'd have to reproduce the contents of the publication for my self in order to accept it
Welcome to peer review.

>>5286256
Eating meat was necessary for us to evolve the way we did. But what relevance does that have on us today?

It doesn't change the fact that vegetables are healthy, meat is unhealthy, and it's far easier to produce vegetables than it is to produce meat in the quantities that we require.

If you suggest we should eat meat because it was necessary for our ancestors to, you might as well suggest we go back to living in caves and wearing animal skins.

>>5286298
Come at me, faggot. I'm trained in gorilla warfare.

>>5286288
>I'll just be childish to the max
Way to go, diaper-ass.

>>5286302
>gorilla warfare
Nice.

>>5286304
You sure told him.

>>5286297
Well whoop de do for the reviewing peers. Still makes the paper next to useless for everyone else.
And no one has the capacity to redo all the science that has gone before.

>>5286309
>peer review makes papers useless

Oh wow, this troll is hilarious.

>requiring hyperbole for your argument to hold water

Cool.

It's funny how everyone gets so mad whenever someone promotes vegetarianism. It's like someone already said, meat is an addiction. Confronting it seems to be one of the hardest things to do for a westerner.

Makes me wonder. If any intelligent species is out there, I don't think they'd ever be willing to contact us. We would just appear so dumb to them.

>>5286304
You sure told me. Gee wizz, I think I'll scamper away in fear!

>>5286291
>Maybe if you'd spend a week or two in a concentration camp you'd agree with me
So you're saying you've been in the concentration camp for a week or two? You're saying you're over 70 years old? I find that VERY hard to believe. If you yourself don't have the actual experience, then how are you coming to the conclusion? If you want to say the only people who can judge whether its evil or not is the actual prisoners, then by your standards, you cannot say the act is evil which supports my statement.

>Apparently it's ok to kill and torture innocent people and start wars based on nationalism and racism
I never condoned war/killing/torture, but those aren't evil. In fact nothing is ever evil. Those acts, however, are purely normal human behavior.

Oh and your emotional appeal does not work on logic.

>>5286291
Can you name a faction of a war in history that didn't commit atrocities?

>>5286329
Probably not. But can you name one that had bigger global impact than WWII?

>>5286326
Thanks god for that.

>>5286325
lel

>>5286331
>So you're saying you've been in the concentration camp for a week or two? You're saying you're over 70 years old? I find that VERY hard to believe. If you yourself don't have the actual experience, then how are you coming to the conclusion? If you want to say the only people who can judge whether its evil or not is the actual prisoners, then by your standards, you cannot say the act is evil which supports my statement.

No, I wasn't in a CC. But any other arguments apparently just bounce off you. I don't get it why you're so thick-headed. Are you a nazi?

>In fact nothing is ever evil
Yes, it is. Whatever causes havoc is intrinsically evil.

>>5286236
>Humans can survive perfectly well on a purely vegetarian diet
I didn't say they couldn't.

>There are also a number of health benefits to be gained in doing so.
All of which can equally be gained by cutting down on meat intake instead of totally eradicating it, which is better because it also keeps the benefits gained from eating meat.

>Also, you have a rational mind and you're capable of making your own decisions. Evolutionary excuses won't get you far.
It's not an excuse, it's a reason. If we start with an opinion ("humans should eat meat") and we can find good reasons to support having that opinion, then we can keep that opinion. If we can't find good reasons to support having the opinion, then we shouldn't have it. I think I can find good reasons for my opinion that humans should eat meat, so I keep that opinion. Note that when I say "should", I mean if they want to. If you don't want to eat meat, that's fine, I don't care.

>>5286334
Nah, just joking, I wont. Just admit you're a troll and we can be friends.

>>5286317
>peer review makes papers useless
That's not what i said.
I said that if i refuse to accept any authority in science then some other people reviewing a publication does jack squat for the credibility of the publication.

peer review doesn't make papers useless. peer review fails to make papers useful. Why does it seem scientists (or is it just science fans) can not into logic?

Fat, sugar, and salt are healthy to human beings, but rare to find in nature. For that reason evolution gave us encouragement to consume it on the rare occasions that we could get our hands on it, and that's why eating them triggers the reward center in the brain.

The problem is in the modern world these are no longer rare. You can have them in any quantity that you desire. Because they are so rewarding to our brains we eat quantities of them that our bodies can't handle, and the result is an epidemic of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.

We have to recognize this problem and consciously adapt to it. The same intelligence that allowed us to produce the problem can allow us to solve it.

>>5286353
I've been a vegetarian for many years. Therefore, I made a topic that concerns vegetarianism. If anyone is willingly trolling here, it is you.

>>5286357
Why do you think it's funny to troll a science board?

What is with people and not understanding how balance works?

A good diet has some meat (less meat than the average western diet, and more varied in type, but still some) and a good assortment of fruits and vegetables with some nuts in there.

Why do you retards think it has to be all or nothing?

>>5286244
>Humans aren't omnivorous because that's the healthiest diet. Humans are omnivorous because they evolved in an environment where it was difficult as hell to get food, so we had to eat what we could get.
Both of these are true statements, but neither of them disagrees with my first premise.

>plants superior for nutrition than meat
Plant proteins are incomplete and humans can't digest cellulose. Plants are superior for some nutrition, like antioxidants and

>meat causes cancer and fills our arteries with grease
It's not good to say "x causes cancer" because that's not really how cancer works. It's not common for you to get cancer because of one thing, it's much more likely to be a combination of lots of factors. Thus it's better to say "x increases the likelihood of getting these specific kinds of cancer" for all values of x. Cancer isn't one thing, it's an umbrella term for a vast number of different mutations that cause similar symptoms (cells dividing out of control and refusing to undergo apoptosis). If you want to refine your statement to "meat increases the likelihood of getting {...} cancers" then that's fine, but it still doesn't really matter, because the same can be applied to almost everything. As for "fills our arteries with grease", that doesn't make sense. If you're talking about the effect of saturated fat on LDL cholesterol, then you'd be right, but any food with saturated fat in it will do that, not just meat.

>But then agriculture came along, and meat has been less and less necessary ever since
And humans have similarly been less healthy ever since. I know you're going to bring up life expectancy, but that's increased largely because of improvements in medicine and child mortality, not nutrition.

>[meat] requires sustaining an expensive industry that pollutes
So do crops.

>>5286372
Read this. http://www.britishmeat.com/49.htm

>>5286349


>Yes, it is. Whatever causes havoc is intrinsically evil.
>definition: havoc: wide and general destruction/confusion
You sound like a religious person. Are you by any chance religious? Do you view hurricanes as an act of devil? Do you view bombs as evil? Do you view bullets/guns as evil? Do you view humans as evil? The nature of your statement suggest a very religious(and-or illogical) structure of thought.


As to your question about me being a Nazi, no I'm not. I'm a doctor of science.

>>5286387
>You sound like a religious person. Are you by any chance religious?
No, I am not.

>Do you view hurricanes as an act of devil?
No, I do not.

>Do you view bullets/guns as evil?
No, I see them as a tool to cause evil.

>Do you view humans as evil?
Generally, yes. Thankfully, there are exceptions.

>The nature of your statement suggest a very religious(and-or illogical) structure of thought.
A misinterpretation.

>>5286350
>All of which can equally be gained by cutting down on meat intake instead of totally eradicating it, which is better because it also keeps the benefits gained from eating meat.

Here's some problems with that. The food production of our species (at least in the West) is geared towards the production of meat rather than the production of vegetables. That means replacing your meat diet (or most of it) would be a lot more expensive. There are a lot of people who want to eat healthy, but simply can't afford to for this reason.

And there are a lot of problems caused by the meat industry. It's a major contributor to greenhouse emissions, takes up a lot of land, and keeping so many animals penned up produces diseases that are dangerous to humans.

In order to keep the animals we're harvesting healthy we have to inject them with large quantities of antibiotics, when we should be eliminating all unnecessary use of antibiotics to prevent or delay the rise of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.

It's not enough that individuals decide to eat less meat. Society must make the decision as a whole in order to solve the problem. And that's an especially good idea since our current system of food production is inefficient and unsustainable. We can't continue to harvest huge quantities of animals forever, and so long as we try we'll never be able to meet the demand for food. It's only a matter of time until humanity becomes primarily vegetarian, and the sooner we do it the sooner we can lower food prices, and increase the availability of food to humans who have a hard time getting their hands on it.

>>5286400
>It's only a matter of time until humanity becomes primarily vegetarian
I love you.

>>5286378
>And humans have similarly been less healthy ever since. I know you're going to bring up life expectancy, but that's increased largely because of improvements in medicine and child mortality, not nutrition.

That's not directly due to food, but the method that we gather it. We were a lot more active when we had to hunt to eat, than we are now when we just have to drive to the grocery store.

Lack of physical activity may be the biggest contributor to health problems today.

Raising animals is super inefficient, but plants aren't as nutritionally dense. solution: synthetic meat.

I AINT GIVING UP MY FUCKING BURGERS

>>5286366
You made a topic and you're calling people morons, idiots and what not.
This doesn't really concern vegetarianism

>>5286425
>You made a topic and you're calling people morons, idiots and what not.
>This doesn't really concern vegetarianism
I am willing to have a civilised discussion. I did not make this thread to call people idiots. If I did, it was because they were using the ad hominem card first.

>>5286421
Agreed. Synthetic meat is the way of the future. Than we can eat a truly health diet and the hippies like OP won't have anything to complain about.

Also, my burgers will continue to have pickles on them.

>>5286413
Meh, once we can produce meat on a large scale without farming it, all that becomes irrelevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

>>5286413
If lack of physical activity is the main problem, why are you slamming meat (assuming you're the person I was replying to)?

>>5286394
So humans are evil, in your own statement. If thats the case, you are evil. By the virtue of evil-ness, where is the logic in an evil person saying another is evil? Wouldn't an evil person say the other is evil because the other is not-evil(not like themselves)? If a liar calls another person a liar, then by logic we should assume the other person is not a liar. If you, as an evil person, call Hitler evil, then logic dictates Hitler must not be evil.

Either way, you are either religious person and lying or illogical and doesn't see the illogic in your own statements.

>>5286429
I actually promote this idea. Seems a lot easier than trying to convince people that they shouldn't eat meat.

As a vegetarian, I have this to say though: meat really, really smells bad to me. I can't stand its smell. Once upon a time I ate a piece of meat by mistake (it was in a soup that was promoted as meat-free). I spend most of that night vomiting. This was probably a mental response but my point stands - if you're not used to meat, it won't tempt you. It will actually repel you greatly.

>>5286337
It's naive to select a scapegoat to blame something as vast in scope and cause as WWII on.

WWII occurred because humanity was struggling to find a political system that would allow it do adapt to the change that the industrial revolution had created. If Hitler had never been born, WWII still would have happened. Just like WWI still would have happened even if Ferdinand hadn't been assassinated. It was a war just waiting to happen, and whatever caused it doesn't matter because something else would have sooner or later anyway.

Also absolute morality is impractical in the real world. If our values regarding right and wrong aren't subject to change and exceptions they won't be able to adapt to the changing world, and the ability to adapt to changing environments is the goal of evolution.

It's useless to say that X was wrong. It's better to examine X and its results and determine whether X was an efficient way to produce the desired results.

In that sense we can look at WWII, and conclude that war is wrong because it's unnecessary and destructive. But society instead chooses to say "durr Hitler evil WWII", and so we believe war is still a viable solution to problems and history repeats itself, because we're neglecting to learn and adapt.

>>5286436
>logic
Please stop using words you don't know meaning of. You're arguing with a CS major here. You can trust me that I know how logic works inside and out.

Here, let me simplify things for you:

You cause someone distress => you are evil.

The more distress you cause, the more evil you are. With that scale in mind, Hitler can be classified as "extremely evil".

>>5286442
I'm simply saying that Hitler's acts can be classified as evil. One can't be good natured and still preform such acts. Morality doesn't work this way.

I like going on /an/ and pissing everyone off with my descriptive details of how I hunt deer and eat their meat.

Because I'm a hard working man, not a pussy who's to scared to eat meat.

>>5286446
I doubt your claim about mastery over logic.

Now as we come to the end, I have to concluded you are retarded. Comon, who actually believes there is such a thing as evil? Seriously who actually still believes humans are evil? This is just as bad as intelligent design. Repackaged original sin vs repackaged God-did-it. Nothing but pure bullshit

>>5286446

I remember when I was first dating, women tended to cause me to stress. That doesn't make them evil. Political leaders cause people to be distressed on a international scale, and they're not evil (probably). And someone who tortures a cat is on a small scale, but the act of torturing anything is certainly evil.

It's not such a simple scale.

>>5286456
Still better than going to the grocer's.

>>5286458
Apparently you have trouble with simple semantics. Let me help you with a definition:

Evil: Profoundly immoral and malevolent.

Also, calling me retarded doesn't help your case. If anything it showcases your ignorance.

>>5286446
Then the concept of "evil" is arbitrary, a construct merely of opinion.

If you'd known Hitler you probably would have thought he was a pretty great guy. It's not like he was a sadist waging war for his own pleasure, he was a leader doing what he thought was best for his people.

>>5286446
Not the guy you're replying to, but
>You cause someone distress => you are evil.
I disagree. Evil requires malice and intent. It's possible to be a good person and do evil things.

Also, I know they teach you boolean and propositional logic in CS (I'm doing my CS degree) but this is a matter of philosophy. Ethics is not computable.

>>5286465
>he was a leader doing what he thought was best for his people
By exterminating everyone on his way that didn't agree with his reasoning.

>>5286468
>It's possible to be a good person and do evil things.
Yes, but it is impossible to be an evil person and do good deeds.

>Ethics is not computable.
I can agree with this, but it sure does help with reasoning.

>>5286474
Also, I should probably rewrite that as

You cause someone distress willing fully => you are evil

>>5286474
Hitler's imperialism ended western hold on colonialism in asia and africa. Hitler did good in that regard. I can also say for certain Hitler also gave rise to many of the modern technologies like Jet Engine or Rocket engines. TL;DR purely subjective experience.

>>5286453
Hitler didn't do anything that hadn't been done before him. Dictatorship, genocide, antisemitism, military aggression, have all been practiced before the Hitler era and since it.

You would be more accurate to say one cannot be a national leader without hurting someones feelings, because it involves making hard decisions, weighing the cost and benefits of solutions to problems that are causing the suffering of your people. The expression "one cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs" is accurate. No successful nation on earth today could exist if it wasn't for periods of violence in its past.

Your desire to categorize humans as "good" or "evil" based on your emotional reaction to them is pointless and unproductive, and it's that kind of thinking that contributes to many of the worlds problems today.

Take the Israeli/Palestinian issue for example. They are fighting over land that both of them could peacefully coexist on purely for emotional reasons. Because each believes the other side is "evil" merely because they're in conflict with them, who of course they believe to be "good".

So long as humans are judging each other based on emotion, we will war over tribalism. Because we will always see our group as "good", even when we're bombing cities and committing genocides. And whatever group is opposing us will be evil, because who stands in the way of good but evil ones?

Humanity must transcend this fallacy.

>>5286491
I guess you have a point there.

>>5286474
>Yes, but it is impossible to be an evil person and do good deeds.
I still don't agree. Psychopathic people are perfectly capable of doing good deeds (see: John Wayne Gacy), but they do them not because a good deed is a reward in itself, but because it benefits them.

>>5286498
Psychopathic doesn't necessarily mean evil. That's more in the realm of confusion. Being evil simply means having wicked morals, and willingly doing things that are immoral and cause distress in others.

Why on earth are we arguing semantics here?

>>5286470
Warfare and politics involve killing people, which is often necessary for a group of people to survive and prosper in a turbulent period in history. A national leader must be willing to wage war or he simply isn't suited for his job.

If circumstances demand that you kill people, and when you're the leader of a powerful nation with powerful enemies they often do, how does doing that make you evil?

So Hitler killed people who were in his way. So did Stalin, Napoleon, George Washington, fucking EVERY leader in history.

>>5286474
>Yes, but it is impossible to be an evil person and do good deeds.

For one, there is no such thing as "evil people" and I implore you to explain to me how there could be.

And second of all, there's no person who is incapable of doing good. I implore you to explain to me what makes you think otherwise.

Honestly at this point I'm just starting to think that you're trolling or retarded.

>>5286507
Don't conflate psychopathy with psychosis, they're totally different. Psychopaths are just as lucid as anyone else, they're perfectly aware of the pain and suffering they cause, they just don't care, and even take pleasure in it. They see everyone else as worthless and inferior, and they like to hurt them (physically or otherwise) to assert their perceived superiority.

>Why on earth are we arguing semantics here?
Because accuracy.

>>5286491
>categorize humans as "good" or "evil" .... is pointless and unproductive

META

But really, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is due to the Hamas being war mongering sand niggers. There will never be peace with the Hamas. If any other country was in Israel's place, they would have invaded long before now.

>>5286507
Wicked morals? There's no such thing.

Every individual has his or her own morality, every culture on earth has things they believe to be good that other cultures will believe to be evil.

Even if you look at a single culture you will find that it's opinions on what is good or evil change from generation to generation.

You claim Hitler was evil while apparently practicing the same kind of ignorant self-righteousness that lead to ordering the atrocities you criticize him for.

Perhaps you are evil? After all your mode of thinking seems to assume you are always right, and excludes the possibility that there might be valid reasons for someone doing something that violates your notions of right and wrong.

And it's that kind of assumption that's been behind every genocide in history, and fueled countless wars and atrocities.

>>5286538
Fuck Off JIDF.

>>5286527
>For one, there is no such thing as "evil people"
Anyone who willingly rapes a helpless woman is an evil person. Anyone who commits acts of sadism is also an evil person.

>And second of all, there's no person who is incapable of doing good.
This is true. It is more than obvious that I was generalizing for the sake of the argument.

>Honestly at this point I'm just starting to think that you're trolling or retarded.
I wonder, why should I bother explaining anything to you if you don't respect my opinion?

Because vegetarian and atheist are pseudointellectuals; scientist are actual intellectuals. Learn the difference

>>5286211
>>5286230
>>5286235
>>5286253
>>5286270
>>5286274

I hate this dog with my entire existence. It is the "fuck you" face and I have to see it every other week. PIsses me off.

because meat is tasty as fuck

>>5286546
>You claim Hitler was evil while apparently practicing the same kind of ignorant self-righteousness that lead to ordering the atrocities you criticize him for.
It is not self-righteousness that makes him evil. It is his acts.

>Perhaps you are evil? After all your mode of thinking seems to assume you are always right, and excludes the possibility that there might be valid reasons for someone doing something that violates your notions of right and wrong.
I don't think we're on the same page here. If I go around killing people, yes, that makes me evil. If I go around preaching to people, that merely makes me annoying.

>believing in vegetarianism
>2012
>sci
gtfo!

>the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution

>>5286562
It's actually not.

It's like cigarette smoke is incredibly alluring to smokers. But can you say the same about the non-smokers? You can't. Smoke repels them.

>>5286569
How is that image not the epiphany of tastinessdom?

>>5286571
>believing in vegetarianism
How about practising it?

>>5286535
Every human being is capable of sadism, every human being has sadistic impulses, and every human being commits transgressions against other people while motivated by self difference.

In this regard, psychopaths are different from normal people because they lack a part of their brain that causes us to emphasize with other people, which is a counter-balance to functioning purely on self interest because it causes you to consider the affects your actions will have on other people.

Psychopaths didn't choose to lack this part of their brain, this is a physical deformity. You can't expect somebody paralyzed from the neck down to rescue someone from drowning, so you don't call them not evil for doing it. You can't call a psychopath evil because they don't do something they're neurologically incapable of.

Mind you, the majority of psychopaths aren't violent. They're just inconsiderate assholes. Only when there are other problems introduced into the mix do they become violent. A history of abuse, being born into poverty, or an accompanying mental illness are all present in the psychopaths who murder people.

For fucks sake dude, start trying to understand other people for a change instead of hating everyone who isn't like you out of blind ignorance.

>>5286577
Eh?

>>5286446
>You cause someone distress => you are evil
So, every carnivore ever is evil.
A thief stealing to feed his family is evil.
Any accidental statement made while I talk to another person that offends them/makes them remember something they didn't want to makes me evil.
Hell, by sitting next to someone on a bus while they consider you ugly, thus causing them discomfort, would make you evil.
Reporting saddening/shocking news would make you evil.
And many more!

If you disagree with any of the above statements, you admit that your (arbitrary) premise is retarded. Otherwise you're just a hypocrite.

If you actually do agree with any of the above statements, I wouldn't want you as a friend, ever. Mostly because I'd rather people that I consider to be close to me not brand me as evil.

You don't seem to understand the implications of your implication.

>>5286582
>>5286577
I believe he meant "epitome".

>>5286569
just because you like raping virgin children so you can't get any std from them doesn't mean we should all follow your lead in the name of being 'healthier'

same thing with meat

>>5286538
You can't blame the war on one side. It's more complicated than that. The war is not because one side is evil, it's because both sides are choosing emotion over reason.

Jews have a history on that land, and that's what gives them their emotional attachment to it. The ancestors of Palestinians lived on that land for centuries and were violently deprived of it, and that's what gives them their emotional attachment to it.

The emotions of both sides lead them to commit violence, which in turn causes each side to hate each other, which in turn causes each side to kill each other.

The thing is, there are people who rise up to exploit the fear and hatred so they can gain power. Terrorist leaders do this, and so do war mongering politicians.

The "good and evil" style of thinking prevents both sides from realizing their error, because it causes them to simply blame the opposition rather than trying to analyze the problem. They must stop hating each other and analyze the problem if they're ever going to come up with a solution to it. And if they can stop hating each other for a while, that shouldn't be hard. It's just hard to stop hating people when you believe that they're evil.

>>5286586
>So, every carnivore ever is evil.
Don't mix the animal world into this. Humans have a choice. Animals don't.

>A thief stealing to feed his family is evil.
The problem here is that you think I discretized the world into black and white. It's true, there are many shades of gray in between. But this is just it, isn't it? If the thief steals food from another family to feed his own, then the other family will starve. So yes, this is an evil act. Also, this thief could be caught and possibly sentenced for a long while for his acts. So his family will starve as a consequence anyway. The moral thing for him to do would be to find a way to feed his family while still preserving morals. Go fishing. Dig up roots. Plant seeds. Hunt animals. This said, the thief described is not evil, just dumb.

>Any accidental statement made while I talk to another person that offends them/makes them remember something they didn't want to makes me evil.
This makes you annoying, not evil. Evil acts are immoral acts.

Take a look at what distress means:

Distress: Extreme anxiety, sorrow, or pain.

>Hell, by sitting next to someone on a bus while they consider you ugly, thus causing them discomfort, would make you evil.
Again, discomfort doesn't equal distress.

>Reporting saddening/shocking news would make you evil.
Very stupid example.

>And many more!
God help us.

>>5286581
Psychopaths don't harm people because they don't know any better, they actually enjoy it, they take pleasure in the suffering of others. They're not just watching a man drown, they're putting their foot on his head to speed up the process. Also, they are perfectly capable of showing empathy when they choose to, when it benefits them. http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/5798/psychopaths-can-empathise-demand

>>5286611
>Don't mix the animal world into this.
>This makes you annoying, not evil.
>Very stupid example.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

>implying I'm not getting tricked right now and I'm not an idiot for replying.

>>5286623
>Doesn't understand what No true Scotsman implies.

Don't start the fire if you can't put it out, anon-san.

>>5286550
>Anyone who willingly rapes a helpless woman is an evil person.

Not necessarily. A person might simply not understand why raping someone is wrong. Because we're biologically driven to commit rape, only our sense and upbringing stop us because they teach us to see the issue from the point of view of the victim. Yeah, raping someone could be fun, but it's traumatic to the person getting raped and it violates their rights, and that's why they we don't do it.

But a person without this knowledge or upbringing really has nothing stopping them from committing rape. That's not their fault, it's an environmental factor. And there are cultures that promote rape under certain circumstances too, and you can't really blame a person for being born into a culture.

Of course the ignorance that leads to this kind of thing is rare in the developed world. So the majority of people who commit rape do it because they don't care about the victim, and believe they won't get caught, or don't care if they do. This is only possible when a person is impaired by mental illness, and isn't fully rational.

>>5286636
post continued


>I wonder, why should I bother explaining anything to you if you don't respect my opinion?

I respect you, and that's why I disagree with you, because I want you to see the fallacy of your opinion and learn. I respect people and believe that I should try to cure them of ignorance where possible.

But goddamn are you ignorant, if you're not trolling. Learn to reason, instead of just viewing the world through emotions.

There's no such thing as evil, anymore than than there is a tooth fairy. There are bad things, and bad people. But you have to recognize that bad things are bad because they hurt or violate someone unnecessarily, and what separates an act from being good or bad often depends simply on the circumstances.

And a bad person is only bad because they cause bad things to happen to others. This doesn't make them evil, they do it because they're mentally ill, they're ignorant of others (like you seem to be), or they've been traumatized and this has lead their brains to suffer from either or both of the problems I previously mentioned.

>>5286636
>we're biologically driven to commit rape
This is new to me.

>raping someone could be fun
Eh, seriously?

> This is only possible when a person is impaired by mental illness, and isn't fully rational.
Most rapists are perfectly rational people.

I think your post gave me cancer.

>>5286638
Look, I get what you're on about. But I think you drastically misunderstand my thought process.

1. People are not objects.
2. People are driven by emotions.
3. Evil is a description for acts that provoke negative emotions.

Objectively speaking, I can understand you. But speaking as a sentient, subjective-minded being, I don't.

>>5285960
But I don't kill any of those animals. They are already dead, and I just eat them

>>5286619
You're mixing up sadism with lack of empathy. There are people who aren't psychopaths that experience sadism, and people who are psychopaths that don't. The majority of psychopaths aren't sadistic, although the majority of people that are sadistic are psychopaths.

All human beings have sadistic impulses, the capacity for aggression was (and is) important for our survival, and so our evolution was influenced by this need.

But since being 100% aggressive simply isn't practical (you'd end up killing your best ally simply for stepping on your foot, or end up murdering your own baby just because you couldn't stand their crying) our brains also have parts that suppress these urges or counteract them.

For example, someone may say something that really annoys you, and this may give you the desire to slap them. There are two traits that stop you from doing this. One that realizes that it sucks being slapped, so you shouldn't do that to other people (empathy) and the one that realizes that slapping people just for unintentionally annoying you is a behavior that will cause a lot of problems for you (impulse control).

Both of these traits are the product of your brain, just like your initial desire to attack someone was. But there are some people who lack one or both of these traits due to a deformity in their brain, so they only have the impulse to slap someone and nothing preventing them from doing it.

>>5285960
>Thomas A. Edison
>let's murder dogs with electricity

>167 posts

I'm not sure I want to enter this thread

>>5286651
1. People are objects. Why wouldn't they be? Lifeforms are animate objects, unlike rocks and other inanimate objects, but it doesn't make them less objects.

2. Ignorant people are driven by emotions. Wise and knowing people are capable of reason, which is using thought to overcome emotion, which is necessary because emotion can often be wrong.

3. Evil is a superstitious belief. There is no such thing as evil, you've simply been taught that there is, so you see patterns that fit its description and brand them with that name.

If you were taught black people were evil, that's what you'd believe, even though it's not true. That's called ignorance.

Reason overcomes ignorance. Stop being prejudiced.

>>5285960
Yes because Thomas A. Edison never harmed any other living beings.
OH WAIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_(elephant)

>>5286665
Indirect murder is still murder.

>>5286680
There is truth in your post. But you should be aware, that even reason has its limits. You can't reason out love or hate. These things are subjective.

>>5286681
My respect for Edison just fell drastically.

>>5285960
Thomas Edison was a dick and animals are dumb, that's why we eat them

>>5286095
if everyone started eating "healthy food", then the prices will skyrocket

supply and demand dumbass

>>5286695
>animals are dumb
Call me a moron but animals are in many ways much more intelligent than humans. We just assume that what we're doing is intelligent.

Here's a news flash: there is absolutely no evidence that we are intelligent as a species. We just assume that we are.

A stupid assumption, might I add.

>>5286641
>This is new to me.

It shouldn't be. When you eliminate traits like altruism and empathy, there's really nothing other than culture stopping you from being a rapist.

>Eh, seriously?

Have you ever looked at the ass of an attractive woman you don't know, and wanted to slap it? You don't of course, but that doesn't change the fact that slapping it would be fun (assuming you got away with it).

>Most rapists are perfectly rational people.

Yes, when you eliminate empathy and culture from the equation it's pretty rational to rape someone if you can get away with it.

But human beings are predominantly capable of empathy and grow up in cultures that don't permit rape, and the factor that eliminates those traits from blocking such behavior is mental illness.

The problem is that your view of mental illness is inaccurate, because you're mixing it up with preconceived notions of "evil".

>>5286703
The whole, 'We're the ones eating them', should have tipped you off.

>>5286717
Were we as intelligent as you claim, we wouldn't need to eat them. We're just different animals. Get over it.

>>5286703
>Here's a news flash: there is absolutely no evidence that we are intelligent as a species. We just assume that we are.

Intelligence is a concept we came up with to explain our ability to reason, which is distinctly higher than the animals around us, many of which lack most of the qualities that make us intelligent.

Humans are by definition intelligent because the definition of intelligence was invented to describe a trait human beings have.

And animals do possess levels of intelligence, it's just that it's difficult to recognize this when we compare them to ourselves. Just like how it's difficult to recognize an elephant as large when you compare it to a planet.

One must judge something by its relevant context.

>>5286703
There's no reason to assume otherwise considering we rule the world and that's a pretty good indicator.

>>5286723
>Humans are by definition intelligent
By our own definition. Go figure.

>>5286717
There are plenty of animals that eat animals less capable than themselves. This is the whole thing behind that food chain.

And intelligence isn't necessarily required to prey on another animal. A human being is goddamn intelligent compared to a lion, but that won't prevent it from making you into an edible ragdoll because it's physically superior.

But because our intelligence, we see human beings being preyed upon by lions, and adapt behaviors intended to prevent this from happening to us. Before long lions aren't dangerous to us anymore because we're so good at keeping ourselves safe from them. But that still won't prevent Einstein from falling into a lions cage at the zoo if he's careless, and his mathematical abilities won't do him much good in a contest of tooth and claw.

>>5285960
Pure and utter bullshit. I don't care who wrote it. Our bodies kill microorganisms every moment of every day in order to live. If people agree with these views than they must naturally kill themselves to stop the cycle of death.

Or does a cow have a greater right to live than a tapeworm and why?

1). meat is fucking delicious
2). I never claimed to be smart

>>5286744
How would you feel if you and your whole family were being murdered to feed some other species? It's much easier to gain empathy towards animals if you try to picture yourself in their skin.

>>5286735
You act like the definition is biased because we came up with it.

How would human beings have a definition of intelligence if we hadn't come up with one?

The point is that we wouldn't have been able to recognize intelligence or realized the need to study and account for it if we weren't intelligent.

Dolphins are pretty intelligent animals too, but not intelligent enough to need to recognize intelligence as an important trait (they be entirely unaware of it even).

Though you're correct that the human definition of intelligence is flawed. We discovered that when we started running into roadblocks in creating AI. It's still unclear whether this is simply because it's difficult to engineer intelligence, or our understanding (and thus our definition) of intelligence is merely inadequate.

That's why we're now studying intelligence in order to broaden our knowledge of it and when we possess the necessary knowledge we will upgrade our definition accordingly.

>>5286751
At least you're honest. Can't say the same for most of others.

>>5286762
Without an impartial observer, there is no way to know. Let me make this perfectly clear for you: there are several types of intelligence. Just like you can't expect a bird to to partial derivatives, you can't expect a human to navigate a 100 mile trip with perfect accuracy using only our brain.

This thread got majorly derailed.

Anyways the conclusion was found. Eating meat is wrong but we will continue to do it until in vitro meat is available, and it will be, thus the problem is only temporary and we should concentrate on more important issues.

/thread

>>5286768
I have to say I'm not understanding your point. Care to explain it to me?

>>5286666
Sadists wouldn't tend to be psychopaths, because sadists are excited by negative emotion in others, whereas psychopaths are indifferent to all emotion in other people. Also, psychopaths _plan_ their actions (although they are also extremely impulsive). They understand what they're doing. To me, saying it's just because they don't know any better is letting them off the hook too much. They're perfectly aware that they harm people, they just don't care, and often even enjoy it.

>>5286774
You're judging people by preconceived notions rather than the facts. I suggest you read up on sadism and psychopathy, and the neurological basis for each. Your knowledge on the subject seems to be entirely acquired from observation, probably of TV shows.

>>5286760
Completely and utterly irrelevant to the argument. My argument is that your very existence relies on death not that being killed sucks.

But I guess you can't argue against that so you're trying to argue something else completely different.

>>5286775
The point I was making is that giving meaning to our own definitions is as fruitful as trying to build a house out of liquid water.

>>5286793
>My argument is that your very existence relies on death
I can agree with that. Still, it's wiser to let live than to kill.

>>5286797
Hardly. We can observe intelligence, examine what produces it, and attempt to recreate, model, and engineer it from scratch. All of this should give us the knowledge we need to give meaning to our definition of it.

Comparing our intelligence to the intelligence of other beings also provides a lot of helpful information, and it may be possible to someday exchange definitions of intelligence with other intelligent entities, which should prove pretty informative.

So it's hardly futile. I think you're intentionally underrating the intelligence of human beings.

because meat tastes fucking great

>>5286692
>You can't reason out love or hate.
If person evokes positive emotion in me: increase love, decrease hate
If person evokes negative emotion in me: increase hate, decrease hate

>>5286824
Suppose an alien race visits Earth. Do you suppose they would consider us to be an intelligent species?

You're very quick to dismiss the relativity of intelligence. You just assume that the ability to come up with concepts is intelligence.

What about evolutionary intelligence? How does that fit into your worldview?

>>5286844
>increase hate, decrease hate
fuck
whatever you get the point

also people arguing over what makes someone evil and intrinsic sense should fuck off to >>>/lit/

>>5286844
>increase hate, decrease love
ftfy

And what constitutes the act of evoking positive or negative emotions? How do you explain being blinded by love? Surely our reasoning should prevent this from ever happening? So why doesn't it?

>>5286845
>Suppose an alien race visits Earth. Do you suppose they would consider us to be an intelligent species?

By our definition, yes. But of course they likely wouldn't subscribe to our definition, rather they'd have one of their own. That's why it would be informative to compare them.

I didn't say our concept of intelligence was completely accurate. I'm just telling you that it isn't completely inaccurate either, since it comes from observation of a phenomenon that exists and our attempts to understand it.

>You're very quick to dismiss the relativity of intelligence.

I don't think that I do, I think rather you overrate this to make it appear that the concept is irrelevant or non-existent. For the reasons stated above, I disagree.

>You just assume that the ability to come up with concepts is intelligence.

No, but it is a pretty big indicator of it.

>What about evolutionary intelligence? How does that fit into your worldview?

Define evolutionary intelligence.

>>5286852
>And what constitutes the act of evoking positive or negative emotions?
Doing things that I would like/dislike, evaluate their ability to interpet what I would like, and determine how much he/she followed through with the path to evoke positive emotions with me.
>How do you explain being blinded by love?
Finally graduate highschool and stop relying on irrational love.
>Surely our reasoning should prevent this from ever happening?
Hopefully, and finally an actual suited mate.
>So why doesn't it?
It does.

>>5286882
>I'm just telling you that it isn't completely inaccurate either, since it comes from observation of a phenomenon that exists and our attempts to understand it.
I didn't really claim it was completely inaccurate. What I'm saying is that we make assumptions about intelligence that may or may not be objectively true. We can't know for sure. We're not any more intelligent than animals or plants. We're just better at rationalizing things. But who is to say that is a good measure for intelligence? If we define ourselves as smart because we can rationalize and discretize things, then all we are doing is self-promoting. We are blinded by our own definitions. Maybe an entirely different civilized species would take a completely different take on intelligence.

>Define evolutionary intelligence.
Intelligence that is gain through thousands of years of evolution rather than rationalization of concepts.

>>5286897
>lots of typos
Sorry for that, it's getting late and I'm sleepy.

>>5286884
Have you ever been in love?

>>5286897
>I didn't really claim it was completely inaccurate. What I'm saying is that we make assumptions about intelligence that may or may not be objectively true. We can't know for sure.

How do you know what's possible for a higher intelligence to know or not? Considering your stance that's a pretty big assumption.

I agree that we have made assumptions about intelligence, but these assumptions are based on observation and analysis, and are scrutinized. We can't be sure about the accuracy of our notions because we lack the knowledge we need to test and adapt these notions, but through the study of intelligence, and experimentation, we can increase our knowledge and thus adapt our definitions so that they reflect our more accurate view of the matter.

>We're not any more intelligent than animals or plants. We're just better at rationalizing things.

Here you're wrong. Why would you think that?

>But who is to say that is a good measure for intelligence?

Humans, since they were the ones who came up with that concept, and are the only ones currently involved in the discussion.

>If we define ourselves as smart because we can rationalize and discretize things, then all we are doing is self-promoting. We are blinded by our own definitions.

No, you're missing the point again. I think you need to read up on the definition of intelligence, because if you're still not understanding after my attempts to explain the context to you, then I must assume you're not very familiar with the concept.

Yes, we lack an accurate scale on which to judge intelligence. That doesn't mean that our theory of intelligence is wrong, merely that it's incomplete.

>Maybe an entirely different civilized species would take a completely different take on intelligence.

They obviously would, but that has nothing to do with the issue does it?

>>5286942
post continued

>Intelligence that is gain through thousands of years of evolution rather than rationalization of concepts.

Well now you're going to have to explain "rationalization of concepts", because as far as I'm aware the ability to rationally deduce concepts from observations is the result of "evolutionary intelligence", and as far as I'm aware no other form of intelligence is currently known to exist.

Algorithmic AI does not yet meet the basic definition of even proto-intelligence, so it doesn't play in.

Again, it seems like you have some kind of inferiority complex you're projecting on humanity that makes you disregard the human notion of intelligence based merely on speculation.

>>5286942
Perhaps the term your looking for is higher comprehension?

girlslaughing.jpg

>>5286942
>How do you know what's possible for a higher intelligence to know or not?
Let's call it thinking outside the box.

>Why would you think that?
Everything in nature is very subtle. Every living thing has intelligence that helps it survive.

If humans were truly smart, we would be able to survive on our own. But this is not the case. We are a part of a biosphere. Our survival relies on other organisms. Knowing how to build a car doesn't make us smart. It is just the result of our use of rationality.

Let's turn the argument around. How does our supposed intelligence help us in the long run?

See animals simply live. But humans aren't satisfied with just that. We want to poke our noses into everything. Now I'm not saying this is wrong, I'm just describing the primary characteristics of a human being, or that which makes us distinct from other species. But how does this help us in the long run? We still die, we still have no real idea who are we or why we were brought up in this world. We try to compensate by rationalizing every last bit of our surroundings. But is this real intelligence? Or is it just hopeless clinging to a cause that may even turn out to be the end of us?

>>5287002 (cont.)

Animals and plants don't do this. That's one reason why they can be thought of as more intelligent. I know that I'm crossing the line of philosophy here, and I'm sure you can come up with more counter examples of why this isn't so. But my point is that without knowing anything else, there is just one way we can think about this. And this is what constitutes ignorance.

>Humans, since they were the ones who came up with that concept, and are the only ones currently involved in the discussion.
There is no evidence that supports this claim though. It's circular reasoning. We define smart, and we're smart because we fit into out own definition of smart. And so we define smart, and we're smart because ...

>They obviously would, but that has nothing to do with the issue does it?
On the contrary. It has everything to do with the issue. We can only make subjective assumptions this way. Objectively, this approach doesn't work.

>>5286946
>Algorithmic AI does not yet meet the basic definition of even proto-intelligence, so it doesn't play in.

You should be aware though, that algorithmic AI relies heavily on statistical analysis. It is not real intelligence in any sense of the word, your or my definition.

>>5287009
You just rephrased the statement you're quoting.

>>5287035
Maybe.

We should farm babies and eat them since they don't have higher intelligence. Sure they may experience pain, but they don't have cognitive abilities that surpass cows/pigs/horses. If animal food are to be judged on intelligence, then its a flawed method. When we take care of babies, we take care of them because they might suffer, not because they are smart or intelligent. In same regards, people should be aware of the nature of animal killings by humans. Animal meat is unnecessary for our current and future lifestyles. We do not need to kill to survive these days, we can grow/eat food without hurting animals.

Sure is liberal up in this bread.

>>5287002
>Everything in nature is very subtle. Every living thing has intelligence that helps it survive.

I already stated this.

>If humans were truly smart, we would be able to survive on our own. But this is not the case. We are a part of a biosphere. Our survival relies on other organisms. Knowing how to build a car doesn't make us smart. It is just the result of our use of rationality.

Now you're going full retard. Allow me to dissect this.

>If humans were truly smart, we would be able to survive on our own. But this is not the case. We are a part of a biosphere.

You're just making things up. Humans are smart because they're not gods? We can't survive on our own because we need to assimilate elements from our environment to survive, and we are this way because we evolved from organisms in said environment.

>Our survival relies on other organisms.

Is there any organism to whom this is not the case? Being an organism is what makes us alive, and thus what survival is. Saying we need to be alive in order to survive is a pretty worthless statement.

>Knowing how to build a car doesn't make us smart. It is just the result of our use of rationality.

Which is being smart.

>>5287088
cont.

>See animals simply live. But humans aren't satisfied with just that. We want to poke our noses into everything. Now I'm not saying this is wrong, I'm just describing the primary characteristics of a human being, or that which makes us distinct from other species. But how does this help us in the long run? We still die, we still have no real idea who are we or why we were brought up in this world. We try to compensate by rationalizing every last bit of our surroundings. But is this real intelligence? Or is it just hopeless clinging to a cause that may even turn out to be the end of us?

Oh boy, this is becoming too shitty to try and respond to. Let me give you a short answer.

The good it does us is it increases our standard of living and our chances to survive in our environment. It's something we do because it's in our nature, rather a conscious decision on the part of our species.

>poking our noses around
Sounds like you're just being misanthropic, which really explains your cognitive dissonance here. It seems I finally know where you're coming from.

>>5287089
cont.

>we still have no real idea who are we or why we were brought up in this world

Maybe you don't. We human beings know exactly what we are, and can state with probably something like 98% accuracy of "why". I think you should look up "humans" on wikipedia, you may find it enlightening.

>We try to compensate by rationalizing every last bit of our surroundings. But is this real intelligence?

We observe our environment and build a model of it, this doesn't require intelligence, but the higher the intelligence of a being is the more accurate a model of its environment it can construct.

>Or is it just hopeless clinging to a cause that may even turn out to be the end of us?

No, you're just ignorant/shit posting. We construct models of our environments because it helps us interact with it intelligently by giving us the ability to plan multiple courses of action and predict what may go wrong with them.

>Animals and plants don't do this. That's one reason why they can be thought of as more intelligent.

By that logic I guess rocks are smarter than any living organism, because they're completely incapable of thought. Why don't you kill yourself to become smarter?

>There is no evidence that supports this claim though. It's circular reasoning.

We came up with a definition to describe a behavior we observed from ourselves. This isn't a claim, it's a self-evident fact.

>>5287092
>>5287089
>>5287088
I believe your subconscious mind is forcing ignorance upon you to protect you from a world view that doesn't correspond with your own. I'm guessing this is why you're letting emotion drive your responses, like calling me names and mocking my points. I'm not offended or anything, I don't really care. My message is very clear, but it takes a bit of a leap into the irrational. Which I will admit is hard when all you ever knew is the rational side of things. In any case, I've had it with this discussion. Maybe I'll write a book about it one day, I think I would prefer a monologue when it comes to expressing thoughts about this. In the meanwhile, let's agree to disagree.

Thanks for the debate.

>We define smart, and we're smart because we fit into out own definition of smart. And so we define smart, and we're smart because ...

More like we see that we're smart, see that other things aren't as smart, begin to wonder why we are smart, and this leads to wondering what smart actually is. I bet it throws your head through a loop that Wikipedia has an article about itself.

>On the contrary. It has everything to do with the issue. We can only make subjective assumptions this way. Objectively, this approach doesn't work.

What the hell are you even talking about? What are the assumptions you're referring to? We observe intelligent behavior, and try to determine its nature and cause. Another form of intelligence presumably having evolved in a different kind of environment, subject to different evolutionary pressures than us, would have a different understanding of intelligence. That doesn't mean that ours is incorrect.

>You should be aware though, that algorithmic AI relies heavily on statistical analysis. It is not real intelligence in any sense of the word, your or my definition.

That was my point.

>>5287113
I'm calling you names and mocking your points because you're making things up and your points are stupid.

You believe what you want to believe, but there's nothing emotional about what I'm telling you. It's not my position, it's the position of the human race based on science. Your pseudo-philosophical garbage is not an acceptable stance on issue.

I'm glad you're not offended, believe it or not neither am I. It's just frustrating trying to explain something to somebody who simply refuses to understand it because they like their own (false) idea better.

At least you can tell you're being irrational and opposing reality, so you're probably not stupid. Do you hang out with stoners or something? It seems like you're way too comfortable just making things up and stating them as if they're real.

See you.

>>5287128
Even worse, I hang out with Buddhists and philosophers. I am very keen on science, though. But it's only through philosophy that science can really shine. And it's a good exercise to think outside the box, even to the extent where the border lines are completely smudged. Curious thing is that I get every single one of your points, but you seem to be extremely resilient toward mine. And it is perfectly understandable, as we live in a world where rationality is important. But again, it's very good practice to try and force yourself to think outside of our own constructs. That's how great ideas are usually born.

Anyway, thanks and see you around.