corbyco

As a Vegan I have been checking that I am getting everything I need and my yearly medical confirms it is working well. Of course, whatever 'diet' you are on it behooves you to check its balanced if you want to avoid the most common causes of early death. This video is an excellent part of a study into the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7KeRwdIH04 After this I added ground flax seed (for Omega 3) and checked my B12 from the alternative milks and taken some supplements when I have felt necessary.

shirgall, on 03 Oct 2014 - 1:10 PM, said: Quote: Don't forget George W says God told him to invade Iraq If someone called themselves an anarchist or libertarian and then joined Occupy Wall Street - would you say that anarchists are hypocrites - or that the ones that joined the protests were simply not who they say they are. You judge people by what they do, not by what they say they believe.

Basically my Father would not entertain any discussion on religion. If the subject did come up then it was reasserted that religion was a delusion for the weak and that anyone who believed in a god was obviously stupid. He was an empiricist and an absolute believer in 'truth' at any cost. He was the one who taught me to question and test everything. His idea of discipline was to shout very, very loudly. He would literally go red in the face as if he was going to burst. Strangely this caused my 2 sisters and my brother to break down in tears and broke their spirit but I seemed to have an inner strength that made me able to stand up to him. My Grandmother was a Catholic who was taught that only the priests could interpret the Bible. She had a Bible but was not allowed to read it. My Mother had no faith and never discussed anything religious with me.

If we look at history there have been wars in the name of Christianity - although not following the words of Christ so it seems not fair to blame Christs teachings for those wars. Also there have been abuses but again that is not what Christ taught - and infact the opposite of what he taught. There have been far, far more deaths through communism and general statism which had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. Today there are almost no deaths even in the name of Christianity. Its about energy and islamic extremism. Do we say that anarchism cannot be right and true because of the hundreds of thousands of 'anarchists' who loot, burn and murder? No, because we have intellectual integrity and exclude those who actually do not follow what we define as anarchism.

Most of the postings in reply to mine are attacking religion from the top down - but yours is the one that is on the button for me. I have no intention to attempt to prove whether God is omniscient or not etc. I absolutely want to start from the ground up as probably 99% of philosophers are atheist and reject any notion of God - either its because they are right or its because they simply wont do what it takes to experience Him. And yes, unfortunately the proof is experiential and not physical and so will always be difficult to prove by experiment. The first experience is what Steffan called insane - i.e. directly sensing God. Obviously if God exists then it is not insane - if He doesnt then millions of people are experiencing something else which would still deserve investigating. (Yes many are hyped up to an experience, but many are not). As another (maybe weak) example - what if someone said that being thrown upside-down on a fairground ride produced a powerful and exhilarating burst of emotion that made them enjoy life much more afterwards. You could discuss this with philosophy and decide it was not possible even though millions did it. You have to go on the ride to prove it to yourself. Or another attempt at an example - someone says they saw a UFO. You say they cant have seen one because they dont exist. They say that 5 other people saw it too and one of them was a policeman. How do you create a method to prove it? You cant come up with a situation when a UFO must appear if true. So this is the difficulty in being objective - it does require each person to individually and personally do their own experiment and have their own experience. I believe that this is how I got to Christianity starting as a scientist and an (amateur) philosopher. I went in as an atheist arguing against God, exactly as people on here are, then I gave it all a opportunity, had several incredible experiences and so had to concede that there really is evidence that God exists. This, of course, does not prove anything else about what the Bible says or which religion is true. However, if God does exists then there are tests and experiments you can do such as test what He is said to have said (especially if it disagrees with the conclusions of current philosophy) . I have had to test and deeply consider the teachings of Jesus to move any further. As regards to how it all 'describes the real world'... it does seem evident to me that the Christian countries are the most prosperous and free. Christian countries are the ones that have progressed scientifically and ethically. There is dreadful evil in the world. Also why would anyone do the moral thing without a God? UPB gives a test of whether something is moral but it doesnt explain why people thoughout history have done it even at their own cost.

I started this thread because I joined here and I am a Christian - and I saw that other Christians were also involved in threads. 5 years ago I was a socialist - but since coming to America and hearing the passionate discussions on the constitution and Steffan's videos on anarchism I have swung all the way to a minarchist - not quite anarchist yet. I am sure that there are lots of people who have come from different backgrounds, cultures and political positions as well. I hope that the idea of forums is to allow open discussion of absolutely anything so that we can all get nearer to the objective truth. Steffan's material is extremely useful in helping us all understand basics as well as processes of getting to this truth - although I have issues with some of it so hope to be able to have threads discussing these to help me understand. I didnt get to Christianity from the top down - you can read my testimony in an earlier post. I approach everything from first principles wherever I can and in the best way I can - and I consider myself a scientist as I have a bachelors in engineering and been developing engineering systems all my career. I was an atheist and brought up by atheists and nothing was pounded into me. The problem with proving something that is personal experience, emotional, internal, is that it is not testable in the way something like gravity is. So if you havent experienced it then you probably will consider it 'delusional'. You imagine if everyone was depressed and never felt happiness. A group of people say - if you do this...you will get a feeling that uplifts you and makes you feel great! The depressives could say - prove it! And they go to do the same thing and it doesnt happen to them. So they call it dangerous, delusional, and false. But just because they didnt feel the happiness does not negate the fact that the other group do feel it. I agree that Christianity comes with lots of other 'baggage' but as a philosopher I only really concern myself with what it says about now. I cant prove what happened in history so what the old testament says is outside the scope of proof. So I only test what Jesus says about what we should do now to do good in the world and prosper personally. Much of what He says is different or the opposite to what philosophers here say and yet when I test it - it works. So I think it worth investigating simply because it can be tested more fully and so either I will learn that its true, or not true and I will hopefully understand how it worked even though it is false.

I dont see how considering the extension of something is the same as trying to disprove it. I am not saying anything is wrong... I am hopefully in an exercise of discussion to see whether within its own rules it can be extended. I am putting forward a proposal for discussion to test it - and so far happen to feel that it could be true. I cannot understand why, if we can include someone asleep, or without the mental ability to understand moral behaviour, then we cannot include animals who can suffer the consequences of immoral behaviour to the same extent as humans even though they cannot understand the immorality that is affecting them. I seriously have problems with the sentence "If it is evil to kill fish, then UPB says that anyone or anything that kills the fish is evil." This statement completely includes anyone and everything in the 'universe'. UPB does say that it is evil to kill a person. Therefore, if the above statement is true, 'anyone or anything' that kills a person is immoral. So if a shark kills a person it is acting immorally??? This goes even further than I want to extend UPB. I am just proposing that it is immoral to be aggressive to the shark, because we do understand morality and dont need to hurt the shark. I am not asking that we expect the shark to act morally - as you say "...for obvious reasons".

In the UPB book Steffan says: "We do not have the time here to go into a full discussion of the question of animal rights, but we can at least deal with the moral proposition: “it is evil to kill fish.” If it is evil to kill fish, then UPB says that anyone or anything that kills the fish is evil. This would include not just fishermen, but sharks as well – since if killing fish is evil, we have expanded our definition of ethical “actors” to include non-human life. It is clear that sharks do not have the capacity to refrain from killing fish, since they are basically eating machines with fins. Thus we end up with the logical problem of “inevitable evil.” If it is evil to kill fish, but sharks cannot avoid killing fish, then sharks are “inevitably evil.” However, as we have discussed above, where there is no choice – where avoidability is impossible – there can be no morality." Where I disagree with this text is that I dont see why we have to include the object of the aggression as an ethical actor. It is the aggressor who is either acting morally or immorally - hence why we can say it is immoral to be aggressive against a baby who can not be an ethical actor either. It can be immoral for a person to be aggressive against an animal without the animal knowing that it is an immoral act , in the same way as it is immoral to hit a baby. If it is unnecessary for us to eat animals then it meets the test of aviodability as well. We can all avoid aggression to animals.

Ummm so you agree that it is quite unnecessary to eat meat or dairy....but that "...some other animal based foods are critical to health" I agree there is evidence that heart disease is caused by inflammation. I read that this is generally due to a lack of Omega 3. Its the Omega 6 fats that create inflammation if not balanced with 3. Meat eaters need to ensure they eat fish to get the Omega 3. Some vegans can still have a problem if they dont ensure they get their Omega 3 from things like ground flax seed. Seriously, nobody needs to eat cholesterol. How do you think the cows that eat grass get cholesterol? Or elephants? Or the most powerful animal in the world - the gorilla? Or the famous vegan Olympian Carl Lewis? Whatever diet you go for you still need to ensure its balanced.

I think you must be a time traveler as you seem to be able to state so much about the past with certainty. :-) Actually with all the nuts and milk alternatives I probably get a lot of unsaturated fat. I will watch your videos when I get home tonight - but a balanced vegan diet is the best way to avoid all of the most common causes of death in the west - heart disease, cancer and diabetes. Note that these are much less prevalent in the east where they mostly have a vegan diet with very little fish and often no dairy. I will look up some references but I think many have been quoted above. Overall it it simply unnecessary to eat meat and dairy. I am personal proof and there are millions of us. @PK Hoffner quote: "I would say what about saturated fats, cholesterol, omega's 3 fatty acids, vitamins A, D, and K?" We dont need saturated fats. We dont need to eat cholesterol as it is made in the body when it needs it. My cholesterol levels are fine (both types) and I dont eat any at all. I get Omega 3 from ground flax seed. A, D and K? Naturally in many veggies. I am afraid you just state sentance after sentance of untrue statements. It would be better if you kept to 1 or 2 if you truely want to discuss it. What are your key 2 main 'facts' that prove we need meat?

Seriously PhilosopherKing Hoffner? A rant of made up facts qualified with " ..as I understand it...seems to be..." rice and beans gives you all the proteins you need then add nuts and oats and quinoa etc for variation- it is unnecessary to eat meat or any animal products save for B12 which we probably used to get naturally on our food and in our water and so have to add in occasionally. Also I think you will find that most vegans avoid soy and certainly dont feed it to their babies as its mostly GM and too heavily processed. Rice milk, coconut, almond, cashew, hazelnut, oat etc milks are excellent alternatives.

yagami: "First off I apologize for taking so long to reply to your post. Second UPB cant apply to animals because what you are advocating is that animals be protected by UPB but have no moral responsibility. UPB only applies to humans because we can act both morally and morally. Because of this we are also responsible for our actions. This cant apply to animals because they cant act as moral agents. Also you never explained the difference between a rock a plant an animal and a human. Why are all four of these treated differently to you given your moral framework?" We seem to keep going round in a circle and I dont understand why. You say that UPB cant apply to animals becuase they cant act as moral agents - but I am not asking anything of the animals at all. I only ask that humans act morally and put it to you that it is possible to extend our moral requirement to not cause animals to suffer. Surely the difference between a rock and animals is that animals can suffer and a rock cannot. A baby is protected by UPB but does not have moral responsibility - so why not animals?

Oh I think we have a misunderstanding. I am not trying apply UPB to animals in the sense of expecting them to act morally. I am asking if we can make an extension to human morality to include non aggression against animals.

@yagami - I just listened to the podcast. I have learnt something today - thank you for pointing me to it. I will no longer ague from the effect. I am struggling still with how initiation of aggression can be right in any circumstances. Has being aggressive ever been the right thing to do (other than in self defense)? I see aggression towards animals as possibly a reflection that someone doesnt really believe in the NAP. Can someone really believe the NAP is a UPB if, when they feel they want to hit their wife, they kick the dog instead? Does applying the NAP to animals too, really require a revision of UPB or is it not a simple logical extension? I have just in this last half hour learnt not to argue from effect. If NAP does apply to animals then the effect is irrelevant, we must stop being aggressive to animals.

@yagami I dont understand how it is the same as your 'slavery' example. I would be grateful if you could explain that in simpler terms for me. (I am new here). Is it not correct that we promote peaceful parenting because it will produce peaceful children and then peaceful adults. We are promoting a behaviour because it will produce the result that is preferable for everyone. I put it to you that promoting a behaviour of not being aggressive to animals is preferable because it is also teaching children that aggression is wrong except in self defense. If the cat goes crazy and attacks you it is OK to kill the cat - but if it is sitting next to you purring then it is sadistic to hurt the cat unprovoked. A child that is happy causing suffering to an animal is, in my opinion, much more likely going to cause suffering to a human being. I certainly have heard of the inverse where an abused child is more likely the one who would put a cat in the microwave. If I am still off track, I would be very grateful for you to take a little time to teach me where I am wrong and perhaps point me to where I can learn the correct method of interaction in these discussions.