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.

Where I am going with this is that its not just about the suffering caused to the animal but also the effect its having on the child. It is obvious that you are a much more accomplished in philosophy and I will try and learn from your use of the terms. Am I right in saying that NAP is a universal preferable behaviour? If so, then would you agree that not cutting off the legs of a live cat would be a universal preferable behaviour for any sane person? You state that you would stop the child causing unnecessary suffering to an animal then could it be that every sane person would also stop the child - as so perhaps we all already accept that it is a UPB and that NAP extends to animals? By the way, I see some people trying to extend my definition out to plants. I dont accept this because: 1. There is no evidence they have any consciousness or feel pain 2. Eating plants IS necessary for our survival (so even if we proved they did feel pain I would still eat them - perhaps a little more reluctantly).

If we say that NAP doesnt apply to animals then would you be OK with a child holding down a cat, say, and gradually cutting of its legs and watching it cry out and bleed to death? Would you not consider that child to be mentally disturbed? I assume you would not want the cat to suffer and would stop the child hurting it - and so why would you if aggression against animals is OK?

That is a good point. I agree that NAP is mostly about non initiation of force. I suppose that I am not saying that eating meat is immoral but that, because it is unnecessary, then the suffering and death of the animals is by personal choice and so demonstrating an aggressive nature. If we are to develop a society who lives by non-aggression then it would be much easier if all aggression against living things were considered at least 'wrong'. This discussion has clarified to me that although I am a vegan, I dont have a problem with other people eating meat as long as the animal didnt suffer. If the animal suffered then it means someone caused that suffering and if they can stand by while an animal suffers then they are more likely to be aggressive towards people too. I feel the same about people who are happy for the intensive meat industry to be causing the suffering on their behalf. Again, although I believe there are health issues with meat and will not eat it myself, I am OK with others eating it if the animals were treated humanely. I would not be against hunting for example, where the animal has had a free life and is killed quickly.

I dont understand why many contributors here have a problem extending the NAP to include all aggression - even towards animals. If the UPB is non-aggression then isnt it fair to try to work towards being non-aggressive in nature ( character ) rather than trying to come up with a line where non-aggression applies and beyond which it doesnt apply? I wouldnt even be aggressive to my computer which has no rights and doesnt feel pain. I have learned that aggression just makes things worse wherever it is applied. I hope that peaceful parenting and teaching your children to be non-aggressive includes being kind to animals and even not smashing up inanimate objects. This way the brain can perhaps rewire to be naturally non-aggressive without having to think about it.

As pointed out, I didnt talk about the children. I agree that we must bring up children to think for themselves. I discuss everything with my children and they have a very healthy attitude in questioning everything. One daughter is a Christian and the other respectfully not interested. I try to discuss everything in terms of what I believe is right (truth, non-aggression, forgiveness, generosity, ...) with examples of how it worked out in my life and without quoting scripture even if thats where I first leaned it. (If its true, its true). Yes, the Catholic church is full of people who want to lord over you and worse; the muslim church studies the koran full of hate and many cults create a thousand rules impossible to live to. That is well worth fighting against. The protestants protested against all this and went back to what the New Testament says about love. The only thing I can see you can reasonably protest against are the Bible stories taught in Sunday school. I can see that you might think they corrupt the young minds. I really cant get excited by it as I know what it is mostly like. Games, colouring, model making and generally having fun. If our church ever had any real message in there it was usually way above the heads of the childrens understanding and they really just learned how to get on with eachother.

@DSayers said: "Well, this thread is predicated on one short, simple statement: you accept Christianity as truth. Several people have asked you how you know and you continue to avoid the question." Yes - OK then. How do we know anything is truth? We test it. We had the vicar from the local parish church in our village knock on the door asking if we wanted to go on a 6 evening course to learn about Christianity. He was (is) a highly intelligent and educated man who became a vicar after being an officer in the army, (tanks I think). He was not how I thought of as a typical 'religious' person. He had his feet firmly on the ground obviously a intellectual willing to discuss anything. I greatly enjoyed the discussion and thought it would be fun doing it once a week in the evening. The course went into historical facts and what the bible teaches about life and how to live it (basically the concept that the designer of a car knows best how to maintain it and get the best performance - and so if God created us then He can give us clear insights on how to live). So it gets to the week about the Holy Spirit. We learn what the Bible says about Him and that we can receive Him by simple prayer. A bit spooky for a non-Christian - but this is my test of the whole thing so I agree to be prayed for. Remember that I was brought up an Atheist and not had anything indoctrinated and this was a non-emotional, Anglican, non-hyped up affair. Well I kneeled in the library and the Vicar, my wife and a woman and gently put their hands on my head and asked the Holy Spirit to come. Wham! I got what was like a lightening strike on the right side of my face that turned into what felt like hot water that poured through my cheek down the back of my neck and into the area of my heart. I startled the group and said what happened. They asked me to kneel again and that they would keep praying. Wham! The exact same thing happened again. Noone was touching my face. Noone had said that anything would happen at all. I had not heard of anything like this before and not since. There was no expectancy - it was completely out of the blue. Obviously an experience like this then caused me to test out more, and more and eventually, after lots of similar experiences and positive results of trying out teachings of Jesus, I have to conceded that there is lots of evidence for the existence of God - and particularly the Christian God as it is His words I tested out. I have worked in an orphanage in Romania; out on the streets in England at night with the homeless; run the church finances -and lots of other jobs. There is not a more loving, honest, generous, passionate group of people than in the protestant churches I have visited in England, Romania, USA, Tobago, and many other places. I know the Catholic, Muslim, cults, and Jewish churches often have been involved in massive abuse - but what you might not know is that they still live by Gods law - and make up hundreds of their own. They do not accept what it actually says in the Bible which is that since Jesus we are no longer under the law. Its all about love now. Love your neighbour and love your enemies.

Absolutely, there will be anger, bitterness and hatred as a healthy initial reaction. That helps us react correctly in the moment for self-defence. But then we need to be able to go on with our life without having to depend on the perpetrator doing anything - because they might not. Perhaps a different example would explain why I am proposing, then, that philosophy is wrong about forgiveness. Supposing you lend someone $1000 and they promise to pay you back in a month. After one month you dont hear anything and so you contact them and they say its in the post. It doesnt arrive in the post and you contact them and they say they have lost their job but will get the money to pay you back. You keep chasing them but they eventually dont answer your calls etc... You have a couple of choices. 1. you can keep trying to search them out, taking a great effort and lots of time and frustration when you find them you can get the law involved or threaten them with violence if they dont pay and maybe get hurt too 2. you can say to yourself that you want to move on with your life and that all this is simply not worth dragging you down for months with possibly no return anyway If you choose number 2 you can simply decide to forgive them the debt. Write it off as a lesson learned and tell them that you no longer want the money back and that you dont want to see them again, but hope they manage to get a new job. Yes - maybe they dont change and think they were clever getting away with your money. But the point is that option 2 is best for you in that you are now free to move on. You have learned to be more careful who you lend to. If you wait for them to come to you and beg you to not demand the money back - you could be waiting a very long time and continue to be involved in a painful relationship with the debt hanging as a dark cloud over you. Forgive the debt unconditionally and move on without any expectations. I have done it many times ( money, violence, lies, gossip) and bear noone a grudge, and am not burdened by any of it. Its not easy at first but once you see the benefits it becomes easier the next time.

Gosh - so many points. I hope you are pleased to know that in all future topics I start, I will try and keep to one short simple statement. I will keep to 2 of the points. Forgiveness and 'what about the children'. You say that '..forgiveness is not something that can be given.." and yet it is something that I give. I give it, freely, because it is beneficial to me to not live the rest of my life in bitterness. Also you are mis-representing or misunderstanding Christian forgiveness when you say "...indoctrinating you to ignore their transgressions..". Noone is looking to ignore transgressions but its more about not seeking personal revenge. And I am certainly not .".actually talking about forgetting..". I agree that every experience is a learning experience. As an example, if a woman comes to the (protestant) church saying her husband is abusing her - they would advise her to leave him, go to a sanctuary and call the police. They would then advise, once she is safe, that she prays for him to recognize the evil he is doing and find God so that he learns to love (non aggression). If she can forgive him, whether he is sorry or not, then she can move on, having learned from the experience, and start afresh without dragging around the ball and chain of bitterness, fear and anger. Giving forgiveness is easy once you understand that people behave as they do because of how they were brought up ( see most of Stefans videos) - so its kind of not their fault - although they must still take responsibility, reap the consequences of their actions and be shown the error of their ways so they have a chance to change.

I was told by my doctor in the UK that they dont routinely check cholesterol levels unless you are a smoker. They didnt see a risk unless there was something for the cholesterol to stick to? I can only add that as a vegan since leaving the UK, I dont eat any cholesterol and my annual checkups (now obligatory for the USA insurance) show correct levels of so-called good and bad cholesterol. The body seems quite capable of creating what it needs when it needs it.

It was when I came to America. In the UK I was a socialist through and through - thinking how could anyone not want to give money to the poor and needy? Yeah naive as they come. Very soon after arriving here I started to read and hear about peoples passion for the constitution and liberty. I then began to listen to Stefan and read more about the simple facts that the welfare state and government intervention actually makes things worse not better. I am now a pure free marketer and see that I have been used and abused by the state. I think I am at the stage of a low level form of minarchism - struggling with going the final step.