Reaper

I'll have you know that I have a very, very good memory

Oh I knew that, I was just being a prick . However, some of the less educated might actually take this seriously, so by adding some comments of my own we make it clear that this is devoid of content.

Some are, but not all of them are consistent, and ignore many facts about meat. For one, meat is much more convenient to convert into energy for us than plant matter. Second, its not as easy for us humans to digest plant matter, unlike meat. I can list many more, but I think this guy can explain it better than me, courtesy of quackwatch: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/vegan.html and about the world hunger issue, in the end overpopulation growth will outstrip ANY amount of plants we can grow to feed them. Eventually all species will outstrip their resources, whether they are herbivores or not. Also, do we really want that much more people on this planet? They will demand a lot more things than just food... Here lists some benefits AND risks of being a vegetarian: http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/vegetarian.html And I suppose in the future we will have the stupendous amount of energy necessary to do that too ....

You did not! First you came in here bashing everyone for eating meat. And then when some of us came up with a counter argument, you immediately dismissed it without addressing any points and instead ranted on about your beliefs and implicitly assumed that everyone believed otherwise were somehow less "moral". Its easy to determine that from the attitude of your posts. You cherrypicked sentences and made a strawman from Paralith's post from what I've can see, because what you said was clearly not the point of her post. Now that your back is against the wall, your trying to deny responsibility for your statements and ridiculous propositions? Now your just trying to shift attention away from yourself. I am not trying to claim the moral high ground, rather that I am discrediting your claim to it. You came in here claiming that you are more moral based on your beliefs, and we discredited and debunked that idea. But you know what, you are probably right about this one thing, that I shouldn't be that aggressive. I certainly do know better then that! After all, given your attitude you are not likely to gain ANY significant support for your world view. Good bye lovejunkie02!

I don't know if wiki has "everything", but I'm pretty certain there are articles about things like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny Right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_bunny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_clause

Do you want me to list specific examples? Why don't you go look at a farm, or a ranch, or a pasture, etc. It is clear that any animals that live there aren't abused. Your analogy fails here because those are all rather different cases. And in any case it doesn't support you because what you think is irrelevant. The question here is whether any of those things are right, and so far I have no reason to believe that killing animals for food is wrong for reasons that I and a bunch of others have given. And I think you should refer to SkepticLance's posts if you want to see an argument for keeping animals as livestock before I waste my time arguing with you about animals and freedom. Right here: What you are doing is immediately dismissing people on the basis of their diet and their views on eating because it doesn't fit with YOUR ideology. Likewise, you are implicitly suggesting that because you "care" you are somehow superior other people. You are making the appeal to pity logical fallacies and other irrelevant appeals. Since you are intent on claiming the moral high ground, you have been challenged and have been asked to back up your views. You will either put up or shut up. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- As I said before, I have no problem with opinions. What I do have a problem with are people who try to force them on other people, or who claim them to be fact. You will not be warned again. Otherwise I think I speak for all here when I say: Keep your annoying self-righteous mindless paranoia to yourself. I know plenty of savage, meat eating predators with better morals than you.

I remember a little while ago a school board in Rhode Island tried to ban the Easter Bunny because they felt it might be "offensive". I'm not sure if that's what political correct means nowadays but I do have to agree with the OP here that the term "PC" is often abused.

I'm still trying to determine if this says anything at all. But so far from what I can take, all of the terms and phrases don't seem to have any meaning.

I told you that you have to justify this. The facts remain that except in maybe some industrial factories, many livestock animals are usually raised in pretty good conditions, better than nature would have them. And what do you know about an animals feelings or freedom. Who are we to say that we know what they think or how they feel? Some people happen to believe that in farms animals die a dignified life. I could argue that by raising them in a farm they have more freedom than they would in nature. And as much as some would like to think otherwise, we are no more selfish than other animals are. Biologically, humans are animals. As much as some people would like to think this to be the case, the truth is there is no way to separate humans from the rest of the natural world. We are as every bit dependent on it and are governed by its laws. Its clear that you don't know how to argue a point. I have no problems with opinions. What I do have a problem with are people who try to force them on other people, and people who think that their opinions are fact. What makes you think your opinion makes you better than anybody else? Because you merely feel better about it? It just won't cut it, and in all honesty the attempt to do so is rather rude and uncalled for.

Also to add that the Y-chromosome usually carry different genes than the X chromosome and don't carry as much, so if the X-chromosome does carry a defective gene that cannot be negated by the Y-chromosome, genetic diseases will result. Hemophilia, for example, is a recessive gene carried by the X-chromosome.

Fish? And some of the indigenous people of South America certainly eat some of the animals and food that would be hunted by electric eels.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it. If you don't back it up, it will have no validity. iNow did raise a valid point. So if your trying to convince all us meat eaters otherwise, appeals to emotion/pity and ad hominems will not help you.

Yes it is true. The engine you are referring to is what is called a Carnot engine. And this is an idealized hypothetical scenario. The reason it can never happen is because of things like friction, second law of thermodynamics, wear and tear, etc.

No, that doesn't mean your a latino. And yes, I do find the latin language much more logical than english.

How is that different from any other time when most people usually have to make a decision on any matter, never mind politics . Just last term I took an intro course into history, and one depressing lesson you learn is that most people just don't seem to learn from their mistakes from history... I'm not sure how that is done in other countries, but here in the US we certainly need a system that allows other third parties to actually be able to get a seat. Otherwise, the senators or people who run for house of representatives are usually split in either democrat or republicans... the same 2 parties no matter what you do.

Theoretically we did, but that doesn't mean that the subject won't pop up every now and again...

This sounds like a bunch of gobblygook to me. Did anyone actually understand a single thing he just said?

On another message board I read that the NOVA program on PBS is going to show something on intelligent design, to comply with their wish that it should treated "fairly" on such shows designed to inform the general public about science. Unfortunately for the ID'ers, this upcoming show is intended to DEBUNK them yet again, and this time in front of the masses. It is going to primarily cover the events that happened in 2004 when a town in Penn, known as Dover, the science teachers refused to promote ID as a science or an alternative theory. Of course, this sparked a lawsuit from the fundamentalists and everything became a big mess. Needless to say, they lost and ID is not being taught or even mentioned (phew!). Here is information about the program: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ And here is another article about it: http://newsblaze.com/story/20071010150344tsop.np/newsblaze/NEWSWIRE/NewsBlaze-Wire.html Its going to come out sometime in November, and I'm most certainly going to watch it. Its about time that a major media outlet finally presents the fact that there is no contest between evolution and ID, that ID is NOT SCIENCE, and that it should not even be considered as such and deserves no mention anywhere. Given the large audience that NOVA usually generates on hot topics, maybe the public will be much better informed... Regardless, its certainly a step in the right direction.

You mean this: http://www.google.com/search?q=7+%22Wedges%22+for+Flattening+Carbon+Emissions+Growth&hl=en&start=10&sa=N On this page, there are a few good articles that might be what you are looking for. I didn't post any individual links because they all require PDF format and downloading. So, I'll leave it up to you to look them up!

There are actually lots of equations in GR, not just one. In this particular equation, "G_uv" is the Einstein tensor, and "T_uv" is the stress energy tensor. The stuff in between is a constant k. What this equation does is explain how spacetime curves.

Yeah, I actually do kinda feel that way here in the States. Now that I am of voting age, I've been mulling over whether or not to vote. I just don't see any conceivable way that I could actually make a difference by voting, I have long since learned that what the parties promise are not quite what they intend to do, or will actually end up doing...... In any case, there are always the same two parties that end up going up there, and the current candidates aren't really all that great. And I feel the democrats are way too superficial with the choices of candidates. Sort of. I just remember that from my American history studies, the authors of the constitution originally put it there to prevent the elections based purely on popularity because at the time there weren't a lot of people who were educated. Also, to prevent a tyranny of the majority scenario from popping up. --------------------------------------------------------- Of course, nowadays who gets elected is based on whether or not they have lots of money, so its not likely that our best interests will be served in any time in the near future.

I think the electoral college was put in place to prevent presidents from being elected based purely on their popularity, as that can cause obvious problems.

http://www.neatorama.com/2007/09/03/clowns-kicked-kkk-asses/ Just read this today, and according to this the KKK got their asses handed to them by a bunch of clowns in Knoxville,Tennessee. Check it out!

One has to wonder, how do people get polarized to the point where they think that there is always a struggle between different philosophies or beliefs? Especially since that science is not an ideology, or a belief.

Firefly and Sandman, you both have to calm down and stop the ad hominems. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In any case,