# Vegetarian



## Bearkiller

Just curious. I've seen quite a few people state that they are vegetarians on here. If it's for health reasons, cool. My question is for those with a moral objection to eating meat. How is it that one can find it ok to take an animal and keep it in a pen and ride around on its back for around 30 years but have an issue with eating a tasty little creature? I actually have a cousin who fits that description perfectly but she has no answer as to why. It's all about what feels good. She is the same person who is anti hunting but has leather seats in her car.


----------



## rosie1

Although I'm not anymore (due to health reasons-i was a terrible vegitarian ) I was a vegetarian for 5 years and yes I did ride horses at that time. There is a big difference between killing an animal and riding one. For me I don't like the way the animals are treated that we use for consumption although I won't go into detail on that as its a lengthy discussion in itself. My horses live in good paddocks, have a stall at night, get ferrier, dental and vet care and all the food they need all year round. They have everything they need and live with other horses I don't feel bad asking them to work an hour a day for their keep, I work 40 hours a week for it I think they can put in a few themselves 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Bearkiller

I live in an area where there are wild horses and I never hear of them trying to break INTO a barn. Most animals appear to cherish freedom more than a clean stall and a decent meal. I personally think animals are here for us to use (and care for). I'm not saying I agree with all animal slaughter practices but anytime you take things like that out of a community and put it into a corporation or governments hands, it's bound to get ugly. I try to raise my own food and with the exception of beef I do raise my own meat.


----------



## Shasta1981

Not sure what you are looking to get out of this thread. Seems suspicious. 

But ill play. As stated above there is a difference between caring for the animal and killing it. I do not equate riding to hunting or slaughter and the only group I have ever heard of doing so is PETA.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Saskia

I don't really understand your argument. Are you saying that killing a creature and then subsequently eating its corpse is equivalent with caring for, valuing and yes, riding, a horse? 

That's like comparing apples and oranges. They're both fruit... but otherwise they have pretty much nothing to do with each other.

Perhaps you are saying that horse riding is animal abuse and/or cruelty (as is the reason many people don't eat meat - not saying that all livestock is treated cruelly) and while I don't agree with that I do see how that could be considered a valid argument... but I would be pretty surprised if a horse owner would go with that argument.


----------



## Bearkiller

Saskia said:


> I don't really understand your argument. Are you saying that killing a creature and then subsequently eating its corpse is equivalent with caring for, valuing and yes, riding, a horse?


 
Pretty much, yes. I have no problems with either but I think in alot of ways, keeping an animal penned up is worse than killing it. I have no problem with eating animals or riding them, at all. Or even using them to test products on. Like medicines. I was trying to get an understanding behind why people wouldn't eat meat for moral reasons but think it's ok to own animals for pleasure. I understand the thought process of a vegan more than that of a vegetarian pet owner. :wink:


----------



## Saskia

I'll share with you a bit of my views, not wanting to argue or put anyone down, just sharing for understanding's sake.

I don't think we are harming an animal keeping it for pleasure. I think the cats that I have owned had good lives, plenty of food, shelter, warmth, companionship, things to play with. In fact with horses, I believe, the life expectancy of a owned horse is much more than a wild horse, as wild horses don't have farriers, dentists, vet care when injured etc. In fact the life of a wild horse seems rather harsh, not much food, cold nights, fighting, injuries, predators. Saying that though, there are things that I wouldn't do with horses. Such as I wouldn't keep a horse stabled permanently. Perhaps I'd do the "in at night out at day" thing if I had a reason to (I have before), but otherwise all horses I have owned have lived with small herds in paddocks of 4 acres+ with grass and trees, it might not be as big as "the wild" but I think its big enough, in fact its probably more open space than a lot of people live in and experience everyday. This a deliberate choice, the last place I kept my horse had stables I could use for no extra charge but I chose not to. 

I take care to ensure that my saddle fits correctly, that my horse is happy with its tack (I think all owners should). I do not attempt to cause pain or discomfort while riding or training, and while I do demand respect I don't treat a horse any harsher than any other horse would treat them. 

I value animal's lives perhaps a lot more than other people value them, and I understand that is far from a universal thing, and I accept that. Saying that, horses aren't humans. They don't think like we do. I think supplying a horse with food, care, warmth etc, 24/7 and expecting maybe 10 hours a week work? Maybe less, maybe more, is a pretty good deal. Sure they don't have the "choice" that people have but they're not people, they're not rational. Like imagine they're people, they get free dental, free medical care, free shoes, free accommodation, free food, free clothes, how many jobs could you do that you get all that for ten hours work?

Okay, I am anthropomorphizing a bit here but its all about your own beliefs. It's not particularly "natural" to ride horses, but its not "natural" to talk on mobile phones or "natural" to drive cars, but we still do it. Times change. I don't believe its right to take an animals life for food if there are other options, and I don't think its right the way many animals are treated and killed before they're used for food. I don't believe its environmentally sustainable, I don't think its particularly healthy. Very few of those things apply to horse riding, and definitely not to the extent they do to eating meat. 

All in all though, eating animals, and most animal products, really grosses me out. Like I have no moral problem with eating eggs from free range chickens, but eating a chicken's period is gross I think. I can't comprehend ever wanting to eat a dead body regardless of the animal it came from. And it makes me sad, thinking that something had life and now it doesn't. I like things a lot more when they're alive. Like horses, they're full of life and it makes me happy, just watching sometimes, it's nice.


----------



## tinyliny

I am a carnivore. Have never been a vegetarian. But there are times that I think I might like it. From what I have read or been told, the moral reasons fro not eating meat are based in perhaps Buddhist beliefs in doing as little harm as possible to all living things. Some will take it to the extreme of trying very hard to not accidentally step on an insect. Others will say, "I do not need meat to be healthy, I can live well without causeing this pain to another living being, so I will." By taking the flesh of the killed animal into the body, one can see it as taking in negative karma. If you donn't need to do this, why would you?

Now, I don't really believe that deep in my soul, but a part of me kind of does. It's just shouted out by the part of my that adores the taste of meat.

If we could eat meat and really know that the animal lived and died humanely, this might make it better. I dunno. I know that in cultures that live by hunting, they will "thank" the killed animal for giving itself to nourish them. But most persons cannot do this. They are far , far away from the reality of breeding , feeding and kiling animals for food. So, some want to try to stay apart from this, in as much as what they actually take into their body. They might carry it farther into clothing and such, but I know my vegetarian sis and bro do not. They wear leather shoes, that I know.


----------



## bubba13

I am a lacto-ovo vegetarian who uses leather, etc. I recognize the hypocrisy. I don't like it. Honestly there are many times when I would like to go completely vegan, but then reality strikes, and I realize that this is neither feasible nor affordable. I simply try to minimize my negative impact.



Bearkiller said:


> How is it that one can find it ok to take an animal and keep it in a pen and ride around on its back for around 30 years but have an issue with eating a tasty little creature?


There is really no comparison. The argument is invalid from the start. 



Bearkiller said:


> I live in an area where there are wild horses and I never hear of them trying to break INTO a barn. Most animals appear to cherish freedom more than a clean stall and a decent meal.


There is a difference between a wild and a domesticated animal. The latter is dependent on humans for its survival. My horses certainly don't try to break OUT of the barn. In fact, when the weather turns nasty, in they come a'runnin'. 

Zoo animals are different, but many do still adapt and have good quality of life in captivity. It depends on the species and the conditions. If they have good health care, food, protection, and an enriching environment that attempts to simulate their wild habitat, they can actually be "happier" as captives. This is less true for some of the most intelligent species, but for most captivity can be done humanely.



> I personally think animals are here for us to use (and care for).


I have no problem with animal use, either. I'd eat meat if I could agree with the processes leading up to it. We are omnivores, after all, and nature is cruel. But factory farming is neither natural nor ethical. Neither are most of the animal abuse (yes, _abuse_) practices rampant in the injury. I have seen far too much bad stuff....and I haven't seen the tip of the iceberg, either, I know.



> I'm not saying I agree with all animal slaughter practices but anytime you take things like that out of a community and put it into a corporation or governments hands, it's bound to get ugly. I try to raise my own food and with the exception of beef I do raise my own meat.


Thus my point above. The whole industry is sick.



Bearkiller said:


> Pretty much, yes. I have no problems with either but I think in alot of ways, keeping an animal penned up is worse than killing it.


Again, no problem at all for a chubby, spoiled, domestic pony. My horses don't know any better. Sure, they're essentially slaves who have to work for a living, but they have it good. Job security, retirement benefits, better nutrition/protection/health care than they could ever have otherwise....I want to be a horse of mine.



> I have no problem with eating animals or riding them, at all. Or even using them to test products on. Like medicines.


Comes down to essential versus nonessential research. There's a lot of the latter out there. And it's disgusting.


----------



## sabowin

I'd just like to point out that there are more than two reasons that a person might choose to not eat meat, other than for moral reasons and health reasons, as you state. I, personally, don't eat meat, because I, personally, don't want to put dead flesh in my mouth, chew on it, and swallow it. But I have no problem with people who do want to do those things, and have cooked meat for every significant other I've had, and currently cook meat for my son when he's with me (though I feed him meatless meals as much as I can, because he gets meat in his school lunches and I'm cheap and lazy).

I don't want to be personally involved with killing an animal, nor do I want to see it die, but if I were involved with someone who hunts, I would probably go on the hunting trip (just not out in the woods to shoot), and would LOVE the chance to help field dress a deer. (And would want to know that it's going to become food, not a trophy.) 

I do think our country could do a much better job of raising meat animals, slaughtering them, and butchering them, but am not going to try to stop those who choose to eat anything from their pet to the pre-packaged stuff at the grocery store. People at work are always apologizing for eating meat in front of me when they remember I'm vegetarian, but I totally don't mind, as long as they don't shove it down my throat (literally).

I also don't see the correlation between eating meat and using an animal for other purposes. In some ways one is worse, in others it's the other way around. For example, a cow raised in a pasture with pasture buddies, then led behind the barn and shot where it is standing such that it doesn't have a clue what's about to happen, or what happened, just that one moment it's happy and the next it doesn't exist? That's probably a better life than that of a plow horse that is worked HARD every day with very little comfort or care. A pampered horse, on the other hand, has a much better life than a veal calf or feedlot steer. It's all a matter of perspective and the actual experiences of the individual creatures. My cats are pampered and spoiled and have had some veterinary intervention. My one cat, especially, who was born under a dumpster, has had a much better life than she would have, I'm sure.

Your example of wild horses not running into barns isn't very appropriate, either. Wild horses prefer what they KNOW. Not just horses, but any wild animal only knows being wild, and has instincts that tell it that civilization (humans, man-made improvements to the land) are scary. Domesticated animals see humans as their source of food, comfort, and often companionship. Therefore wild animals will generally avoid humans, while domesticated animals will often choose humans over the "wild." Not to mention, animals aren't capable of seeing both sides, conceptualizing things they haven't experienced, and rationalizing it out. A wild horse, therefore, has no ability to "prefer" anything other than what its instincts tell it. If it COULD have higher thought capabilities, though, imagine how that would go. You could sit that horse down, explain domesticated life to it, and that while it would be cooped up in a pen, and sometimes have the indignities of being tacked up and ridden by humans, it would also be provided with excellent health care, guaranteed food, and some pleasurable activities it enjoys (some horses certainly seem to "enjoy" grooming and even being ridden in certain disciplines, and I bet the studs, at least, enjoy breeding ;-) ). The horse might mull it over and make a rational decision. Some horses might decide on the domestic life, and some might still prefer to take their chances in the wild. Who knows! (It's kinda fun to think about though, isn't it?) But you can't say because a wild horse doesn't just run into a barn and throw a saddle on its own back and begin performing a piaffe, that horses in general would rather be wild than be ridden.

(ETA some clarification and grammar fixes)


----------



## kevinshorses

rosie1 said:


> My horses live in good paddocks, have a stall at night, get ferrier, dental and vet care and all the food they need all year round. They have everything they need and live with other horses I don't feel bad asking them to work an hour a day for their keep, I work 40 hours a week for it I think they can put in a few themselves
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's funny because so do commercial beef and dairly cows and they don't have to work at all.


----------



## Bearkiller

I forgot about this post. 

So I guess it's all about what makes us feel good as people? That's about as narcissistic as it gets. Everyone has there own opinions but I can assure you that there are more animals killed EVERY day in gardening than there are killed for human consumption. Think of all of the field mice and crickets that are killed by tractors and combines. Not to mention pesticides...........


----------



## Gallop On

Mmm, I'm a vegetarian, never tasted meat in my life and never wish to either. I don't necessarily understand what your asking but I'll give my 2 cents. The reason I am a vegetarian is mostly because of... well, killing animals. I do _not_ support the way chickens, cows and pigs are treated. I _dont_ appreciate that people think that they have no feeling and treat them like dirt. I defy that. Have you seen how chickens are transported? Or killed? Or where they live? Okay, what about cows? And pigs? They are all living creatures, they all have feelings as much as a horse does, but yet somehow they are different, they are nobodies and believe it or not, are treated like dirt.

I dont support that in the least bit. 

Although I'm not with PETA, (Their to strict, I mean you shouldn't kill a fly in their opinion)

With my personal money, I refuse to buy leather, its wrong. If I get given something thats leather, well, I'm not going to give it back saying I don't like leather. I accept it.

I think hunting is sad, but yet its necessary around here with the deer. Even with hunters we have _*so*_ much deer its unreal. On our property at night we alone have a family of 10 of them! They stay on our property cause its safe from hunters. Killing animals such as bears, is wrong. We do not have enough around here to need to kill them. And when I see people swerve on the road to _intentionally_ kill something like as harmless as turtle or whatever, it makes me physically sick.

I have a horse, I ride him. He gets loads of food, farrier, everything he could ever want, he is treated like gold. I don't see harm in riding a animal. I believe they were placed here for humans to take care of. _Not_ to kill them in inhumane ways like the chickens and cows and etc. are.


----------



## Tianimalz

So to you... I shouldn't be riding my mare?

****... someone forgot to tell Indie that, I'll have to turn her down next Sunday morning (our trail day) she is waiting eagerly at the gate for the bridle to come out. :lol:


----------



## MHFoundation Quarters

I can see validity in many of the varying opinions on this topic. 

I myself am a carnivore. I have no problem with eating or not eating meat, to each their own. I don't however like the stuff that's pumped into and put on our food chain in general. I raise my own meat chickens, hunt (deer, pheasant, quail), buy local organic grass fed beef, have my own laying hens, put up an acre+ garden and can all of my own veggies, make my own applesauce, can pears, peaches, etc that are all either from my own place or local. 

I don't really see the correlation between eating meat and owning animals. I don't think we can compare our domesticated riding horses to those in the wild. I know mine would much rather have the life they have now vs be free. There's been numerous occasions over the years where a gate has been left open and they choose to stay in their pasture. I have one that pouts and begs when I'm riding another, she loves her life. She'd be the first to be dinner for a predator if she was turned loose into the 'wild'.


----------



## bubba13

Bearkiller said:


> I forgot about this post.
> 
> So I guess it's all about what makes us feel good as people? That's about as narcissistic as it gets.


Really? You see narcissism is the above posts? Way to misinterpret, I'd say. It's rather about intention, virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and minimizing impact.



> Everyone has there own opinions but I can assure you that there are more animals killed EVERY day in gardening than there are killed for human consumption. Think of all of the field mice and crickets that are killed by tractors and combines. Not to mention pesticides...........


And is there _any_ way to avoid that in modern society, short of stopping eating altogether and starving to death? No....

Yet you absolutely _can_ avoid mistreating cattle--and I've seen some horrible things with my own eyes that I know don't even touch the tip of the iceberg in the general scheme of food animal abuse. So why not take advantage of behaving ethically in the realms you do have control over, as opposed to those you don't?


----------



## Speed Racer

I feel that everyone has to go by their own conscience about what they can or can't tolerate.

I have no argument with vegans, vegetarians, or ovo-lactos, as long as they don't try to convert me or tell me that I'm a horrible murderer for eating animals.

For whatever reasons someone is a vegetarian/vegan, that's their choice and I respect it. I expect the same respect back as an omnivore. :wink:

I eat a lot of chicken, more so than any other meat, which is why I plan to start raising chickens for eggs and meat next year. 

I'd also like to raise a beef steer for processing, but that's going to be a few more years down the road, and I can get locally raised pork and goat meat from neighbors who raise them.

Doing all of that insures I'll know where my meat is coming from, and how it was treated and fed before it became food. I think that's as responsible as I can get and still maintain my meat eating habits.


----------



## MHFoundation Quarters

Speed Racer said:


> I eat a lot of chicken, more so than any other meat, which is why I plan to start raising chickens for eggs and meat next year.
> 
> I'd also like to raise a beef steer for processing, but that's going to be a few more years down the road, and I can get locally raised pork and goat meat from neighbors who raise them.
> 
> Doing all of that insures I'll know where my meat is coming from, and how it was treated and fed before it became food. I think that's as responsible as I can get and still maintain my meat eating habits.


That's how I feel SR. Good for you! You will be amazed at the difference between chickens you raise yourself and the ones you can get at the store. Mine this year were all twice as big as store bought ones and no junk pumped into them. Same with the eggs. The yolks are actually orange not pale yellow. Makes for kick butt noodles!


----------



## Speed Racer

A friend of mine has chickens MHF, so I've already discovered the joys of 'real' eggs. They're certainly _much_ better than any of those pale, store bought things everyone buys. 

She doesn't eat her chickens though, just their eggs. She has a rooster, although I'm not sure why, since the hens will lay eggs without one. I have to admit he's a very sweet roo, but I'm sure the chickens could do without being jumped on by him all the time.


----------



## MHFoundation Quarters

We HAD a rooster. We got a free exotic with our last order of chicks, turned out to be a really cool looking blue andalusian but our hens are pretty much my daughter's pets and didn't want a roo. He now lives with some of my students who have show poultry.

The meat birds aren't as fun as the layers but they sure are tasty


----------



## Speed Racer

I want one of the heritage breeds that are good egg layers as well as meat producers.

Auracanas or Orpingtons, as I've heard their roos aren't overly aggressive. The first time a roo comes after me, he'll be on the menu!


----------



## MHFoundation Quarters

We have one buff orp that was an extra with our order, the rest are Red Stars. (huge eggs!) The buff is my daughter's pet, Blondie. That darn chicken sits in her lap to be loved on and follows her around like a lost puppy. I wasn't a big chicken person until we got them, they have been quite a surprise for me with their personalities.


----------



## Speed Racer

I've heard that chickens can be very affectionate, and many people only have hens because they don't want to raise them for meat.

My plan is to get 3 hens and a roo, because I simply don't need a ton of meat or eggs just for myself. I do plan to give some of the processed chickens away to food pantries in my area, so I'll need to raise two or three broods a year.


----------



## Bearkiller

I have 4 red sex links and all of them are friendly about like a cat. They ignore you sometimes but are usually under your feet. My black sex links and buff orpingtons are all skittish. All about the same age and raised the same. The black sexlinks started laying first, though.


----------



## TaMMa89

I wouldn't personally compare taking care of an animal with slaughtering it either. I think that a well-cared animal can be happy and most of times you can sense if the animal is happy or not. Tho also I'm carnivore and don't see problem with eating meat either, as far as I know that the animal has been raised in good conditions and slaughtered quickly and humanely. But I still think that there's difference between other 'use' and slaughtering.

Unluckily I'm not very able to choose organic meat/ small farm slaughterhouse meat at the moment. I still believe that there are also good intensive livestock farms there even sadly there are also too many bad ones too. That's great to hear about your plans SR, at least you know that your meat is ethically produced then.


----------



## beverleyy

Just thought I might share my personal reason/thoughts on being a vegetarian...

I have been a vegetarian nearly my whole life. When I first stopped eating meat I was only seven, and I really had no idea what it meant to be "vegetarian". I really just never liked or enjoyed the taste of meat. At first it was never "oh this came from an animal, I shouldn't eat it", I simply never liked how it tasted. Just like some people don't like chocolate. I don't think it was until I was into my early teens that I started to realize that I wasn't the only person in the world who didn't eat meat. That was also when I started to realize WHY people are vegetarians, how animals are treated before/during killing. I don't agree with it, but that is not why I became a vegetarian. Yes, I love animals to death and would never harm one. It's true that I don't agree with the way that things are done. However, I realize that is life. I move on. I don't eat meat because it just doesn't appeal to me. It really bothers me when people feel they need to cater to me because of this - like my boyfriend's mother's side of the family - all they can talk about at every family dinner is the fact that I don't eat meat. So what? You don't eat half your potatoes. I don't talk about that I just see it as "I don't like that food group" or "I don't eat chocolate" rather than "I'M A VEGETARIAN DON'T EAT MEAT AROUND ME EVER!!111!!" type of deal. I couldn't care less if people eat meat around me. So it really bothers me when it's the topic of every dinner or every get together. Does it even need to be brought up? Because I have never once seen it as a huge deal. I know there are vegetarians out there who are quite the extremists, and I don't think I agree with that. I eat what I want, you eat what you want:lol:


----------



## Bearkiller

TaMMa89 said:


> I wouldn't personally compare taking care of an animal with slaughtering it either. I think that a well-cared animal can be happy and most of times you can sense if the animal is happy or not.


 
That's thinking pretty highly of yourself, saying you can A: make an animal happy based on human ideas B: thinking you can determine an animals happiness based on some "sense". Animals have different personalities just like humans. The fact that properties are usually fenced completely shoots a hole in the "happy animal" theory.  They don't want to be contained any more than people want to be in prisons...........


----------



## Delfina

Bearkiller said:


> That's thinking pretty highly of yourself, saying you can A: make an animal happy based on human ideas B: thinking you can determine an animals happiness based on some "sense". Animals have different personalities just like humans. The fact that properties are usually fenced completely shoots a hole in the "happy animal" theory.  They don't want to be contained any more than people want to be in prisons...........


You too are 



> thinking you can determine an animals happiness based on some "sense"


When you state



> They don't want to be contained any more than people want to be in prisons..........


How exactly do YOU know that they don't like being contained? My kids have left my pasture gates open more times than I can count and my cows have yet to leave. Stand at the open gate and Moo at me because I am late with their grain.... yes. Actually wander out the gate? No. 

My chickens are not fenced and they don't go anywhere either. Wander around visiting the pigs, goats and cows? Yes. Waddle their fat, feathery selves on down the road? No. They could leave at any time but yet every evening at dusk, there's 9 chickens snuggled in their house waiting for me to close the door. I bet they are really unhappy that I close them up so Mr Coyote can only look through the window at them because their lives would be so much happier if I left it open so he could eat them. :?


----------



## Bearkiller

Delfina said:


> How exactly do YOU know that they don't like being contained?


 
I think I covered that already. My statement about fences isn't defeated by your one example.


----------



## bubba13

Bearkiller said:


> That's thinking pretty highly of yourself, saying you can A: make an animal happy based on human ideas B: thinking you can determine an animals happiness based on some "sense". Animals have different personalities just like humans. The fact that properties are usually fenced completely shoots a hole in the "happy animal" theory.  They don't want to be contained any more than people want to be in prisons...........


First, you are very much anthropomorphizing to assume that animals have some objective sense of "captive" versus "free" and would always choose the latter. You state that you can't subscribe human emotions to animals, yet here you are doing exactly that. But I'll cater to you for a moment: Many people do, in fact, prefer being in prisons to being in general society. There are many cases of this, but the example that sticks in my mind is the guy who intentionally went out and shot a postal worker, just because he knew that shooting/killing a federal employee is automatic life in prison. Seems his life was falling apart around him, his finances were in shambles, and he knew that in prison at least he would be protected and he could count on daily meals....

Animals, obviously, can't reason it out to this extent, but the end result is the same. Guaranteed food, protection, and safety or the very real possibilities of being eaten by a predator or starving to death. If they could rationalize the options, which do you think they would choose?

Fences are as much for protection as they are to keep them in. How many people do you know who let their dogs run free, but they never wander far? I know my dogs much prefer being "locked up" in the house than outside, even in good weather. They'll scratch at the door and whine to be let in. Most people call that "spoiled." :roll: And there have certainly been occasions when my horses have gotten loose on the neighbors' unfenced property, only to meader (or sometimes gallop) right back home and wait at the fence. Hell, when the weather's bad or night starts to fall, they're always lined up at the gate waiting to come in the barn, be "confined" to their jail cell stalls, eat their meals and sleep on their comfy deep bedding. No stall vices, no stereotypies, no signs that this lifestyle is remotely stressful for them.

As for animals being "happy," well, I just plain don't like that word. They do, of course, have emotions, but happy isn't one I think they experience too commonly, whether domestic or wild. I don't think most people spend a large portion of their lives being "happy," either. Let's try "content," instead. And yes, a student of the animal can absolutely determine an animal's quality of life and contentment based on health and behavior. It's not rocket science. And if there is any doubt, researchers can confirm the signs of emotional well-being by looking at physiological processes, brain chemicals, etc. And that's all emotions are, anyway--human or animal.

If an animal's basic needs are being met and their instincts are being catered to, yes, they will have a good quality of life.


----------



## Bearkiller

Again, with the exception to the rule. If you went to a prison and took a poll, how many people, do YOU think would rather be there than be free? I'd bet more than 99% would rather be free. I'd be SHOCKED if it was less than 95%. Although I hate humanizing animals, MOST animals leave when gates are left open. I never used the words "would always choose the latter". In fact, I used the word "usually".  I have had critters over the years, including one right now, that I am certain wouldn't ever leave the yard, given the choice. I drew my conclusions based on my extensive experiences of chasing animals, mostly as a child. haha


----------



## Bearkiller

I agree with the what you said about emotions. Even when applied to humans. I've heard people say "she's so happy" or "he's such a happy person". In reality, those people are usually just as miserable as the rest of us(if not more). They just hide it better. LOL


----------



## bubba13

When an animal wanders through an open gate, is it trying to escape to the wild (where it so desperately wishes to be), or is just ambling blindly with no further thought besides "the grass looks greener over here; maybe I'll go eat it"? Because for your argument, that is a very important distinction to make.

And if horses wish so badly to return to the wild, why will a loose horse running on the highway approach the first stranger to offer grain and allow itself to be haltered and led back home?


----------



## Delfina

Bearkiller said:


> I think I covered that already. My statement about fences isn't defeated by your one example.


You didn't cover anything, you just blindly stated



> They don't want to be contained any more than people want to be in prisons...........
> Read more: http://www.horseforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1233151#ixzz1djHsTSTn
> ​


I didn't give a single example, I gave two which is far more than the zero which you provided to back up your claim.

90% of the horses where I board escaped the other day. When my trainer and I returned from trailering my horse elsewhere, we discovered them running around the unfenced portion of her property. Did any of them leave the property? Nope and it wasn't because their friends were still *locked* up, ALL the horses were out but mine who was in the trailer. The whole herd could have taken off for the wild yonder, it's all open space around where I board. My trainer hopped out, opened the gate to the pasture and about had to run for it before she was trampled by 9 horses galloping on in. They didn't seem to have a desire to run free....


----------



## kntry

I was never a big meat eater. I always preferred veggies, beans, pasta, etc. even as a child. I ate meat because my Mom put it on my plate and I was expected to eat everything.

I was a Vegetarian for 13 years and was the healthiest I've ever been and felt the best I've ever felt. DH almost died in a drunk driving wreck 8 years ago. I had no time or money to cook special meals for myself so I went back to eating some meat. I wasn't happy about it and didn't enjoy it. 

I've been slowly getting back to cooking veggie meals for myself over the last year.

Besides the fact that I don't like meat and it's not very healthy, I don't like the thought that something has to die for me to eat when I can eat something else. Even if they're humanely treated, they want to live just like we do. 

I don't, however, see why people won't eat eggs, cheese, milk, butter, etc. since the animals are not harmed.


----------



## bubba13

kntry said:


> I don't, however, see why people won't eat eggs, cheese, milk, butter, etc. since the animals are not harmed.


Even though I do eat these things--for the sake of cost and convenience--I can't agree that these animals are not harmed. The egg and dairy industries are just plain awful in their inhumane treatment. I don't want to get into details unless you want me to (you can google for yourself), but suffice it to say that in many regards the meat industry is more humane and responsible in its treatment of animals than the egg and dairy industries.


----------



## Saskia

Bit off topic with the imprisonment of people, but here is my two cents. I think many, if not most, people are "imprisoned" by society and they seem to go along with it somewhat contently. Many people would like to go on holidays but they cannot afford to, instead they have to work to live/feed their family/finance their lifestyle. The conditions of society imprison these people. It doesn't happen to everyone but if you really take a good look around you I think you are surprised by how many people are a slave to their lifestyle/society. I'm not saying its a bad thing, it just is. 

Theoretically these people could just up and leave pretty easily, but the majority of them would not be mentally capable of removing themselves from their sub-culture/community/whatever. Theoretically a horse could jump a fence and leave, almost any horse is capable of doing that, especially when you take into consideration open gates etc. But mentally they are bound to their herd, their land, their safety, their routine. Sure physical barriers keep them in but these aren't really that different from the cultural barriers that contain the rest of society. 

I look around me and I see so many people enslaved by the choices they make, everything looks peachy on the outside, but you look closer and see a complex web that people create. People are afraid to leave their safe world, and I think its like horses. Sure the thinking isn't as complex, but a horse won't usually leave its home property, its herd, because it's afraid, it knows its not safe. Very few "prey" animals will. Even most predators don't. 

Freedom is a rather shady concept, because its not just walls or fences that imprison people. If you look at horses, you could consider their main driving forces are food, herd and basic safety (survival). We give horses these things (well most people do). While we can not know if they are "happy" as mentioned earlier, as their basic and primary needs are met we can assume that are "content", at least as much as a horse can be.

On eggs: Egg industry can be pretty horrific. I don't preach vegetarianism, or try not to, but I have called a few friends out on buying non-freerange eggs, mainly those who claim to be "animal lovers". Its a small choice that I think makes a big difference. Five years ago there would only be one free range egg brand in the supermarket, now half the section is filled with them, and I think almost a majority of people buy free range. I actually don't have a moral problem with eggs, like the people who have their own chickens who run around and are happy. My dad and his gf have some and they fuss over them like nothing else. Saying that though I really, really don't like chickens. People think because I don't eat animals I love them all, and while I don't despise them I really don't like chickens or cows. Chickens have creepy legs and beaks, and cows are just weird. Like someone tried to created a horse and totally screwed up. Still, I wouldn't wish either species harm.


----------



## kntry

No, I don't want to know all the details. I already know too much. I won't be able to sleep or think of anything else for days if I think about it too much.


----------



## Gallop On

Delfina said:


> You didn't cover anything, you just blindly stated
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't give a single example, I gave two which is far more than the zero which you provided to back up your claim.
> 
> 90% of the horses where I board escaped the other day. When my trainer and I returned from trailering my horse elsewhere, we discovered them running around the unfenced portion of her property. Did any of them leave the property? Nope and it wasn't because their friends were still *locked* up, ALL the horses were out but mine who was in the trailer. The whole herd could have taken off for the wild yonder, it's all open space around where I board. My trainer hopped out, opened the gate to the pasture and about had to run for it before she was trampled by 9 horses galloping on in. They didn't seem to have a desire to run free....


Okay... Here is what I think


----------



## Gallop On

Delfina said:


> You didn't cover anything, you just blindly stated
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't give a single example, I gave two which is far more than the zero which you provided to back up your claim.
> 
> 90% of the horses where I board escaped the other day. When my trainer and I returned from trailering my horse elsewhere, we discovered them running around the unfenced portion of her property. Did any of them leave the property? Nope and it wasn't because their friends were still *locked* up, ALL the horses were out but mine who was in the trailer. The whole herd could have taken off for the wild yonder, it's all open space around where I board. My trainer hopped out, opened the gate to the pasture and about had to run for it before she was trampled by 9 horses galloping on in. They didn't seem to have a desire to run free....


Sorry about my post above, I messed up :?


Horses that have been domesticated only know one life. Its the world where they are locked up. If you take a domesticated horse, feed him, take care of him, and everything, he will not want to leave. This is his one and only life that he has _ever_ known. Why would they run away? I know that when I open the gate for my horse to go out of his pasture to get some better grass, he doesn't run away. He eats contentedly and when he is done munching, he returns to his pasture. 

But a _wild_ horse, who has only ever known freedom, would not like to be locked up. If he has only ever known freedom, and you captured him, kept him for a week, and opened the pasture gate, he would bolt. He would run with the wind.

To each his own. 

A domesticated horse likes living with people, being taken care of, but a wild horse, would want to run free.


----------



## bubba13

But you keep that Mustang long enough, and earn his trust, and he realizes how nice the steady meals and warm winter blankets are....and he's not going anywhere.


----------



## kntry

I forgot to add in my post that there is a huge difference between wild and domesticated animals. As others have already said, each knows its own world and would be afraid to cross over to the other world. They are safe and happy/content in the world they know.


----------



## Gallop On

bubba13 said:


> But you keep that Mustang long enough, and earn his trust, and he realizes how nice the steady meals and warm winter blankets are....and he's not going anywhere.


Yes, I agree  BUT, until he is adjusted, their is no way on this earth he would like to be caged up.


----------



## bubba13

But is that due to an innate need for freedom, or due to a fear of being confined where predators (including people) have easy access to him but he can't get away?


----------



## kevinshorses

kntry said:


> I forgot to add in my post that there is a huge difference between wild and domesticated animals. As others have already said, each knows its own world and would be afraid to cross over to the other world. They are safe and happy/content in the world they know.


Mustangs are domesticated animals. They have been feral for a few generations but they are domesticated just the same as a cow or dog.


----------



## Bearkiller

kntry said:


> I forgot to add in my post that there is a huge difference between wild and domesticated animals. As others have already said, each knows its own world and would be afraid to cross over to the other world. They are safe and happy/content in the world they know.


 
Genetically there isn't. There is very little difference. It's about what's in their minds.


----------



## bubba13

You have to selectively breed for domestic traits. It takes several (at least!) generations of careful breeding, which truly changes the physiological make-up of the animal. Look at the Russian pet fox studies....


----------



## Bearkiller

I guess you agree with me but here is more evidence to back up my case. 

Depends on the animal. "wild horses" in north america have identical DNA to domesticated horses. The only difference being lifestyle. Here is a case for dogs:

The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence.... 
In comparison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence.” 
Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D. 

2. Canid Genetics​


----------



## bubba13

But "wild horses" are just escaped (feral) domestic horses, descended from Spanish horses, Quarters, drafts, and so on in North America. _Wild_, in fact, is a misnomer when it comes to Mustangs. The only _true_ wild horses are the Przewalski's horses, which are an entirely different species. And they are genetically quite distinct, with even differing numbers of chromosomes. Equus ferus (Przewalski's Horse, Asian Wild Horse, Mongolian Wild Horse)

When it comes to regular ol' DNA, chimpanzees and humans are 97.5% identical...


----------



## Bearkiller

bubba13 said:


> When an animal wanders through an open gate, is it trying to escape to the wild (where it so desperately wishes to be), or is just ambling blindly with no further thought besides "the grass looks greener over here; maybe I'll go eat it"? Because for your argument, that is a very important distinction to make.
> 
> And if horses wish so badly to return to the wild, why will a loose horse running on the highway approach the first stranger to offer grain and allow itself to be haltered and led back home?


 

It's a legitimate point and one that can't be answered except on a case by case basis. I am relatively new to horses so my experience is with dogs. I can say for certain that most dogs will go wild if they aren't trained otherwise. It doesn't take generations. Most dogs will go "hunting" and wander if not contained. Unless the dogs are modified IE: neutered, spayed. Some dogs will willingly become couch potatoes and hang around your yard but again, not with out training. Domestic animals are always being trained. Some are trained to stay in the yard. Others are trained to sit in a pen and be ignored. Or whatever the owner does with them. Depends on the owner. From the beginning, with a dog, you have to domesticate them. If not they get skittish (like a coyote)in a hurry. I handle my pups the day they are born and every day there after. I want them to know I am "part of the pack". The point is this (sorry for the novel), there is no doubt that dogs left to themselves go wild not after generations but after a couple of months at the most. They still have all of their wolf instincts, the ones that don't will die. There are cases all over the country of this happening. To get back on topic, I fail to see how taking an animal and caging it, breaking it down, either through attrition (like gentle breaking) or through force is somehow more moral than eating an animal. In many ways I think the former is more "cruel". I have no problem with either, personally. I think animals were put here for us to use and be stewards over. Even Jesus rode a donkey . Like stated earlier, I understand the thought process of a vegan more than people who don't eat meat for moral reasons but ride horses. To me it is just hypocritcal to say one is fine but the other is wrong. But that's why I started this thread, to try and figure out peoples thought process. Not sure I understand but I guess it doesn't really matter.


----------



## bubba13

The point is about humane treatment. Suffering. Were it safe and sanitary (which it obviously is not, but humor me for a minute), I'm sure that the vast majority of vegetarians would have no moral qualms about scavenging the remains of animals that died of natural causes. It's not the _eating_, in other words, it's the _killing_, which 99.99% of the time results in (frequently significant) animal suffering.

Yet, for a kind and educated horse owner, while the horse may be a "slave," it does not suffer. That is, it is not unduly terrified, stressed, or in pain. So, while it may be removed from the wild, humans are not inflicting anything negative onto it.


----------



## Bearkiller

As someone who has done ALOT of butchering, I can easily say that animal suffering is rare. You won't get any arguement from me on commercial slaughtering. I raise as much of my own meat as possible and hunt for 90% of the rest. We rarely buy meat at a store. We did hit a spot this fall before hunting season to where we had to buy some meat and quite frankly it drives me crazy. It's expensive and low quality. I also would submit to you that suffering is subjective. I know you'll agree with that.


----------



## bubba13

Sure.

But for most vegetarians, we're talking about commercial plants and factory farming, since that's where the vast majority of meat in the US comes from. Pretty sure that Whoppers aren't made from Happy Backyard Bessie!


----------



## Gallop On

bubba13 said:


> *The point is about humane treatment. Suffering. Were it safe and sanitary (which it obviously is not, but humor me for a minute), I'm sure that the vast majority of vegetarians would have no moral qualms about scavenging the remains of animals that died of natural causes. It's not the eating, in other words, it's the killing, which 99.99% of the time results in (frequently significant) animal suffering.*
> 
> Yet, for a kind and educated horse owner, while the horse may be a "slave," it does not suffer. That is, it is not unduly terrified, stressed, or in pain. So, while it may be removed from the wild, humans are not inflicting anything negative onto it.


That is _exactly_ how I feel about it all.


----------



## kevinshorses

bubba13 said:


> Sure.
> 
> But for most vegetarians, we're talking about commercial plants and factory farming, since that's where the vast majority of meat in the US comes from. Pretty sure that Whoppers aren't made from Happy Backyard Bessie!


I've visited many many "factory farms" and the animals are very well cared for by proffesionals that take pride in thier work. The animals may not be in the conditions that humans think they should be in but the animals are quite happy or it wouldn't be feasible to keep them like that. Pig for example could care less about being outside and running through the prairie. They want food, a clean place to lay and a clean place to poop. They get that much better at a "factory farm" than they do in someones backyard. 

I've also seen first hand *hundreds of thousands *of cattle slaughtered. They suffer as little as possible in an activity that is designed to kill an animal. They don't know what's happening to them and when they get knocked in the head they no longer feel a thing. From the time the cow comes into the building untill it is dead and bled out is only about 2 minutes and the cattle are generally quite calm the entire time.

Before you start preaching about the evils of the factory farm you should educate yourself as to what actually goes on there. Youtube videos do not accurately represent the care that goes into make every single animal as comfortable as posssible.


----------



## bubba13

kevinshorses said:


> I've visited many many "factory farms" and the animals are very well cared for by proffesionals that take pride in thier work. The animals may not be in the conditions that humans think they should be in but the animals are quite happy or it wouldn't be feasible to keep them like that. Pig for example could care less about being outside and running through the prairie. They want food, a clean place to lay and a clean place to poop. They get that much better at a "factory farm" than they do in someones backyard.


Kevin, do you really think that sow gestation crates are in the best interest of the animal? Pigs are frequently equated with dogs in terms of intelligence, personality, and physical/social needs. Do you think a dog would be satisfied being keep in a cage where it could only stand or lie down, but not move forward or backward, or side to side, or turn to face the other direction....for months at a time? Clean or not, can an animal ever be "happy" (there's that word again) in such confinement? What about social interaction? There's a reason that sows frequently turn hyperaggressive when kept in such conditions....






























> I've also seen first hand *hundreds of thousands *of cattle slaughtered. They suffer as little as possible in an activity that is designed to kill an animal. They don't know what's happening to them and when they get knocked in the head they no longer feel a thing. From the time the cow comes into the building untill it is dead and bled out is only about 2 minutes and the cattle are generally quite calm the entire time.


I've never seen cattle slaughtered, but I've read my Temple Grandin, so I know what's involved. I know it can be accomplished humanely. I know the good guys strive to make it humane. I also know that there are many incidents where things are less than stellar....

But I'm not talking about slaughter. I'm talking about just general quality of life. Grazing in herds on big pastures, great, whatever (except for some of the farmers around here who like to let their cows rot from fescue toxicity). I spent the past summer at the cattle sale barn. It was a well-run operation. The vet I shadowed cared about animals. But I saw some things there I don't want to see again. And the wounds were, more often than not, inflicted by the "good guys."



> Before you start preaching about the evils of the factory farm you should educate yourself as to what actually goes on there.


I have. 



> Youtube videos do not accurately represent the care that goes into make every single animal as comfortable as posssible.


No, that is true, but obviously the events portrayed in the videos actually occurred, or else they could not have been caught on film!


----------



## kevinshorses

The sows are kept in farrowing crates because they will lay on thier piglets if they are allowed to make a nest and lay down in it. Some sows get mean but most don't and they cope just fine for the few weeks they have to endure that until the piglets are weaned. 

Things happen when you raise livestock and animals get hurt.


----------



## bubba13

How do wild sows cope without squashing all their young, eh?


----------



## kevinshorses

First, it happens but it's in the wild. Second, wild pigs don't wiegh nearly as much as domestic pigs and instead of being selected for loin area and average daily gain they are naturally selected for mothering ability and durability.

There's no way the amount of food that is required to feed the world could be produced without raising animals in confinement.


----------



## bubba13

kevinshorses said:


> First, it happens but it's in the wild. Second, wild pigs don't wiegh nearly as much as domestic pigs and instead of being selected for loin area and average daily gain they are naturally selected for mothering ability and durability.
> 
> There's no way the amount of food that is required to feed the world could be produced without raising animals in confinement.


And there you have it. Sacrificing animal welfare for humans wants/desires/convenience, no matter how you look at it.

Except, really, these pigs for the most part aren't feeding starving children, so let's not get too high and mighty. The famines in Africa and so on? They're lucky if they get a bowl of slimy porridge or rice from a charity organization every other day.

The argument has been made that it would be a much more efficient and hunger-fighting use of land and resources to convert animal raising operations to fields for human-feeding crops. It's also been said that people would be healthier and life longer, world-wide, if this were the case, and that starvation would be far less of a problem. I have not studied this in-depth enough to know whether or not this is true, but there is a lot of literature out there for anyone interested in reading.


----------



## waresbear

Carrots scream in pain when you yank them outta the ground you know!


----------



## waresbear

In all seriousness, Bubba is absolutely correct in her opinions. I recall watching a program on how we process our food animals & how other countries have regulations & are much more humane. I wish I had the fortitude to remain vegetarian, I do not, I like meat. Longest I could cope being total vegan (I use leather so I guess I still consumed animal byproducts) was 5 months, no dairy or eggs either. Must say I did feel really good internally. I eat meat maybe 3 times a week now, & pretty small portions. Haven't had a hamburger in about 10 years.


----------



## kntry

bubba13 said:


> And there you have it. Sacrificing animal welfare for humans wants/desires/convenience, no matter how you look at it.
> 
> Except, really, these pigs for the most part aren't feeding starving children, so let's not get too high and mighty. The famines in Africa and so on? They're lucky if they get a bowl of slimy porridge or rice from a charity organization every other day.
> 
> The argument has been made that it would be a much more efficient and hunger-fighting use of land and resources to convert animal raising operations to fields for human-feeding crops. It's also been said that people would be healthier and life longer, world-wide, if this were the case, and that starvation would be far less of a problem. I have not studied this in-depth enough to know whether or not this is true, but there is a lot of literature out there for anyone interested in reading.


 I have to agree with everything you said.

It’s a proven fact that vegetarians are healthier.


----------



## Speed Racer

kntry said:


> It’s a proven fact that vegetarians are healthier.


Please provide the names of the scientific and medical journals stating this. Do NOT include any holistic or vegetarian websites, or whacked out 'claims' with no actual verifiable information.

I want to see peer reviewed, scientific and medically sound published reports in respected journals.

If you can't provide those, then it's hardly a 'proven fact'.


----------



## kntry

I don’t have time to search the web for information while at work. From personal experience, my doctors said my blood work was always great due to being a vegetarian. My Mom’s doctors said her diabetes and strokes could have been controlled (when they first started) if she would become a vegetarian or at least eat less meat. My husband’s doctors have told him the same thing about his diabetes. They can look at his blood work and see that he eats a lot of meat.

In each case, they were different doctors.


----------



## Speed Racer

Anecdotal evidence of 3 individual cases proves nothing.

I want to see peer reviewed studies, not 'my doctor said'. :?

You know what they call a guy who graduated at the bottom of his medical class? 'Doctor'.


----------



## kntry

Sorry I've offended you so. 

I'm not a doctor and when I have time, I will find threads and post them.


----------



## TaMMa89

Bearkiller said:


> TaMMa89 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't personally compare taking care of an animal with slaughtering it either. I think that a well-cared animal can be happy and most of times you can sense if the animal is happy or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's thinking pretty highly of yourself, saying you can A: make an animal happy based on human ideas B: thinking you can determine an animals happiness based on some "sense". Animals have different personalities just like humans. The fact that properties are usually fenced completely shoots a hole in the "happy animal" theory.  They don't want to be contained any more than people want to be in prisons...........
Click to expand...

If you meet another person and spend some more time with him, you'll very probably sense some way if this person has something wrong with him even he wouldn't talk about that. It's often just about some small signs like reserve, kind of almost invisible imbalance, fragileness, the way you carry your body, take contact... and like unhappy people, also unhappy animals are inclined to develop all kind of unhealth habits and symptoms. It's just my personal view but I think that this "sense" to sense different moods is built into us and applies also to our sense toward other animals in those extent in which we can take and stay in contact with an inhuman animal. It's sure just my personal and very narrow experince so you can weigh yourself how much you can generalize it but I came into that conclusion when I compared lesson horses to my aunt's now gone horse. It's extremely hard to say where that sense comes from but the aunt's horse (lived in the small farm with just his owners few other steady human contacts) just felt so more balanced than most of lesson horses that I've met. I'm not sure if I can actually analyze the feeling more but maybe it was something like that many of lesson horses that I've met have developed bad habits, are kind of reserve, tensed, nervous, react differently in the same situations etc. The horse owned by my aunt seemed most of time pretty calm, relaxed, react to some logical way in situations and open to contact overall. I sure don't mean to humanize these or other horses since I believe that animals don't have human consciousnes but I got a strong sense that this one horse is doing good. So I still believe that there are some conformity to nature laws that apply humans and all more developed animals in things like that. So yes, personally I think that you can very probably sense if the animal is happy or not even you can't get into the animal's head.

As to factory farming, I think that there are might good factory farms that take good care of their animals and as far as abuse or symptoms that show that the animals' mental state is crashing down don't exist, I'm fine with it. Unluckily there are also farmers who wouldn't care/ don't have resources care less. I'm very, very wary as to accepting a word from any of those more radical animal right societies since IMO the greatest part of their stuff is just pure propaganda but sometimes those societies also have some point. Some time ago, members of our one national animal right society sneaked to some farms to video tape the conditions of animals. What I've gotten is that part of their 'cruelty' that they saw there was just normal but unluckily there was also some real neglect. Being fair, I've still to admit that this is just what I've gotten and read in media about it what they did and where it led the officials and their opinion included, I'm not that interested to get into their propaganda more. Just like many other things too, I think that it's impossible to put that in one 'all irressponsible' or 'all responsible' category either.


----------



## rocky pony

I'm vegan. I don't eat meat or consume any products that come from animals. I don't buy leather or wool or silk or beeswax. I do all that I can to avoid using products that have been tested on animals. Sure, there are things that happen which I can not control, I am only human and can't always control absolutely everything that I wind up consuming, but I try my best and since it's my personal choice which does not affect anyone outside of myself (except for maybe the people out there who have taken it as some sort of personal insult that I've made this choice and made it their goal to convince me that I'm an awful animal-abusing hypocrite :lol.

I don't think that consuming eggs, milk, etc. from animals that are kept in safe, natural conditions and are happy is immoral, though I guess I disagreed many years ago when I became vegan when I was 14 or so. The reason I don't live that way is simply that at this point I just find it gross, sort of like eating poop or...eating those same products coming from a human, that's "icky". I commend people who care about where their food is coming from and do what they can to ensure that those animals live happy lives. While I personally disagree with the idea of continuing to kill animals for food while we, as rational humans, have the easy, healthy choice not to, I also commend people who do the same with meat animals.
I absolutely don't have anything to say to anyone about this subject at all unless they ask me, and don't view anybody differently for agreeing or disagreeing with my views.

My sister is also vegan and disagrees with riding horses, and I understand and respect that. I can see why she is uncomfortable with it. I simply disagree.
What we are doing as humans is taking personal control over all other animals on Earth. We've taken it on as our job to decide what's best for them, control their populations, take them on as pets and as employees and as family members and tools. Whether or not that's something we should be doing can be argued all day, but I know that's one thing that's not going to change. As long as there are animals, we will be controlling them unless animals manage to come about that can rise above us. As we are deciding what's best for them, obviously our choices are somewhat selfish and humanized.

The fact is that what is right is relative. No two humans are exactly alike in their morals, there is not one pure concept that is considered what is truly right. We have to make that choice for ourselves. Is it selfish? Absolutely. Every creature on Earth is selfish, that's not just a human quality. Whether or not it's selfish is absolutely irrelevant to anything. But is my horse better off with me constantly worrying about her well-being and ensuring that her life is, well, honestly better than my own, than being released into the wild where her domesticated little mind would most likely lead her to die within that same day? Personally, I think so.
She nickers for me, comes up to me and puts her head into her halter because she thinks the work I have her do is acceptable or at the least, worthy of the cookies she gets afterward. 

If I'm considered a hypocrite for that belief, well, honestly, I don't care. While I will try to help others understand the choices I make, it's not my job to come across the right way to everybody else; it's my job to live in the way that is healthy for me and causes minimal harm to others by the standards I consider to be right, and that's exactly what I do.


----------



## Bearkiller

Rock Pony, as I stated earlier, I understand the thought process of a vegan more than that of a vegetarian who doesn't eat meat for moral reasons but rides horses. I personally can't relate to not liking meat. I love it. If I have a heart attack tomorrow, I'd rather have it knowing I enjoyed myself. I can't imagine beating myself up with guilt over eating animals. I do raise my own meat and eat wild game. I also raise a garden. This year was tough, though. But like I stated, unless you are raising your own garden and that includes nuts ect, there are still millions of animals being killed in the name of your food. Imagine how many earth worms and insects are cut half by rototillers, plows, shovels. It's all perspective. It doesn't bother me but I'll bet the earthworm or ear wig would rather you eat a cow. lol


----------



## bubba13

Bearkiller said:


> But like I stated, unless you are raising your own garden and that includes nuts ect, there are still millions of animals being killed in the name of your food. Imagine how many earth worms and insects are cut half by rototillers, plows, shovels. It's all perspective. It doesn't bother me but I'll bet the earthworm or ear wig would rather you eat a cow. lol


I think I addressed all of this in my previous posts. You may not agree with it, but I hope you'll admit that the logic and reasoning is very sound. It's not some arbitrary thing based on raw, misguided emotion.

But I will add, additionally, that I for one believe in a sliding scale of morality based on "level" of sentience....


----------



## rocky pony

I'm still confused about how a vegetarian equestrian's viewpoint would really be any different from mine.


----------



## Bearkiller

rocky pony said:


> I'm still confused about how a vegetarian equestrian's viewpoint would really be any different from mine.


 


Bearkiller said:


> Rock Pony, as I stated earlier, I understand the thought process of a vegan more than that of a vegetarian who doesn't eat meat for *moral* reasons but rides horses.


 


rocky pony said:


> I *don't* think that consuming eggs, milk, etc. from animals that are kept in safe, natural conditions and are happy is *immoral*


 
See above.


----------



## Bearkiller

bubba13 said:


> You may not agree with it, but I hope you'll admit that the logic and reasoning is very sound.It's not some arbitrary thing based on raw, misguided emotion.


 I think that it's exactly what you said. Maybe not arbitrary but it's clearly based on raw, misguided emotion. 



bubba13 said:


> But I will add, additionally, that I for one believe in a sliding scale of morality based on "level" of sentience....


The idea of sentience is one perpetuated almost exclusively in reference to animal rights. Anyone who has ever baited a hook knows that earthworms have feelings. In the end it's all about what makes the individual feel good.


----------



## kevinshorses

A sliding scale of morality is not much different than no morality at all.


----------



## rocky pony

But what I stated in my post was that I do personally consider eating _meat_ to be immoral- to me. Of course anyone is only really making these choices for themselves.
All vegetarians (with similar reasoning) obviously believe the same as I do, that eating eggs, milk, etc is not immoral. If they thought those were immoral they wouldn't eat them! But we also obviously would both agree that eating meat was wrong...

Still more confused.


----------



## Bearkiller

I guess if you believe that eating meat is immoral *no matter what*, then you are no different then a vegetarian who believes riding horses are ok. I guess I misread/misunderstood what you are saying. It doesn't make any sense to me but we live in a such a feel good society anyway. Like i said, it's about what makes the individual feel good.


----------



## rocky pony

Well certainly not no matter what, no. I think it would be silly for anyone to believe that, I'm fairly sure I know no one who feels that way.


----------



## bubba13

kevinshorses said:


> A sliding scale of morality is not much different than no morality at all.


Really?

Is it wrong to kill?
Mull on that for a moment.

Now....

Is it wrong to kill an animal?
Is it wrong to kill a pet?
Is it wrong to kill a person?
Is it wrong to kill an innocent child?
Is it wrong to kill someone because you want to steal what they have?
Is it wrong to kill a Muslim extremist who *might* be plotting terror?
Is it wrong to kill civilians in collateral damage when doing so also eliminates a major threat, thus potentially saving lives?
Is it wrong to kill someone who is attacking you with a gun?
Is it wrong to kill someone in an act of capital punishment, when they are jailed and now harmless to society, but have commited heinous acts in the past?
Is it wrong to kill a terminally ill person as an act of mercy (euthanasia)?

Now tell me, with a straight face, that a sliding scale of morality is the same thing as being immoral....


----------



## bubba13

Bearkiller said:


> I think that it's exactly what you said. Maybe not arbitrary but it's clearly based on raw, misguided emotion.


How in the world can you continue to throw this accusation around given the rational argument presented? Again, you don't have to convert to my viewpoint, but you should at least recognize the validity of the statements and stop saying "but I just don't see how...." We've told you how. If you don't agree, that's fine, but at least make an effort to process and understand the reasons people give.



> The idea of sentience is one perpetuated almost exclusively in reference to animal rights.


No, it really isn't. It's a religious/philosophical issue that plays a huge role in animal _welfare_ as well as rights (and the same goes for humans, particularly when we're talking about issues regarding abortion or the severely mentally handicapped). And, beyond that, it has scientific and research-based support. This is a huge field right now. And they're trying to key out which animals are actually "subjects of a life," which have a definite concept of _self_ (elephants are one, being able to recognize themselves in a mirror and all), which experience high-level emotions, etc.



> Anyone who has ever baited a hook knows that earthworms have feelings.


Define "feelings." Do earthworms have emotions? Can they experience joy, love, or sadness? Can they feel pain? A definite "yes" to that last one, but their experience is probably vastly different than ours. They have totally different sensory structures, and have no defined "brain," but rather a cluster of ganglia. Are they conscious? Are they aware? Or is it simply stimulus-response with no higher-level functioning?

I don't know the answer, but if science is ever able to figure it out, it will (or should) have moral implications for how we treat them, fishing included....



> In the end it's all about what makes the individual feel good.


Er, well, sure, that's a component, just as it's about what makes _you_ feel good when you go out and kill bears. We all have to live with ourselves.

But any enlightened individual will have a personal philosophy with definite, logical reasons for why they act or behave a certain way. I've shared mine....

If it was really about "what feels good," we'd all be hedonists turning a blind eye to all misfortune in the pursuit of our own desires.

And back on the sliding scale of morality thing, trust me, you, Kevin, and virtually everyone else also subscribes to a sliding scale.

If you could only save one life, and all were doomed to die, would you choose yourself, your wife, your child, your parent, your boss, your friend, your neighbor, your acquaintance, your enemy, or a stranger? Which is most important?

Or, to get back to the animal side of things, there is only one way_ not_ to have a sliding scale. All things are equal. Period.

So either you're a PETA follower and a Jainist, only taken to even more extremes, and you will do no harm to any living thing at all, or you are entirely self-serving and will not hesitate to cut down any man or beast that stands in the way of your desires. So....which are ya? :wink:


----------



## Bearkiller

bubba13 said:


> Is it wrong to kill an innocent child?


 
So I take it that you're prolife? And against abortion in all cases?


----------



## bubba13

Bearkiller said:


> So I take it that you're prolife? And against abortion in all cases?


Absolutely, positively not the case.


----------



## Bearkiller

bubba13 said:


> How in the world can you continue to throw this accusation around given the rational argument presented?


Because the arguments are based in emotion. Emotion is one of the most deceitful basis' for establishing an opinion there is. The reality is that there is no way to get through life without killing other creatures. Everyday. 



bubba13 said:


> (and the same goes for humans, particularly when we're talking about issues regarding abortion or the severely mentally handicapped).


So this is how you justify allowing people to kill a human baby but are opposed to eating meat? All on this THEORY? 




bubba13 said:


> Define "feelings." Do earthworms have emotions? Can they experience joy, love, or sadness? Can they feel pain? A definite "yes" to that last one


So because an earthworm, in theory, can't be sad that he is on a hook, he feels no pain? There is no way to prove any of this.........



bubba13 said:


> I don't know the answer


No one does. So why worry about it? 




bubba13 said:


> Er, well, sure, that's a component, just as it's about what makes _you_ feel good when you go out and kill bears. We all have to live with ourselves.


Maybe you should try hunting, you might like it. :lol:



bubba13 said:


> But any enlightened individual will have a personal philosophy with definite, logical reasons for why they act or behave a certain way. I've shared mine.....


I've never met anyone who didn't think THEY were enlightened. I've never met anyone who thought they were dumb either. It's human nature to think your ideas are right. That's why there will always be wars.




bubba13 said:


> And back on the sliding scale of morality thing, trust me, you, Kevin, and virtually everyone else also subscribes to a sliding scale


 
I don't think morality is the right word here. Human life is always more important than any animal. I know Ingrid Newkirk once said she'd save an intelligent dogs life over a retarded persons. This is a horrible example of human "enlightenment" and shows a severe mental illness.



bubba13 said:


> If you could only save one life, and all were doomed to die, would you choose yourself, your wife, your child, your parent, your boss, your friend, your neighbor, your acquaintance, your enemy, or a stranger? Which is most important?


My children. Period. I am here to protect them and will do everything possible to make sure they're safe.



bubba13 said:


> Or, to get back to the animal side of things, there is only one way_ not_ to have a sliding scale. All things are equal. Period.


All things aren't equal. Human life is ALWAYS more valuable than an animal.



bubba13 said:


> So either you're a PETA follower and a Jainist, only taken to even more extremes, and you will do no harm to any living thing at all, or you are entirely self-serving and will not hesitate to cut down any man or beast that stands in the way of your desires. So....which are ya? :wink:


There are no absolutes in life other than, we all are going to die. :shock:


----------



## Bearkiller

bubba13 said:


> Absolutely, positively not the case.


 
I figured as much. None of you are. BTW, I grew up in Washington, so I know all about animal rights people. :lol: I've never met one yet who applied their ideas to a baby. They all think abortion is ok but killing a critter is wrong. I still don't get it but at least we've been able to have an "intelligent" (I'll use that word loosely) conversation without anyone getting their feelings hurt. :wink:


----------



## bubba13

Bearkiller said:


> Because the arguments are based in emotion. Emotion is one of the most deceitful basis' for establishing an opinion there is. The reality is that there is no way to get through life without killing other creatures. Everyday.


You can say it's about emotion all you want. It's not. Strip emotion from it, and the logic still stands on its own. Although, to humor you, many educated philosophers believe that emotion has a valid basis in rational arguments.



> So this is how you justify allowing people to kill a human baby but are opposed to eating meat? All on this THEORY?


It's not a THEORY. It's scientific fact.



> So because an earthworm, in theory, can't be sad that he is on a hook, he feels no pain? There is no way to prove any of this.........


That's not what I said at all. I said an earthworm can perceive pain--this much is absolutely proven. We don't know _how_, exactly, it feels the pain, and whether it has conscious awareness. We also don't know if it can be sad or not, but best guess is probably "no," due to a primitive nervous system.



> No one does. So why worry about it?


Because it has profound moral/religous implications for how we live our lives.



> I've never met anyone who didn't think THEY were enlightened. I've never met anyone who thought they were dumb either. It's human nature to think your ideas are right. That's why there will always be wars.


Of course. But despite what people say, while cultural values may vary, there are still some universal moral standards of right and wrong. "You shouldn't just go around and kill your best friend for no reason" being one of them.



> I don't think morality is the right word here. Human life is always more important than any animal.


In your opinion. Many would disagree. 



> I know Ingrid Newkirk once said she'd save an intelligent dogs life over a retarded persons. This is a horrible example of human "enlightenment" and shows a severe mental illness.


In your opinion, again. And your insults just speak to an uneducated insecurity, if you can't rationalize a good reason why the handicapped human (who, if severely disabled, is not even aware of his/her own existence, and thus would lose nothing from dying) is more important than the dog, which knows that it is alive and does not want to die.



> My children. Period. I am here to protect them and will do everything possible to make sure they're safe.


There's your sliding scale of morality....your kids are no more important than the neighbor's kids, you know, you just care about them more....



> All things aren't equal. Human life is ALWAYS more valuable than an animal.


In your opinion. And why is that?



> There are no absolutes in life other than, we all are going to die. :shock:


Is "there are no absolutes" and absolute?



Bearkiller said:


> I figured as much. None of you are.


"None of you." Thanks for overgeneralizing, buddy.



> BTW, I grew up in Washington, so I know all about animal rights people.


I'm not an "animal rights person."



> :lol: I've never met one yet who applied their ideas to a baby. They all think abortion is ok but killing a critter is wrong.


Not what I believe, for one. Not at all. And I am very consistent in my application of standards.



> I still don't get it but at least we've been able to have an "intelligent" *(I'll use that word loosely)* conversation without anyone getting their feelings hurt. :wink:


How very generous of you.


----------



## Bearkiller

I'm not going to reply further other than to say that I didn't say anything to intentionally insult anyone. We just have a completely different set of values. Mine are based in a belief in God. I believe that life was designed and humans were given stewardship over animals. I didn't start this post to change anyones mind and I am way to stubborn to have mine changed. I think after nine pages, everyone has expressed what they believe pretty well.


----------



## rocky pony

All that remains to wonder about is the intention of the OP if it was not actually to listen to anybody else's opinions...which has been proven not to be the intention by the fact that despite legitimate points being made, OP decided to end the discussion with a suggestion that the points being made were, in fact, unintelligent.


----------



## Bearkiller

rocky pony said:


> All that remains to wonder about is the intention of the OP if it was not actually to listen to anybody else's opinions...which has been proven not to be the intention by the fact that despite legitimate points being made, OP decided to end the discussion with a suggestion that the points being made were, in fact, unintelligent.


 

First of all, only a person can know what their intentions are. It's a guess for anyone else. Second, the "points" being made are largely made based on emotion and the idea that a human can determine an animals level of happiness based on HUMAN desires. I agreed with alot of the points made about slaughter conditions ect. Third, I didn't "end the conversation". I was merely tired of repeating myself with the same person. We obviously have to agree to disagree.


----------



## bubba13

Bearkiller said:


> First of all, only a person can know what their intentions are. It's a guess for anyone else. Second, the "points" being made are largely made based on emotion and the idea that a human can determine an animals level of happiness based on HUMAN desires.


That is simply not true, as I've repeated _ad nauseam_. Emotion plays a role in the knee-jerk reflex to protect cute little piggly-wigglies:










But emotion has _nothing_ to do with the science-based, research-supported, and extremely rational deductions about animal awareness, emotions, and sensations. To deny the reality of animal sentience is absolutely ludicrious for anyone with an inkling of common sense or biological knowledge. And only a fool would try to hold animals to the same standard of values as a human would like. It's not about giving them gourmet meals, clothing, and a cable TV. It's about catering to the needs and desires of the species based on the behaviors they display in their natural surroundings.



> I agreed with alot of the points made about slaughter conditions ect. Third, I didn't "end the conversation". I was merely tired of repeating myself with the same person. We obviously have to agree to disagree.


Agreeing to disagree is fine, though obviously I could go on all day and more. And I'm not offended by your viewpoint. I am, however, offended by some of the condescension shown, when I've been trying so hard to do the exact opposite. 

Opposing viewpoints are fine. What's not fine, in my book, is the pot-and-kettle scenario I've seen. You accuse "us animal rights people" of being misguided by raw, idiotic emotion, yet for you "the Bible says so" is enough to go about your merry way in an unchallenged worldview. Which is a valid belief, but _only_ if you can defend it with a logical argument....and a logical argument you have yet to provide....


----------



## Bearkiller

bubba13 said:


> but _only_ if you can defend it with a logical argument....and a logical argument you have yet to provide....


 
Logic? It takes more *faith* to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation. I really was trying to avoid that part of the conversation because I didn't find this as the appropriate thread but since you asked. I am going to go out on a limb and assume that you believe in evolution, please correct me if I am wrong. In an unchallenged world view they teach that *cross species* evolution is a fact, yet can't provide a single instance of this happening. Take for example eyes. These are just an example of evolution being bogus. Why would an animal evolve a cornea, for example? By itself it does nothing. So why would one evolve? It goes against the whole premise of evolution to think the whole eye just appeared over night. We are told that these things take millions or billions of years and yet randomly an eye appeared? I can go on and on but is it really worth while? You have your thoughts and I have mine.


----------



## bubba13

Bearkiller said:


> Logic? It takes more *faith* to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation. I really was trying to avoid that part of the conversation because I didn't find this as the appropriate thread but since you asked. I am going to go out on a limb and assume that you believe in evolution, please correct me if I am wrong. In an unchallenged world view they teach that *cross species* evolution is a fact, yet can't provide a single instance of this happening. Take for example eyes. These are just an example of evolution being bogus. Why would an animal evolve a cornea, for example? By itself it does nothing. So why would one evolve? It goes against the whole premise of evolution to think the whole eye just appeared over night. We are told that these things take millions or billions of years and yet randomly an eye appeared? I can go on and on but is it really worth while? You have your thoughts and I have mine.


Evolution is really separate from the argument, and when I said you lack logic in your reasoning, I wasn't actually referring to logic behind the belief in God (because that is separate) but logic behind your beliefs beyond "Bible says eat animals = eating/harming animals for my own pleasure is fine." Because _that_ is an emotional decision, not a rational one. There are rational arguments for using animals to fulfill any desire we please (I just tend not to agree with them, and such is the nature of philosophy), but I'm sure not going to provide them for you. That's your job, as a human being crafting your _own_ worldview, hopefully from a rational framework.

But if you honestly want to play that card, start here and read: Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye










Simple eyespot in unicellular _Euglena_: 









Light/dark eyespots in the flatworm _Planaria_:


Simple eyes (with focusing retina) in jumping spider _Phidippus_:


Compound eye of fruit fly_ Drosophila_:









Extremely intricate eye of mantis shrimp:









And a long evolution discussion from another Horse Forum topic: http://www.horseforum.com/general-off-topic-discussion/thread-disprove-darwin-85309/


----------



## Marlea Warlea

I'm a vegetarian.
I became vegetarian when I went to a property once and I saw these beautiful cows, when we went back the next week, they were gone. I asked where they were and the answer that came back was 'in the fridge.' As immature as this seems I cried my eyes out.


----------



## Bearkiller

The rational part is that humans are clearly either designed or evolved to be omnivoures. That can not be ignored. As far as eye evolution, you can't explain why would a creature randomly start to evolve parts of an eye which by themselves are useless. But like you said, there is another thread for that. BTW, you rationalize your use of animals to suit your desires, too.


----------



## bubba13

Bearkiller said:


> The rational part is that humans are clearly either designed or evolved to be omnivoures.


This is true.

It falls into the naturalistic fallacy and thus is a weak argument overall (Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), but it is true nonetheless. However, anthropological research suggests that early humans were scavengers far more than hunters, and also that meat was not frequently eaten, either because it was difficult to come by or for other reasons. Our canine teeth, really, are quite weak. They're more pitiful that equine canine teeth, really. :roll:




































Which one would you prefer to rip a hunk out of your flesh? :wink:



> That can not be ignored.


People DO need protein in their diets. And prior to the modern day, it was difficult to procure without eating meat. But there are plenty of alternatives nowadays, and the average vegetarian, who takes care to eat a balanced diet, is healthier than the average meateater, who at least in America will grossly overconsume the animal proteins, leading to health problems like heart disease and cancer--this is also a fact that cannot be ignored. If you're going to eat meat, do so in moderation or it is honestly likely to shorten your life expectancy.



> As far as eye evolution, you can't explain why would a creature randomly start to evolve parts of an eye which by themselves are useless.


Did you even read the article I posted?



> But like you said, there is another thread for that. BTW, you rationalize your use of animals to suit your desires, too.


Yes, yes I do. Show me a person who doesn't....


----------



## bubba13

And just for kicks: Vegetarianism in the Bible
Biblical Vegetarianism / Vegetarianism in the Bible


----------



## Bearkiller

bubba13 said:


> Did you even read the article I posted?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes I do. Show me a person who doesn't....


 
I did read the article. It is full of "may"'s and "could have"'s. It makes no arguement as to why an animal could/would have evolved light sensitive cells and what the usefullness of these cells may have been. 

The Scientific Case Against Evolution


----------



## bubba13

From the article:



> These supposedly changed by infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn't. Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time. It is almost entirely devoid of forms that can plausibly be identified as intermediates between older and newer ones.


So they only have hundreds of thousands of fossils from all species, as the author goes on to admit. That's not very many, considering the trillions of animals that have lived and died. What do they expect an intermediate do look like? A fish with legs and lungs? Not very likely. Rather, it's the very infinitesimal changes (that they claim aren't there) that wouldn't even show up in the first place, as per evolutionary theory. Look at the ever-expanding fossil record record for humans. Plenty of intermediate "missing links" there! Did you know that, for example, modern non-African human DNA is 1-4% Neanderthal? That's a recent discovery pointing to common origins and, obviously, interbreeding.



> Basically, computers have shown that the neat evolutionary trees that get drawn up are in fact based on imaginary relations of similarity and difference that owe more to the human mind's tendency to perceive patterns than to the raw biological data. Computers have shown that when the characteristics of different living things are encoded in numerical form and the computer is asked to sort them into the order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule sequences based on their similarities and differences, the computer can find any number of ways of doing so that have just as much support in the data as those drawn up by humans to fit an evolutionary tree.


How old is this article? They're having much better luck using mitochondrial DNA for phylogenetics these days....



> The wings of birds are the classic example: what good is half of one?


How does the progressing from grasping "arm," to gliding "wing" with claws (as in the Pterodactyl--or anything similar, not sure if that's a direct ancestor or a red herring), to modern wing not make sense?










I'm fully open to the idea of metaphysical assistance or whatnot. I don't claim to know all the answers. Certainly there are problems with pure Darwinian evolution and the "something from nothing" origins of life hypothesis, which may be the results either of a legitimate difference from fact _or_ simply our own current lack of knowledge on the topics. But at the same time, to dismiss evolution entirely is absolutely ludicrous, as scientific/genetic evolution is a proven fact. If there was no evolution, there would be no HIV or antibiotic-resistant bacteria, for just one tiny example....


----------



## bubba13

Bearkiller said:


> I did read the article. It is full of "may"'s and "could have"'s. It makes no arguement as to why an animal could/would have evolved light sensitive cells and what the usefullness of these cells may have been.


If they aren't useful, then why do many, many species of animals still currently have simple eyespots only capable of sensing light/dark changes?

With _Euglena_, for example (the first organism I posted), it is a photosynthesizing algae. It uses its eyespot to detect light to it can find the optimal location to utlize the sun's energy. How did it evolve? How does anything evolve? The traditional answer, of course, is random chance and natural selection.


----------



## Bearkiller

bubba13 said:


> I'm fully open to the idea of metaphysical assistance or whatnot. I don't claim to know all the answers. Certainly there are problems with pure Darwinian evolution and the "something from nothing" origins of life hypothesis, which may be the results either of a legitimate difference from fact _or_ simply our own current lack of knowledge on the topics. But at the same time, to dismiss evolution entirely is absolutely ludicrous, as scientific/genetic evolution is a proven fact. If there was no evolution, there would be no HIV or antibiotic-resistant bacteria, for just one tiny example....


 

The problem lies in cross species evolution, primarily. The idea that animals can change from one species to another just has no evidence to support it. At that point, the whole argument is dead. To your point about same species evolution, there are obvious environmental factors that can change a species. Remember, there was a time when everyone thought the world was flat.


----------



## bubba13

Bearkiller said:


> The problem lies in cross species evolution, primarily. The idea that animals can change from one species to another just has no evidence to support it. At that point, the whole argument is dead. To your point about same species evolution, there are obvious environmental factors that can change a species. Remember, there was a time when everyone thought the world was flat.


What about the Neaderthal DNA stuff? What about how, contrary to the article's statements, there actually have been plenty of intermediates found in the fossil record, and backed up by DNA evidence? Does that not count for evidence because we have not watched a chimpanzee magically turn into a person in front of our eyes?

Many scientists do not consider viruses to techincally be "alive"--although some do--but they are excellent to study because they have such a short generation time. And yes, new "species" (strains) of virus are developing all the freaking time. H1N1, for example. Changing hosts/vectors is a pretty big step....

Or how about the case of Darwin's finches?


----------



## Bearkiller

Do you ever feel like you're beating the proverbial dead horse? I know I do  It's very easy to be skeptical of all new "science" when there is a clear agenda. There have been many cases of scientists promoting theory as fact. It's unfortunate but true. Are the new strains actually new or are they undiscovered or just plain modified versions (by environmental conditions such as medicines)?


----------



## kevinshorses

I've watched this thread and waited for it to turn petty and full of personal attacks but I have to commend everyone that responded and particularly bearkiller and bubba13 for the way they have argued with tact and respect for others (for the most part).


----------



## bubba13

Well, way to go, Kevin, you big mean fat poopy-head. You just ruined it for everybody. :roll:



> Are the new strains actually new or are they undiscovered or just plain modified versions (by environmental conditions such as medicines)?


At what point do you stop saying _the strain has been modified to a high degree_ and start saying _a new strain has developed_? Is a wolf the same thing as a dog?


----------



## demonwolfmoon

bubba13 said:


> Well, way to go, Kevin, you big mean fat poopy-head. You just ruined it for everybody. :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> At what point do you stop saying _the strain has been modified to a high degree_ and start saying _a new strain has developed_? Is a wolf the same thing as a dog?


Hm, it was my understanding that a new SPECIES has evolved when the two can no longer interbreed and create VIABLE offspring. The "viable" part has many facets, and the barrier can be mechanical (the reproductive organs don't fit), ...grrr...or a couple of other things including the offspring themselves are not capable of reproduction/are sterile.
I don't remember the specifics, but I can look them up. If anyone is REALLY motivated, I can go find my lecture notes on this. 

So wolves and dogs are reproductively viable and are both under the genus "Canis". If they were separated geographically or if a mutation made them no longer mechanically viable, then they'd be a new species. This process is called "speciation" and you can find a fairly simple explanation on Wiki.

As far as the whole "something out of nothing" approach, there are still several THEORIES out there floating around, including some very very good ones on how the planet formed and made all these neat layers. To be honest, I find it easier to believe something that can be physically demonstrated or proved instead of all the metaphysical explanations. After all, once upon a time, people thought that flies formed magically out of garbage... In any case, I have not read the whole thread, I've read...the beginning and the end, so if this was already covered, sorry. Agreed that we are not carnivores, that is easily evidenced by the structure of our jaws and observation of the larger primates. One evolutionary explanation for our ancestors gaining the ability to stand (while retaining opposible thumbs ) is the idea that we walked from the trees to the discarded kills to scavenge. It was a LONG time ago that I studied phys anth, but I was under the impression that the nutrition obtained by the acquisition of meat was accompanied by the massive expansion in brain size shown by the fossil record. xD Again, if anyone is ...really super motivated I can go find my notes or research it. If not, just some things to chew on...I should be (pre) studying for next term's Calc course, so I'll go back to that. xD


----------



## bubba13

The problem is that there is really no way to define "species." It's no good. Wolves and dogs are counted as separate species, and they look different and act different, but will willingly interbreed to create viable hybrids. Or take lions and tigers--they've been isolated for a long time, yet again will interbred, with viable offspring, that themselves can go on to create such odd creatures as Ti-tigons, which are 75%/25%. It gets pretty freaky....










Even the occasional mule has produced a foal. And when it comes to plants, anything's game. They'll hybridize like nobody's business.


----------



## demonwolfmoon

bubba13 said:


> The problem is that there is really no way to define "species." It's no good. Wolves and dogs are counted as separate species, and they look different and act different, but will willingly interbreed to create viable hybrids. Or take lions and tigers--they've been isolated for a long time, yet again will interbred, with viable offspring, that themselves can go on to create such odd creatures as Ti-tigons, which are 75%/25%. It gets pretty freaky....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even the occasional mule has produced a foal. And when it comes to plants, anything's game. They'll hybridize like nobody's business.


You can look upon those (such as the mule) as outliers. It is not common and is probably so rare as to skew the statistic.

ETS: Big cats, like dogs are pretty closely related. And it is fair to say that MOST of the hybrids are sterile, and their genetic line ends with them which is why they are termed as not viable.


----------



## bubba13

Reading up on wild (and domestic) plant hybrids is pretty interesting. Plants are kinda ****ty. 

And how about the case of the beefalo? Domestic cattle and buffalo were, again, geographically isolated for quite a long time, yet they will still interbreed quite ready, producing very much viable offspring that is then crossed with cattle for several generations. Yet I don't think that anyone would argue that a Holstein and a buffalo are the same species.


























I just think there's a fundamental problem with our definition of "species."


----------



## demonwolfmoon

Hm, I suppose you have a point if you look at it that way. I do note that they are fairly closely related: Bovidae, Bovinae, and only diverge at Genus level. 

I wonder what they taste like xD
I may not eat meat very often...but I do like buffalo. =P

In any case, with respect to defining species, it doesn't always work that way with mammals at least. We are closely related to the great apes, yet we do not interbreed. I've watched my roosters mount quail (hens and roos), and none of those matings are viable. With respect to taxonomy, I imagine that they are probably closely related....except they diverge at family instead of genus.


----------



## bubba13

demonwolfmoon said:


> Hm, I suppose you have a point if you look at it that way. I do note that they are fairly closely related: Bovidae, Bovinae, and only diverge at Genus level.


Well, of course. Elsewhere someone was suggesting cat/pig hybrids (http://www.horseforum.com/horse-breeds/zony-100884/ )....obviously that's not going to happen!



> I wonder what they taste like xD
> I may not eat meat very often...but I do like buffalo. =P


Supposedly pretty good. I think it's allegedly healthier than regular beef, maybe more red meat and leaner? My boss just got a big herd of them to raise.


----------



## VT Trail Trotters

bubba13 said:


> The problem is that there is really no way to define "species." It's no good. Wolves and dogs are counted as separate species, and they look different and act different, but will willingly interbreed to create viable hybrids. Or take lions and tigers--they've been isolated for a long time, yet again will interbred, with viable offspring, that themselves can go on to create such odd creatures as Ti-tigons, which are 75%/25%. It gets pretty freaky....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even the occasional mule has produced a foal. And when it comes to plants, anything's game. They'll hybridize like nobody's business.


Now Bubba, the reason dogs and wolves, tigers and lions and horses and donkeys and zebras and horses can mate is because they have the same genus. This is close enough in the classification in the DNA that they can mate but the offspring is sterile so to make more you start over again. And people and apes are 99% same DNA but if you go to a classification chart and compare chimps and people we split off a ways at the top so thank god were are to far away to be that closely related to apes. And to keep it back to topic, i am not a vegetarian because i love meat and now another biology class, we humans are designed to be omnivores eat meat and plant material. Our earliest monkey ancestors would probably have been herbivores eating just plants. But over time we have become to have canine teeth meant to help rip meat off bone and were designed to eat meat wit out teeth if you ever look at them. And then compare them to some one in the back yard your horse and see how there teeth look. Flat and large and ours normally ridges and alternating "shapes" made to chew flesh where a horse grinds food. You can eat plants and be fine its just it takes longer to turn lettuce into lets say Allison Finch. Where meat is a lot closer in matter to Allison Finch. And thats why we have a single stomach and cows have 4 and horses have a big one that is just one like us.


----------



## bubba13

VT Trail Trotters said:


> Now Bubba, the reason dogs and wolves, tigers and lions and horses and donkeys and zebras and horses can mate is because they have the same genus.


That's not true in the case of cattle and bison, or in the case of many hybrid plants. Did you know that "genus" is an arbitrary qualifier that has little to no basis in actual biological relationships? It's true. It has no real meaning besides that we ascribe to it. And regardless, all of the above are listed as separate species, yet can interbreed with fertile offspring....which is absolutely against the scientific definition of species.



> This is close enough in the classification in the DNA that they can mate but the offspring is sterile so to make more you start over again.


But the offspring aren't sterile in some cases....see previous posts, like the beefalo example.



> And people and apes are 99% same DNA but if you go to a classification chart and compare chimps and people we split off a ways at the top so thank god were are to far away to be that closely related to apes. And to keep it back to topic, i am not a vegetarian because i love meat and now another biology class, we humans are designed to be omnivores eat meat and plant material. Our earliest monkey ancestors would probably have been herbivores eating just plants. But over time we have become to have canine teeth meant to help rip meat off bone and were designed to eat meat wit out teeth if you ever look at them. And then compare them to some one in the back yard your horse and see how there teeth look. Flat and large and ours normally ridges and alternating "shapes" made to chew flesh where a horse grinds food.


Again, see previous posts. Horses have canines far larger and sharper than ours, excellent for tearing flesh....yet they are herbivores. Whereas we have grinding molars for tough plant matter....but are omnivores. The tooth argument is not a very good one. Ever seen a hippo?










Know what they eat? Plants.



> You can eat plants and be fine its just it takes longer to turn lettuce into lets say Allison Finch. Where meat is a lot closer in matter to Allison Finch. And thats why we have a single stomach and cows have 4 and horses have a big one that is just one like us.


How does that make sense? Horses and cattle eat the same things, yet have very different gastrointestinal tracts. 

You still need protein in the diet, but you can get that from legumes like beans just as easily as you can from red meat. No matter your dietary preferences, you still have to eat balanced meals with all necessary nutrients. From an economical/biological "waste not, want not" premise, due to the 10% rule of the trophic level energy loss rule, it's far more efficient and environmentally friendly to raise plant crops for human consumption than it is to raise animals for human consumption.


----------



## demonwolfmoon

VT Trail Trotters said:


> Our earliest monkey ancestors would probably have been herbivores eating just plants.


"Monkey"?! xD


----------



## demonwolfmoon

bubba13 said:


> . The tooth argument is not a very good one. Ever seen a hippo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know what they eat? Plants.


A pretty good indication of diet is the shape of the skull. People talk about the directionality of the eyes, that's one thing, but also, the shape of the jaw and it's connectors.
I know in Anth, one of the ways the diets of the hominids were determined is looking at the muscle connections of the jaw at skull level. Thick jaw, tough food that needed a lot of chewing. 

My husband and I were discussing the relative jaw shapes of cats (obligate carnivore) versus dogs. Now cats MUST eat meat, but their jaw shape is not suited to grabbing and tearing like the dog...but consider the type of predator they are: they hide, they pounce, they shake to break the neck or disembowel with claws. Dogs (ok, the ones we haven't selectively bred out of the more 'natural' shape) have muzzle that extend so that they can grab and hold or tear. 
Our jawshape is not meant for biting to kill. For that, like the chimpanzees and bonobos, we rely on hands and tools to hunt smaller game or (yuck) to have scavenged.
I do wonder if the hippos teeth evolved for protection or mating? I don't know enough about hippos to say, but aren't they rather aggressive?


----------



## bubba13

They are, and I imagine it has to do with dominance displays more than anything else. Males will kill each other over females, and never ever try to cross a river with ****ed-off hippos in it....they will literally bite you in half.


----------



## VT Trail Trotters

bubba13 said:


> That's not true in the case of cattle and bison, or in the case of many hybrid plants. Did you know that "genus" is an arbitrary qualifier that has little to no basis in actual biological relationships? It's true. It has no real meaning besides that we ascribe to it. And regardless, all of the above are listed as separate species, yet can interbreed with fertile offspring....which is absolutely against the scientific definition of species.
> 
> 
> 
> But the offspring aren't sterile in some cases....see previous posts, like the beefalo example.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, see previous posts. Horses have canines far larger and sharper than ours, excellent for tearing flesh....yet they are herbivores. Whereas we have grinding molars for tough plant matter....but are omnivores. The tooth argument is not a very good one. Ever seen a hippo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know what they eat? Plants.
> 
> 
> 
> How does that make sense? Horses and cattle eat the same things, yet have very different gastrointestinal tracts.
> 
> You still need protein in the diet, but you can get that from legumes like beans just as easily as you can from red meat. No matter your dietary preferences, you still have to eat balanced meals with all necessary nutrients. From an economical/biological "waste not, want not" premise, due to the 10% rule of the trophic level energy loss rule, it's far more efficient and environmentally friendly to raise plant crops for human consumption than it is to raise animals for human consumption.


Well i dont know why in evolution horses have 1 stomach and cows a 4. And i was going to say some thing about your appendix but i forgot and anyway do you look this up or are you a biologist? The stuff i write is from what i already know.


----------



## VT Trail Trotters

Remembers the appendix part, scientists are not sure but if so our appendix use to carry plant breaking down bacteria. And if we dont have them anymore then it takes us longer compared to meat. Look at termites with out there wood breaking down bacteria they could not eat the wood anymore than we can and we cant because we are not able to digest it unless you are.


----------



## Faceman

VT Trail Trotters said:


> Well i dont know why in evolution horses have 1 stomach and cows a 4. And i was going to say some thing about your appendix but i forgot and anyway do you look this up or are you a biologist? The stuff i write is from what i already know.


Well no offense intended, but your knowledge of biology is very limited. That is not meant as a slight at all - just saying. There are many things I don't know anything about either.

Among other things, monkeys are not our ancestors - we evolved from a common ancestor.

Horses and cows evolved different methods of breaking down cellulose in plants, which neither one (nor humans for that matter) can digest on their own. The digestion is accomplished by enzyme producing bacteria - in the cow's case, being a ruminant, these bacteria reside in the various stomachs, and in the horse's case, they reside in the hind gut area. Not all animals evolve the same method of digestion...look up rabbit digestion if you want a chuckle. Anyway, hope that helps on that issue.


----------



## VT Trail Trotters

Well Faceman i am no biologist and i forgot about the common ancestor thing. I dont hear much about the begins of life thing so i am not to educated on it. And i dont know anything about cows or horses digestion other than a horse has 1 stomach and a cow 4.


----------



## bubba13

I am a Biologist, actually, but that doesn't mean I'm above running to Wikipedia to confirm a point. And, speaking of, here's your appendix information: Appendix may be useful after all - Health - Health care - More health news - msnbc.com

We can't digest cellulose--which is why cellery has little to no nutritional value for us--but we can digest all sugars, proteins, and fats, regardless of their source. And in that regard, the ultra-processed foods from the supermarket or McDonald's sure aren't good for use....

Somewhat relevant, simplistic, protein summary: Difference Between Plant Protein and Animal Protein | Difference Between | Plant Protein vs Animal Protein


----------



## VT Trail Trotters

See now Bubba this is why you are talking about things i have never head about because your the one whos job it is to know this stuff. And fast food is obvious not good for you filled with god who knows what. Like school mystery meat you could find out what exactly what it is.


----------



## SarahAnn

Subbing. I need more time to read everything... Great debate though, thanks Bubba for the referral :wink:
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## VT Trail Trotters

We need people like Bubba who are biologists on this place.


----------



## SarahAnn

kntry said:


> I don’t have time to search the web for information while at work. From personal experience, my doctors said my blood work was always great due to being a vegetarian. My Mom’s doctors said her diabetes and strokes could have been controlled (when they first started) if she would become a vegetarian or at least eat less meat. My husband’s doctors have told him the same thing about his diabetes. They can look at his blood work and see that he eats a lot of meat.
> 
> In each case, they were different doctors.



THIS ^^^ is NOT because of MEAT. It's because of all the crap that is IN meat. Do you know that big industries that raise beef cattle in large quantities fill their processed beef with amonia and bleach to "preserve" it and stop it from growing bacteria? Did you know that large corporations and chain grocery stores like Walmart put red dye in their meats to make them LOOK fresh because by the time they make it to the shelf they've turned brown? 

Do some research on WHY doctors say meat is unhealthy. 

AND diabetes has more to do with blood glucose levels and insulin production than it does anything else. So maybe when the doctor said to stop eating meat, he meant stop eating things that are ridiculously high in sugars. JUICE is worse for some diabetics than meat is.


----------



## bubba13

The large quantities of proteins from excessive meat consumption, whether home-grown, organic, or factory-processed, have been linked to cancer.


----------



## SarahAnn

bubba13 said:


> Really?
> 
> Is it wrong to kill?
> Mull on that for a moment.
> 
> Now....
> 
> Is it wrong to kill an animal?
> Is it wrong to kill a pet?
> Is it wrong to kill a person?
> Is it wrong to kill an innocent child?
> Is it wrong to kill someone because you want to steal what they have?
> Is it wrong to kill a Muslim extremist who *might* be plotting terror?
> Is it wrong to kill civilians in collateral damage when doing so also eliminates a major threat, thus potentially saving lives?
> Is it wrong to kill someone who is attacking you with a gun?
> Is it wrong to kill someone in an act of capital punishment, when they are jailed and now harmless to society, but have commited heinous acts in the past?
> Is it wrong to kill a terminally ill person as an act of mercy (euthanasia)?
> 
> Now tell me, with a straight face, that a sliding scale of morality is the same thing as being immoral....



I don't think I've ever seen something so blatantly perfect. :clap:


----------



## SarahAnn

bubba13 said:


> The large quantities of proteins from excessive meat consumption, whether home-grown, organic, or factory-processed, have been linked to cancer.


Maybe so, but I was talking about diabetes. I eat more broccoli and kale and other related vegetables that fight cancer then I do meat. I am practically a vegetarian... I just enjoy meat occasionally. Locally raised meat ONLY.


----------



## SarahAnn

bubba13 said:


> This is true.
> 
> It falls into the naturalistic fallacy and thus is a weak argument overall (Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), but it is true nonetheless. However, anthropological research suggests that early humans were scavengers far more than hunters, and also that meat was not frequently eaten, either because it was difficult to come by or for other reasons. Our canine teeth, really, are quite weak. They're more pitiful that equine canine teeth, really. :roll:


I just want to add to your argument that, HORSES commonly have a sharp tooth called a wolf tooth... hmm are horses intended to eat meat because of that ONE or maybe TWO teeth? I think not. Just because humans have a couple of sharp teeth does not mean they're necessarily INTENDED to eat meat. And a lot of people don't even have canines.


----------



## SarahAnn

bubba13 said:


> Well, of course. Elsewhere someone was suggesting cat/pig hybrids (http://www.horseforum.com/horse-breeds/zony-100884/ )....obviously that's not going to happen!


That was me  But I was actually using it more of an example than anything. I obviously know that isn't going to happen :shock:


----------



## SarahAnn

VT Trail Trotters said:


> Well i dont know why in evolution horses have 1 stomach and cows a 4.



A cow actually only has one stomach which contains four compartments. The compartments include: Rumen, Omasum, Abomasum, and Reticulum.


----------



## VT Trail Trotters

SarahAnn said:


> A cow actually only has one stomach which contains four compartments. The compartments include: Rumen, Omasum, Abomasum, and Reticulum.


The internet lied, i always thought there were literary 4 different stomachs and thought it was a little odd. The 4 separate compartments in the stomach makes much more sense.


----------



## kevinshorses

I've eviserated enough rumenant animals to know that they are pretty much separate organs. I also worked for many years in a beef processing plant and the rumens went down one chute and the omassums and abomassums went on for further processing. It's not one stomach with four chambers as much as it's four digestive organs in one system.


----------



## SarahAnn

Nonetheless, by definition, they only have one stomach.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SarahAnn

My foster mother and father (I will refer to them as my parents for the purpose of this post.) are vegetarians. My mom a vegan and my father is a gluten free vegetarian. They refer to me as a "veggie cheater" because I am mostly a vegetarian, although I do enjoy meat sometimes. So really I am not a vegetarian at all. I don't try to act like I am one because I am not. I eat meat. 

But I totally understand why people are vegetarians. It makes total sense to me, and if I didn't enjoy the taste of meat, I, too, would be a vegetarian. In most cases I will side with the vegetarians in a debate- unless they're stating facts that are not necessarily true. It is healthy. There is no essential nutrients that a meat eater has that a vegetarian doesn't. My mom doesn't eat a single thing that comes from an animal. Nothing. And she runs marathons. She's run the Boston Marathon 4 times. She travels to Europe and runs marathons... I don't remember the last time she was sick. And she's a teacher- and if you know anything about public schools, you know that they're FILLED with germs. So saying that being a vegetarian or vegan or whatever is not healthy is a load of BS. That's just something people say to "justify" eating meat- when in fact its not something that you need to justify. They like broccoli, you like tenderloin. No big deal. No one is forcing you to change your diet, so who cares?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## demonwolfmoon

SarahAnn said:


> . They refer to me as a "veggie cheater" because I am mostly a vegetarian, although I do enjoy meat sometimes. So really I am not a vegetarian at all. I don't try to act like I am one because I am not. I eat meat.


This is why I prefer to avoid labels in all things.
I rarely enjoy the taste of meat.
I used to imagine I could smell ham rotting.
And the more chemistry and biology classes I took, the worse it got. 
I eat eggs almost daily and I enjoy them. I rarely drink milk, and I don't like cheese.
I eat sushi...and maybe once a month, I have a steak.
I'm not a vegetarian...I'm not really much of a meat eater either...and when I do eat it, I pick at it and give most of it to someone else.
There isn't really a label for that, not a good one. 

On another note, I tried being vegan after watching "Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead". I can't do it. It's a good concept, but my stomach was ill the entire time.


----------



## VT Trail Trotters

I get why people are vegetarians, and being a hunter i like to know where the deer i am eating came from and what was in it. Acorns and grass and leaves to but it basically.


----------



## Bearkiller

bubba13 said:


> I am a Biologist, actually, but that doesn't mean I'm above running to Wikipedia to confirm a point.


 
Being a biologist, I don't see how you can look at evolution as a fact. If you really take a step back and think about life and even the idea behind evolution, it doesn't make sense. Since evolution was supposed to have happened over millions/billions of years, how would a species benefit from the useless beginnings of things we have today. Like say, eyes or ears. Please tell me how a hole in the head where the ears are, would benefit a creature who could hear no sound. Or little sound. All it would be, in theory, is a vessel for bacteria, ect. Would the idea be that sound was more useful to avoid predators? And that the offset would be that the predators would kill far less of the creatures than the bacteria, ect that the hole let in? Like I said earlier, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God. Also, since you have been educated in this subject, please provide one verifiable example of CROSS SPECIES evolution. Sure, you'll bring up viruses but you already stated that there is a dispute as to whether or not they're even alive. Since all evolution didn't happen during the single cell phase of life, there must be an answer. After all, it's been stated that apes and humans have a common ancestor. Surely it doesn't go back to the swamp.


----------



## bubba13

Bearkiller said:


> Being a biologist, I don't see how you can look at evolution as a fact.


I look upon very few things as fact, so don't put words in my mouth. _"Well didst thou speak, Athena's wisest son: 'All that we know is, nothing can be known." _- Lord Byron

That said, all of our current knowledge does point to evolution, regardless of the very origins of life, and there is pretty much no evidence for any alternative theory. Which leads to the logical conclusion, "until proven otherwise...."



> If you really take a step back and think about life and even the idea behind evolution, it doesn't make sense.


But it does, really, and it's the only (current) explanation that makes sense. Unless you want to side with the Scientologists and say aliens put us here.



> Since evolution was supposed to have happened over millions/billions of years, how would a species benefit from the useless beginnings of things we have today. Like say, eyes or ears. Please tell me how a hole in the head where the ears are, would benefit a creature who could hear no sound. Or little sound. All it would be, in theory, is a vessel for bacteria, ect. Would the idea be that sound was more useful to avoid predators? And that the offset would be that the predators would kill far less of the creatures than the bacteria, ect that the hole let in?


Don't discount and criticize things you don't understand. We already went through this with the eye. You've got to look at how simpler organisims hear. They don't have a "hole in the head." Take the case of fish: They have Weberian ossicles (the equivalent of our maleus/incus/stapes) connected to the swim bladder that allows them both to sense vibrations and to hear. Functions similar to our ear, but probably actually more sensitive, and structured rather differently.

All the good articles I can find are by payment only. So if you've got $20 to blow, Google the search terms and read to your heart's content about the evolution of the ear as evidenced in the fossil record.

To tide you over, here are some crappy ones:
From Jaw to Ear: Transition Fossil Reveals Ear Evolution in Action: Scientific American
Our ears once breathed [evolution of ears]
Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Like I said earlier, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God. Also, since you have been educated in this subject, please provide one verifiable example of CROSS SPECIES evolution.


Darwin's Galapagos finches. 

If you're asking for one within your lifetime, sorry, but changes take far too long. You yourself admit that it requires millions or billions of years for a new species to occur....so considering that evolutionary theory is only 150 years old, you're just not going to see any noticeable differences in that time. It all has to be retrospective, but phylogenetics (DNA/protein similarities) and the fossil record confirms the cross-species changes. Or how about fish again? Take two bodies of water, very close to one another, but with no overland connections and no ease of access for swimming fish. They're essentially isolated populations. 

We've got this scenario down here in the Ozarks. In one drainage basin, you've got the duskystripe shiner:










And in the other, you've got the bleeding shiner:










The two fish are practically indistinguishable. They occupy the same niche. Genetically, they are nearly identical--but not quite. And there is no cross-breeding, and has not been for some time....so the last common ancestor was when the two groups split, and now you've got two _species_ where before there was one. Bleeding and Duskystripe Shiners, by David L. Hall



> Sure, you'll bring up viruses but you already stated that there is a dispute as to whether or not they're even alive. Since all evolution didn't happen during the single cell phase of life, there must be an answer.


Oooh, pick me pick me!





 
Over 13,000 views on YouTube and plenty of grateful high school students. Plus extra credit in my Genetics class for a two-hour over-Thanksgiving project with three good friends. Mission accomplished. Of course, it makes a little more sense if you watch it on YouTube and read the video description.



> After all, it's been stated that apes and humans have a common ancestor. Surely it doesn't go back to the swamp.


Nope. Goes back to the ocean, more likely.


----------



## demonwolfmoon

Bearkiller said:


> Being a biologist, I don't see how you can look at evolution as a fact.


Are you serious?

Thank you, Bubba for being here and having the patience for this. Not only did I not sleep last night, but I am in class all day today and don't have time for the full biological/anthropological perspective.

@Bearkiller: education is key to removing ignorance And not just one article, read lots. And learn how to sift through statistics so you can see when the statistics are listed erroneously.

...
8 am calculus + no sleep = grumpy demonwolfmoon =(


----------



## Bearkiller

bubba13 said:


> Unless you want to side with the Scientologists and say aliens put us here.


That of course brings up the issue of where the aliens came from LOL





bubba13 said:


> Don't discount and criticize things you don't understand. We already went through this with the eye.


Right, but you never gave an answer (that I saw) as to why an animal would just randomly have light sensing cells, ect. Or why, when alot of these things would be more of a hinderance than a help in early stages of evolution, they would continue to develope them.






bubba13 said:


> If you're asking for one within your lifetime, sorry, but changes take far too long. You yourself admit that it requires millions or billions of years for a new species to occur....so considering that evolutionary theory is only 150 years old, you're just not going to see any noticeable differences in that time.


I was using the times as expressed by evolutionists. I myself believe the earth is only 10-15 thousand years old. 






bubba13 said:


> Genetically, they are nearly identical--but not quite. And there is no cross-breeding, and has not been for some time


The idea that this is evidence is just crazy and goes to my point that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God. How does anyone know there hasn't been any cross breeding? Did they drain the lakes and rivers in the area completely and leave them dry for long enough to kill and/or collect ALL of the fish? Including pools, ect? Of course not. So the idea that there hasn't been any cross breeding is based on a complete faith that they didn't miss any fish during their "study". There have been species of cut throat trout declared extinct, only to find a river with them in it some time later.


As stated earlier, I didn't really want to get into a discussion on evolution because there is little to be gained from it. I appreciate your point of view but really don't understand it. It's got the huge problem of where life came from originally. 


Demonwolfmoon, I am completely serious. I also would invite you to never call me ignorant again. "Education" in our country is a complete joke. It should be called indoctrination. Anyone who questions anything or doesn't think like the rest, is ridiculed.


----------



## demonwolfmoon

Bearkiller: education even within the system can be self directed. Of course you can also choose to ignore evidence and formulate your own theories... Not backed by study or peer review.

I question everything. Many a professor has broken into a raw sweat at my aggressive lines of questioning. I'd be glad to take that invitation when you prove me wrong!! Later tonight I shall sift through some studies and copy paste for educational purposes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sarahver

Hi my name is Sarah and I'm probably 95% vegetarian because I just love veggies. Every now and then I enjoy a big juicy steak, I probably ate my own body weight in turkey over the weekend and also had venison sausage for the first time. I keep my horse locked up and I ride on her back. I only beat her on Sundays.

Mostly I just popped in to help 'ole mate Bubba when I saw the evolution debate crop up (we are old debating partners heh). 

Rapid evolution, original findings published in Nature which is probably one of the most highly regarded journals in the field of science:
Cornell News: rapid evolution

Eye evolution in bilaterates discussing common ancestor despite divergent evolution between subphyla:
ScienceDirect - Current Biology : Eye Evolution: The Blurry Beginning

Respectfully, I don't believe the education system is flawed. Rather that for the most part, creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. The further you progress in your education in either area, the greater understanding you have of one or the other.

As for being a biologist precluding a person from believing in evolution, well, if you skimmed the very surface of biological processes, yes it wouldn't make much sense. However when you take a closer look and try to understand the more complex processes that result in the things we see in nature, the pieces fit together rather nicely. I assume it is the same for those that devote their time and energy to studying Creationism.


----------



## Bearkiller

Don't do it for my sake. I have no interest in reading through the same stuff again. You have a HUGE problem with the origin of life. There is absolutely no evidence that life "just happened". You also have a huge problem with calling people ignorant and minimizing other peoples beliefs. I don't "ignore evidence". I have decided that there A: isn't enough evidence B: the evidence that is there is highly faulty C: there is only one answer to all of the questions. I don't need a random name on the internet to convince me otherwise.


----------



## demonwolfmoon

So, what's your problem with Evolution, Bearkiller? Does the science clash unpleasantly with creationism?
You do know, of course, that many scientists consider themsselves to be christians who still believe in Evolution, yes? And you are aware that there is a fossil record, from which the occasional mitochondrial dna can be pulled? Mitochondrial dna, as is passed on by the matrilineal line.
Ok, firstly as for the beginnings of the planet, one fairly respected theory is that the planet was formed by colliding asteroids, who promptly melted and dispersed all the elements contained in the asteroids by density, thus providing us with the layers of the planet. There has flat out been experimentation showing that if the early atmospheric chemicals are present in a LAB, the building blocks of life, aka, the AMINO ACIDS can spontaneously form.
Hmmmm.
Were you aware that the less "modern" snakes such as the boa constrictor still maintain their pelvis? Why would they need a pelvis...since they have no legs? Where would that have come from? Why do whales still have foot/leg bones? How do you explain their intermediates? In fact, how do you explain hominid intermediates? Were they planted somehow, a fraud?

Don't you need more "faith" to believe that a greater being put these things here and the devil planted fossils to confuse good Christians? I have heard that argument.... And isn't "faith" the whole point of a religion? If it were fact, then you'd KNOW, and it wouldn't be FAITH, intangible and true. 

I have studied these things, both within school and within my own studies for learning, fun and as a hobby. I was raised a Christian, and was taught the tenets of Creationism. I went to Christian school. I have weighed the evidence and findings presented by the scientific community and contrasted it with the blind Faith in a creator and found that I am much much more convinced by the intermediates and the fact that you can watch the effects of micro evolution at play (Have you ever owned a pure bred dog, for example? Isn't it a shame...what man has done to them? The genetic disorders WE are responsible for in our greed to force form and function change.)
Are you aware of the (french?) study with foxes, and how selectively breeding for behavior changed their phenotype in just a few generations?
You reject these things, why? These are actual, modern QUANTIFIABLE studies!!!!
Oh and by the way....diseases change and evolve. Constantly. I was once upon a time VERY VERY interested in Paleopathology....did you now that the Egyptian Mummies many times had Tuberculosis? Interesting how they can track the evolution of such things, but you say evolution did not occur?


----------



## demonwolfmoon

The fox study is Russian. Here is a link to Cornell:
Fox Domestication

I find it interesting that they start looking very very like border collies....Evolution by selective breeding ...in action.


----------



## bubba13

Bearkiller said:


> That of course brings up the issue of where the aliens came from LOL


Sure does. But let's dismiss the issue of where GOD came from....because that's not a logical problem and it's just not relevant, I guess. No faith needed for THAT one, no sirree!



> Right, but you never gave an answer (that I saw) as to why an animal would just randomly have light sensing cells, ect. Or why, when alot of these things would be more of a hinderance than a help in early stages of evolution, they would continue to develope them.


Random mutations. This is a proven fact that even you have to accept--there's no denying it. Some mutations are beneficial; these are passed on and perpetuated in the next generation. Some are neutral; they may or may not be preserved. Some are harmful; they will tend to be eliminated from the gene pool. That's all there is to natural selection. The development of auditory ossicles and light-sensing cells are _beneficial _and thus survive.



> I was using the times as expressed by evolutionists. I myself believe the earth is only 10-15 thousand years old.


Based on what evidence?



> The idea that this is evidence is just crazy


OK, then what WOULD you take for evidence?



> and goes to my point that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God. How does anyone know there hasn't been any cross breeding? Did they drain the lakes and rivers in the area completely and leave them dry for long enough to kill and/or collect ALL of the fish? Including pools, ect? Of course not. So the idea that there hasn't been any cross breeding is based on a complete faith that they didn't miss any fish during their "study". There have been species of cut throat trout declared extinct, only to find a river with them in it some time later.


Behavior. Genetics. Nearly (but I suppose not quite) foolproof sampling techniques. And even if there IS interbreeding, that proves nothing. They are classified as two separate species. They are VERY closely related. They are genetically isolated but look almost identical, yet are found in very close geographical proximity. What more do you want?



> As stated earlier, I didn't really want to get into a discussion on evolution because there is little to be gained from it. I appreciate your point of view but really don't understand it. It's got the huge problem of where life came from originally.


Again, where did God come from? Or what if God said, "Let there be LIFE!" and created a single little simplistic bacterium, then left it alone and let it evolve? How is that not possible?



> Demonwolfmoon, I am completely serious. I also would invite you to never call me ignorant again. "Education" in our country is a complete joke. It should be called indoctrination. Anyone who questions anything or doesn't think like the rest, is ridiculed.


Try telling that to my liberal arts professors. The only indoctrination I've received in my career was at Catholic grade school. Even my high school had a vast global emphasis, a focus on philosophy, and an international curriculum.

It's hard not to consider someone ignorant when they attack things they don't understand based on inaccurate principles.... http://www.horseforum.com/general-off-topic-discussion/how-win-argument-84444/



Bearkiller said:


> Don't do it for my sake. I have no interest in reading through the same stuff again.


Why not? No desire to further your knowledge or challenge your shaky worldview? Too comfortable and complacent with current beliefs?



> You have a HUGE problem with the origin of life. There is absolutely no evidence that life "just happened".


And absolutely no evidence for any alternative theory, either. And then there's this: Miller



> You also have a huge problem with calling people ignorant and minimizing other peoples beliefs.


Pot-kettle, based on some of the earlier vegetarianism ("based on emotion and nonsensical!") stuff.



> I don't "ignore evidence". I have decided that there A: isn't enough evidence B: the evidence that is there is highly faulty C: there is only one answer to all of the questions. I don't need a random name on the internet to convince me otherwise.


You clearly haven't even been _exposed_ to much of the evidence. You're still over here talking about how ear holes disprove science, or something.


----------



## bubba13

Oh, and Sarah, I fully intend to read those articles when I get the chance--sound interesting! But right now I'm caught up in the middle of finals...


----------



## sarahver

bubba13 said:


> But right now I'm caught up in the middle of finals...


You and me both :-|

Hence my increased time on HF...


----------



## bubba13

sarahver said:


> Hence my increased time on HF...


Funny how that works, isn't it? The amount of work I have to do is directly proportional to the amount of time I waste online.

You're in grad school of some kind now, right? I've forgotten what you're studying....


----------



## sarahver

Yup, Masters in business. So that makes me a biochemist turned bad :twisted:

Glad to see you're pursuing the biology route, GO the gene jockeys. Good luck with finals, you'll be right. Think of HF time as studying, providing we try and post on subject material that is at the core of our chosen field. That's what I do anyway.


----------



## demonwolfmoon

demonwolfmoon said:


> @Bearkiller: education is key to removing ignorance (


For the record: I did not call Bearkiller IGNORANT.
I said
That education is the key to remedying ignorance. 
*ig·no·rance/ˈignərəns/*

Noun:Lack of knowledge or information: "he acted in ignorance of basic procedures".It is clear to me that Bearkiller lacks knowledge or information regarding the proof and evidence to support Evolution. This is meant to be a constructive criticism, as people have tried to remedy this lack of knowledge.

I actually spoke to one of my old college professors since this was driving me up the wall. She suggested that I was wasting my time beating my head against a wall trying to explain scientific methodologies to someone who is unfamiliar. I disagree; I feel that anyone can become better informed should they so choose. You don't have to have a background in something to learn about it, you just have to have some sort of exposure or interest.
Bearkiller, however is only interested in proving that all the evidence of evolution is malarkey invented by the shoddy educational system that indoctrinated us into it's "faith" based beliefs.

*cough*
Now that my rant is over, she did suggest a couple of things to me, should I decide to continue to attempt an explanation: 
Welcome to Evolution 101! <--people friendly explanations regarding evolution.

Also, this is something we went over in her class (that irritated the life out of me, but might help): Science as Storytelling
*"Science is the modern art of creating stories that explain observations of the natural world, and that could be useful for controlling or predicting nature."*
While the wording drives me nuts, this is a pretty decent layperson's explanation of scientific theory.

And lastly, a thought of mine:
Have you all thought about Eohippus lately? =)










I bet Eohippus was cute, all cat sized...and with multiple toes!


----------



## demonwolfmoon

More Eohippus and Friends! 








Cat sized, and probably not as cuddly LOL. Eohippus skeleton compared to the modern housecat. Eohippus is the documented fossillized evolutionary ancestor to the modern horse.








The skeletal record shows the evolution of a single toed "hoof"








And lastly, an artist's conception of how Eohippus may have looked. Fur and fur color doesn't last so long as to be able to know for sure, so this last bit is a guess:









Oh and they are also using mitochondrial DNA to revise the skeletal record. For the most part, physical features follow the rule "function follows form", and they can find intermediates based upon this, location etc. But with the tool of DNA, there is a greatly expanded field of knowledge and discovery open to us!

Ancient DNA Clarifies the Evolutionary History of American Late
Pleistocene Equids
Ludovic Orlando Æ Dean Male Æ Maria Teresa Alberdi Æ Jose Luis Prado Æ
Alfredo Prieto Æ Alan Cooper Æ Catherine Ha¨nni (http://www.adelaide.edu.au/acad/publications/papers/Hippidions.pdf)

"However, the first DNA sequence information retrieved
from Hippidion fossils supported a striking different phylogeny,
with hippidions nesting inside a paraphyletic group
of Equus. This result indicated either that the currently
accepted phylogenetic tree of equids was incorrect
regarding the timing of the evolutionary split between
Hippidion and Equus or that the taxonomic identification of
the hippidion fossils used for DNA analysis needed to be
reexamined (and attributed to another extinct South
American member of the equid lineage). The most likely
candidate for the latter explanation is Equus (Amerhippus)
neogeus. Here, we show by retrieving new ancient mtDNA
sequences that hippidions and Equus (Amerhippus) neogeus
were members of two distinct lineages. Furthermore,
using a rigorous phylogenetic approach, we demonstrate
that while formerly the largest equid from Southern
America, Equus (Amerhippus) was just a member of the
species Equus caballus. This new data increases the known
phenotypic plasticity of horses and consequently casts
doubt on the taxonomic validity of the subgenus Equus
(Amerhippus).
"


----------



## Faceman

sarahver said:


> Yup, Masters in business. So that makes me a biochemist turned bad :twisted:
> 
> Glad to see you're pursuing the biology route, GO the gene jockeys. Good luck with finals, you'll be right. Think of HF time as studying, providing we try and post on subject material that is at the core of our chosen field. That's what I do anyway.


Haha - another biology major going in a different direction. My first undergraduate degree was in Biology, the second was in Geology, and my masters is in Physics...spent many years as a Geophysicist, but ended up as a commercial banker. What happened to the Biology...:rofl:

To demonwolfmoon, sure I think about Eeohippus. I raised Appys for over 20 years, and Eeohippus was obviously an early Appy. Aside from the spots, notice the dumb look in the eyes and the jughead...Appy all the way...


----------



## sarahver

^^That's awesome. Physics, wow. That's all I have to say about that! 

I think the thing with biology is that you have to do it for the love if you are going to make a career out of it. Unfortunately the love lessens after a while. Five years in medical research was enough for the rose coloured glasses to come off for me.

In regards to Eohippus, I saw one of the best displays on horse evolution in the New York Museum of Natural History and I highly recommend it to anyone that has a chance to see it. I, of course, went specifically to see Lucy :wink:


----------



## demonwolfmoon

Faceman said:


> Haha - another biology major going in a different direction. My first undergraduate degree was in Biology, the second was in Geology, and my masters is in Physics...spent many years as a Geophysicist, but ended up as a commercial banker. What happened to the Biology...:rofl:
> 
> To demonwolfmoon, sure I think about Eeohippus. I raised Appys for over 20 years, and Eeohippus was obviously an early Appy. Aside from the spots, notice the dumb look in the eyes and the jughead...Appy all the way...


HEHE, I notice you say that a lot! Being the spiteful witch I am, my next horse MUST be an appy. =D

I like how all you "pure" biology majors stick together, and ignore my FORENSIC Biologyness. Is it because we tend to come under either the Anthropology or the Chemistry department? TELL THE TRUTH!!! *sniffle*

Actually, I love both Chemistry and Anthropology to bits. I wanted a minor in Chem, but I just don't have the time... Grr... I will be taking lots of chem courses in grad school because I love it so much. Granted, I'm not at ALL gifted at Chem! xD 
But I enjoy it, it's like a puzzle.
As for anth, there just isn't enough opportunities in evolutionary anthropology, teaching can't be depended on, not enough opportunities with mummy studies that pay...le sigh. So I stick with Forensic Biology =D
I'll be sticking with it too lol.


----------



## Faceman

Sadly, that's the case with a lot of the natural sciences...hard to make a living. The exception is if you pair a technical discipline with an MBA like sarahvr, and if she's smart, she'll sit for her CPA. An MBA/CPA paired with a technical discipline can open a ton of corporate doors where you can at least stay in your preferred field if not actually in lab/field work.

Anyway, the lack of opportunities you mention has resulted in a great dilution in general knowledge of the natural sciences. IMO that is very sad...

Back on topic, I am not a vegetarian, but don't eat much meat. I eat a lot of fish, but have never particularly cared for meat. I like what you get at Ruth Chris, but you can't buy that in the meat section at Walmart...


----------



## bubba13

sarahver said:


> I think the thing with biology is that you have to do it for the love if you are going to make a career out of it. Unfortunately the love lessens after a while.


Very true, unless you want to go on to grad school and a) take a low-paying job as a researcher or b) try to compete in the field of college professors. Or c) are extremely, incredibly gifted and lucky.



> Five years in medical research was enough for the rose coloured glasses to come off for me.


So I take it your team didn't develop a cure for cancer?

The main value of a biology degree, as I see it, is as a great stepping stone to other opportunities. In my case, hopefully veterinary school. You don't actually need a BS or BA to get into the CVM, but I thought that would probably make me a far more well-rounded scientist, give him a good foundation to build up, and greatly increase my "second choice" options just in case the vet thing doesn't pan out. I do think I'd enjoy being a professor.



demonwolfmoon said:


> I like how all you "pure" biology majors stick together, and ignore my FORENSIC Biologyness. Is it because we tend to come under either the Anthropology or the Chemistry department? TELL THE TRUTH!!! *sniffle*


Chemistry is all right (just nerds who are so full of themselves, but can't handle the diversity of bio, and somehow think they're superior because of that :wink, but boo to anthro! Heh. Really, those are all right, but it's just the English, art, drama, and (Sarahver, cover your ears) business majors that really get me. I took a business class this semester. It's talked up on campus as being the organic chemistry of the business department. Sure, in the same way that multiplication tables are the organic of third grade. Easiest, stupidest class I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through for four hours a week. "Gee, professor, I can't remember how to add and divide the columns....can you show me again?" No wonder our economy is screwed.



Faceman said:


> Anyway, the lack of opportunities you mention has resulted in a great dilution in general knowledge of the natural sciences. IMO that is very sad...


What chaps my hide is the lack of quality science education at the middle and high school levels. This is a big issue for Temple Grandin, as well, and she harped on it when I went to hear her speak. I had a friend who graduated a couple years ago as an education major, hoping to teach HS biology. She didn't even have to get a bio major....just take a few classes. And she wasn't particularly good at them, either. Do you really want her teaching your students?


----------



## sarahver

demonwolfmoon said:


> I like how all you "pure" biology majors stick together, and ignore my FORENSIC Biologyness. Is it because we tend to come under either the Anthropology or the Chemistry department? TELL THE TRUTH!!! *sniffle*


There be no judgin' here! Chemistry department is A-OK. Anthropology...well...I thought it was more of a hobby than a profession.....KIDDING :lol:



Faceman said:


> Anyway, the lack of opportunities you mention has resulted in a great dilution in general knowledge of the natural sciences. IMO that is very sad...


Couldn't agree more. Research should be for the sake of pure discovery as much as for the pursuit of a given objective. Of course, providing someone ELSE is doing it. I just want to read about it.



bubba13 said:


> So I take it your team didn't develop a cure for cancer?


Unfortunately no. The only thing that it reinforced in my mind (although managed to publish several findings in journals etc) was that a 'cure' will never be found. I like 'finishing' projects. Science is never 'finished'!



bubba13 said:


> Chemistry is all right (just nerds who are so full of themselves, but can't handle the diversity of bio, and somehow think they're superior because of that :wink, but boo to anthro! Heh. Really, those are all right, but it's just the English, art, drama, and (Sarahver, cover your ears) *business majors that really get me.* I took a business class this semester. It's talked up on campus as being the organic chemistry of the business department. Sure, in the same way that multiplication tables are the organic of third grade. Easiest, stupidest class I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through for four hours a week. "Gee, professor, I can't remember how to add and divide the columns....can you show me again?" No wonder our economy is screwed.


Don't worry, they get me too. Overall, this grad degree has been much easier than my undergrad science degree. I can't get over the business majors who are my classmates and have no freakin idea about anything, despite having an additional four years of education in the field compared to me and a few others. For example, people who don't know matrix algebra, people who don't know how to use Excel, people who don't understand exchange rates. WHAT WERE YOU DOING IN YOUR UNDERGRAD???

Mind you, in Oz you don't have to do any core subjects unless they are related to your degree so this is my very first venture into anything non-science related. I decided after my first year that management, marketing and general business subjects are a complete waste of time and tuition dollars. Instead I got special approval from the Dean to take almost entirely upper level statistics, finance and accounting subjects. Only slightly more challenging but at least useful.



bubba13 said:


> What chaps my hide is the lack of quality science education at the middle and high school levels. This is a big issue for Temple Grandin, as well, and she harped on it when I went to hear her speak. I had a friend who graduated a couple years ago as an education major, hoping to teach HS biology. She didn't even have to get a bio major....just take a few classes. And she wasn't particularly good at them, either. Do you really want her teaching your students?


Agree wholeheartedly and it is the same in Oz. Interestingly however, in the last two years teacher's salaries in Victoria (my home state) were raised in part to attract better applicants. Also in part from pressure from The Mob...errrr....I mean the Teachers Union. Teachers are now amongst the highest paid graduates from University, I believe a first year teacher in Victoria has a starting salary of $55,000AUD. 

The result is that demand for teaching degrees soared and Universities were able to sort through and choose the brightest applicants rather than a teaching degree being a back up plan for applicants that were denied their first choice. Small start but hopefully in the right direction.


----------



## SarahAnn

Bearkiller, it seems you need to learn to LISTEN. You don't have to come up with a response to everything, just take it in and use it as an excuse to read and research, and if nothing else, find some facts that will help your argument. You seem to enjoy the debate- imagine how much fun you'd have if you actually had some facts to back up your argument!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## demonwolfmoon

Oh guys, go ahead, pick on Anthropology! xD
I have to say though...my first ever Chemistry Lab instructor was an old curmudgeon. He said, and I quote: "All Biology majors are just failed Chemists."
=O
Now, I have asked a few Biology majors, teachers and whatnot this...some confirm, others deny. 
Anyway, the thing I like about Anthropology is it is multidisciplinary, you can take it in any direction you want, and since I'm forensics, I have to take all your "pure" science classes too. And being the massive nerd I am, I took OChem 2 as an ELECTIVE. 0.0 Unfortunately, I have to get Genetics, Molecular Biology and Lab, Biochem and Lab, Environmental Evidence and Lab and GEOLOGY and lab (whew!) plus Calculus and Ethics in my last two terms. I'm kinda bummed, because I wanted Death Investigations (pictures of which, on note of the original topic, tended to turn me further from meat. Nothing like rats nesting in someone's abdominal cavity...).

Teachers get a raw deal here in the States, or at least they majorly do in California! Some of my friends are teachers, and they struggle to find jobs, the jobs pay badly, and the last I heard, the colleges in Southern California were trying to avoid granting tenure. Anyway, it's hard to get quality in the sciences when the state doesn't budget for it, and hires teachers as cheaply as possible.


----------



## bubba13

demonwolfmoon said:


> I have to say though...my first ever Chemistry Lab instructor was an old curmudgeon. He said, and I quote: "All Biology majors are just failed Chemists."


My first chemistry professor said, and I quote, "ayoo uusain ackdisoso ees tepal asfspead sakef sadfiej daskl." Seriously, he was this _ancient _senile Indian guy (he's been teaching at my college for 45+ years), and it took me a week to be able to understand his accent. This sounds terribly racist, but I assure you it was just the man himself, for I got along just fine with his brother. The first guy hardly lectured; he just wrote ambiguous notes on the board while glaring at the class and occasionally walking through, checking our notebooks and tearing them up if our notes weren't adequate. He also tended to get side-tracked with nonsensical "discussions" about what color sweater he should wear to impress the mothers of students back in India and once some total non sequitur involving Jesus Christ and cookies. At least I think that's what he said. Something about drawing a giant o on the board and saying that oxygen was the Bible of chemistry. Yeah. He also frequently taught the material completely wrong. At least his brother's worst offenses were either falling asleep during lab or disappearing (only to be spotted at Subway).


----------



## demonwolfmoon

bubba13 said:


> My first chemistry professor said, and I quote, "ayoo uusain ackdisoso ees tepal asfspead sakef sadfiej daskl." Seriously, he was this _ancient _senile Indian guy (he's been teaching at my college for 45+ years), and it took me a week to be able to understand his accent. This sounds terribly racist, but I assure you it was just the man himself, for I got along just fine with his brother. The first guy hardly lectured; he just wrote ambiguous notes on the board while glaring at the class and occasionally walking through, checking our notebooks and tearing them up if our notes weren't adequate. He also tended to get side-tracked with nonsensical "discussions" about what color sweater he should wear to impress the mothers of students back in India and once some total non sequitur involving Jesus Christ and cookies. At least I think that's what he said. Something about drawing a giant oon the board and saying that oxygen was the Bible of chemistry. Yeah. He also frequently taught the material completely wrong. At least his brother's worst offenses were either falling asleep during lab or disappearing (only to be spotted at Subway).


LOL I think we've all had one or two of those inexplicable teachers. ESPECIALLY first time teachers, or those really really bad teachers at community colleges that *somehow* got tenure. I've had some good teachers since then though. And a few nightmares. My last Ochem Lab was graded on a 96 percent "A" standard...and she was *not* an easy grader! I guess it was that bitterness of being an Inorganic Chemist getting stuck teaching Organic Chemistry. I once asked her what the purpose of Inorganic was. 0.o Luckily I still passed, so her academic integrity was tested.
My other lab instructor is a sweet, sweet old man who passes everyone. He would tend to disappear in the middle of our (dangerous) organic chem experiments, and reappear, or not, sometime around the end. I guess in some ways, he trusted college students to be adult,and not lick the paste. 
Bio teachers....now, some of the bio teachers are utter nightmares. Nice people, but....they grade on a 93 percent "A" standard, and if the class performs better than a 70 as an average, the difficulty of the exams is increased so as to keep a proper grade distribution....

My crazy chem lab teacher (who also had taught the first couple intro chem courses) made her tests universally hard, almost no one ever passed, but she curved. She was just SO SMART that she didn't realize that the rest of us could not keep up with her. I kid you not, I had surgery before my first ever exam for her, and the question was something around the lines of:

The distance to the moon on any average day is x # meters.
The radius of an atom of gold is this many angstrom. This is how much it weighs. An ounce of gold costs THIS MUCH. Now, tell me how much it will cost IN DOLLARS to stretch a one atom thick line of told from earth to the moon on an average day?

Imagine sitting there percocetted (or whatever it was?) out of your head trying to figure that one out. And that was just ONE PROBLEM. I think I finished the rest of the test and sat there for an hour trying to figure it out. 

PS) I've had a few math teachers from foreign lands that I simply gave up listening to and read the book. And I'm bad at math. xD


----------



## sarahver

bubba13 said:


> My first chemistry professor said, and I quote, "ayoo uusain ackdisoso ees tepal asfspead sakef sadfiej daskl."





demonwolfmoon said:


> The distance to the moon on any average day is x # meters.
> The radius of an atom of gold is this many angstrom. This is how much it weighs. An ounce of gold costs THIS MUCH. Now, tell me how much it will cost IN DOLLARS to stretch a one atom thick line of told from earth to the moon on an average day?


Oh I laughed so hard at both of these comments! :rofl:

Here's a little tidbit I'm working on RIGHT NOW: Using data provided for Procter and Gamble monthly sales, predict sales for the next two years. Justify the equation you use. Comment on autocorrelation, heteroscedasticity and multicolinearity. If the cost of sales increases by 2% in the next two quarters, population increases by 1%, GNP increases by 0.21% and per capita income increases by $10,000, what is the effect on profit?

Heh. Bed time methinks.


----------



## bubba13

demonwolfmoon said:


> My last Ochem Lab was graded on a 96 percent "A" standard...and she was *not* an easy grader!


Guarantee you she didn't have a thing on my dear sweet Dr. A-hole. His Organic class is considered the toughest course at my university, and I think that's well deserved. It's considered a make-or-break for pre-meds; a lot of people drop out of the pre-health professions programs after failing his class. Or they pay extra tuition to take it at the other big college in town. It's not uncommon to see class averages in the 40's and 50's on his tests. He does offer corrections for half credit, but he grades those extremely harshly, too. I got points taken off one time because in the margins, as a note to myself, I had scribbled an extra few lines of (correct) information that he had not asked for. He'd smirk as he passed out the tests, and smirk all the bigger after grading them and seeing how dismally we'd failed. But then we'd get chewed out for an hour about how we clearly just weren't trying and were no better than a "bunch of monkeys." On the few tests that had a matching section, he'd sometimes include a secret message if you got all the questions right. I knew I'd succeeded one time, because I'd spelled K-N-O-W-S-T-U-P-I-D. Kid you not, I was having stress dreams about that class a couple semesters later.



> My other lab instructor is a sweet, sweet old man who passes everyone. He would tend to disappear in the middle of our (dangerous) organic chem experiments, and reappear, or not, sometime around the end. I guess in some ways, he trusted college students to be adult,and not lick the paste.


Must be a universal thing. Our guys always thought we were smarter and better educated than we were. Didn't help that my lab partner and I, despite likely being the smartest and hardest working students in that particular session, formed a duo of stooges when it came to actually performing experiments. He'd break glassware, botch our measurements, boil off all our liquid, or just spill our product. I topped him by dropping a flask of some kind of noxious chemical, which immediately released vapors that burned our faces (because, you know, we were under the fume hood--logically). We asked our professor if that was something dangerous, and he just laughed and said "not too bad." So I'll probably die of cancer at 30.



> Bio teachers....now, some of the bio teachers are utter nightmares. Nice people, but....they grade on a 93 percent "A" standard, and if the class performs better than a 70 as an average, the difficulty of the exams is increased so as to keep a proper grade distribution....


See, I'm glad that we don't have curves here. Even with the toughest professors, it's all based on merit, or else sometimes they'll give arbitrary grade distinctions based on performance, resetting the standard for certain letter grades, but never doing a true bell curve.

The Biology professors here are overall excellent, though. My only real complaint is that some of them are way too easy and you don't learn anything. I don't want to be fed answers--that's pointless.

And the Physiology professor....I kid you not, I want to find the 21-year-old version of him. Very bright, funny, fair, intellectually-stimulating, devoted....vegetarian for ethical as well as health reasons (see: back on topic!), very nearly became a veterinarian, raised and rode horses in his youth....The Perfect Man, aside from being probably 45 years my senior. But that's only a slight problem, since his wife is 19 years younger than him....and they met when she was his student. Oops. :lol:



> The distance to the moon on any average day is x # meters.
> The radius of an atom of gold is this many angstrom. This is how much it weighs. An ounce of gold costs THIS MUCH. Now, tell me how much it will cost IN DOLLARS to stretch a one atom thick line of told from earth to the moon on an average day?


Not gonna lie. I LOVE that kind of problem. We had a similar one on a Physics test, only he made up his own units of measurement. We ended up calculating the distance to a certain star in "tortoise-millenia" (how far a turtle can walk in 1000 years). :rofl:



sarahver said:


> heteroscedasticity


That is NOT a word.


----------



## Faceman

bubba13 said:


> My first chemistry professor said, and I quote, "ayoo uusain ackdisoso ees tepal asfspead sakef sadfiej daskl." Seriously, he was this _ancient _senile Indian guy (he's been teaching at my college for 45+ years), and it took me a week to be able to understand his accent. This sounds terribly racist, but I assure you it was just the man himself, for I got along just fine with his brother. The first guy hardly lectured; he just wrote ambiguous notes on the board while glaring at the class and occasionally walking through, checking our notebooks and tearing them up if our notes weren't adequate. He also tended to get side-tracked with nonsensical "discussions" about what color sweater he should wear to impress the mothers of students back in India and once some total non sequitur involving Jesus Christ and cookies. At least I think that's what he said. Something about drawing a giant oon the board and saying that oxygen was the Bible of chemistry. Yeah. He also frequently taught the material completely wrong. At least his brother's worst offenses were either falling asleep during lab or disappearing (only to be spotted at Subway).


Haha...I remember you talking about that Indian professor years ago.

Well, I absolutely hate chemistry. But as we biology folk know, once you get so far in biology, it starts intermingling with chemistry until the two are almost one...there is just no way of getting around it...:twisted:

Moonhowler, I think just about all natural science oriented folks have an interest in anthropology and paleontology, but sane people pursue those as hobbies rather than disciplines...:rofl:


----------



## demonwolfmoon

Faceman said:


> Well, I absolutely hate chemistry. But as we biology folk know, once you get so far in biology, it starts intermingling with chemistry until the two are almost one...there is just no way of getting around it...:twisted:


At some point, I realized that Organic Chem and Gen Bio got together in some sort of unholy union to create Cell Bio...after that, I realized all of the disciplinary incest going on in all my classes. 
Makes it easier for me, though, because I could finally see a POINT in all the random things they were throwing at us... Blood spatter analysis and the GIS gave some sort of utility to Trig...



Faceman said:


> Moonhowler, I think just about all natural science oriented folks have an interest in anthropology and paleontology, but sane people pursue those as hobbies rather than disciplines...:rofl:


HEY :evil:

Also, why do the bio people refuse to call Cations "cations" and anions "anions"? Why do you define pH the way you do instead the proper way, as the - log H30+???

It always drives me CRAZY when they say its the negative log of the hydrogen atom. NO IT'S HYDRONIUM. GET IT RIGHT

(also if I have it wrong, I still haven't slept so sorry lol)


----------



## bubba13

demonwolfmoon said:


> At some point, I realized that Organic Chem and Gen Bio got together in some sort of unholy union to create Cell Bio...after that, I realized all of the disciplinary incest going on in all my classes.
> Makes it easier for me, though, because I could finally see a POINT in all the random things they were throwing at us... Blood spatter analysis and the GIS gave some sort of utility to Trig...


Cross-curricular learning! I love it when it all comes together like that. I was taking Analytical Chemistry, Vertebrate Physiology, and Organic Chemistry one semester, and the classes lined up back to back to back....we were talking about amino acids simultaneously in all three courses, and that really helped my understanding.



> Also, why do the bio people refuse to call Cations "cations" and anions "anions"? Why do you define pH the way you do instead the proper way, as the - log H30+???


I use "cations" and "anions." Always said I was going to get me a feline named Carbocation. :rofl: And heck, why not use the shorthand, since H3O+ is equivalent to H+?


----------



## Faceman

bubba13 said:


> Cross-curricular learning! I love it when it all comes together like that. I was taking Analytical Chemistry, Vertebrate Physiology, and Organic Chemistry one semester, and the classes lined up back to back to back....we were talking about amino acids simultaneously in all three courses, and that really helped my understanding.


Haha...I had that happen while studying DNA nucleobases - cytosine, guanine, et al...


----------



## VT Trail Trotters

WOW you went from vegetarians to horses being smart and then to biology and chemistry and college! Got no problem with it, but you all are very into this!


----------



## bubba13

You wouldn't, say, call that the _evolution _of a conversation, would you?


----------



## SarahAnn

^^ good one!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bubba13

Finally got a chance to look at this!



sarahver said:


> Rapid evolution, original findings published in Nature which is probably one of the most highly regarded journals in the field of science:
> Cornell News: rapid evolution


Awesome. Wish they had more details, though....an epigenome analysis, perhaps?



> Eye evolution in bilaterates discussing common ancestor despite divergent evolution between subphyla:
> ScienceDirect - Current Biology : Eye Evolution: The Blurry Beginning


But where do the ear holes come in? :?


----------



## sarahver

bubba13 said:


> But where do the ear holes come in? :?


Tis a good question, one that I don't have the answer for. Could be a good a research project to brighten my otherwise dreary day in the office :shock:

I had to giggle this week with the news coming out of CERN that they think they may have found the Higgs boson sub atomic particle (not statistically significant yet). That wasn't what made me giggle. What had me in stitches was that it was reported on MSN and various other 'news' sources as the 'God Particle'.

Loved it.


----------



## bubba13

Bad nickname, I know. You heard anything recently on the "faster-than-light" neutrinos? I'm not seeing any updates.....


----------



## Faceman

Yeah, Fox was calling it the "God particle" too...


----------



## sarahver

Last I heard on the neutrinos they had fine tuned the measurement so that the magin for error was reduced from microseconds to nanoseconds. Though the theory of general relativity would suggest that the results may be due to a very slight difference in gravity between origin and destination?

Physics is not my strong point, I just read the summaries for fun :lol:


----------



## mind

I'm entering this thread very late, I hadn't even registered yet when it began, but I'd like to weigh in.

At six years old I asked my Mom where meat comes from, she responded honestly and going forward I refused to eat meat, because I found the idea that of indirectly killing animals horrifying. Like many people who become vegetarian/vegan at an early age my understanding of exactly why I was choosing that diet was primitive, my parents hated it, but I didn't care. 

Fast forward seventeen years, I'm now twenty-three and still a very proud vegetarian. My understanding and reasons for choosing to not eat meat have broadened greatly, now I am not only personally uncomfortable with the idea of killing animals, but I am offended and disturbed by the processes of factory farming and the extreme disconnect between a living creature and shrink wrapped meat on a piece of styrofoam. I realize some people believe that factory farming is not cruel, but that stand point is simply wrong, because no one can speak to the integrity of the process at every slaughter house. While one may work or have visited one which takes exceptional lengths to show respect towards the animals, it would be ignorant to think that's the process everywhere. The extreme disconnect between a living creature with emotions and a piece of meat at the grocery store bothers me, because an animal is giving it's life for the benefit of humans and that deserves some degree of acknowledgement. Many omnivores are completely reliant on that disconnect being maintained in my experience. 

I'm not a vegetarian who nags on those around me about dietary choices, although I would prefer someone not order a rare steak while sitting in front of me. I also will not date anyone who is not a vegetarian, since it's so fundamental to my belief system I just don't find myself compatible with people who not share said beliefs.

Returning to your off-topic discussions.

It's interesting the topic has evolved to discussing particle physcis, I wonder if that has anything to do with vegetarians statistically having higher IQs


----------



## demonwolfmoon

mind said:


> I'm not a vegetarian who nags on those around me about dietary choices, although I would prefer someone not order a rare steak while sitting in front of me. I also will not date anyone who is not a vegetarian, since it's so fundamental to my belief system I just don't find myself compatible with people who not share said beliefs.
> 
> Returning to your off-topic discussions.
> 
> It's interesting the topic has evolved to discussing particle physcis, I wonder if that has anything to do with vegetarians statistically having higher IQs


Very funny. Except that a lot of our off topic discussion is being led by those who still eat some meat. 

Anyway, it's crazy to me that you carry your vegetarianism into your dating life! As an athiest married to a christian, that is.... but then again, we're both pretty easy going about it. Or well, he is, I can be kind of rabid in my home discussion LOL, but only when someone else rages me out.


----------



## Tianimalz

> The extreme disconnect between a living creature with emotions and a piece of meat at the grocery store bothers me, because an animal is giving it's life for the benefit of humans and that deserves some degree of acknowledgement. Many omnivores are completely reliant on that disconnect being maintained in my experience.


Well... I can't see myself getting attached to that turkey in the chest freezer... or else I'd be going hungry for Christmas dinner :rofl:

It's why I won't own animals intended for food, I'm too emotional that way- but darnnit I love my meat and the benefits the dogs and I get from it. (You should see their eyes light up when I bring out the fat scrapings LOL.)

But to each their own  On a side note, I like following this thread- a lot of interesting things are on it.


----------



## bubba13

Mind, will you marry ME?

:lol:


----------



## mind

demonwolfmoon said:


> Very funny. Except that a lot of our off topic discussion is being led by those who still eat some meat.
> 
> Anyway, it's crazy to me that you carry your vegetarianism into your dating life! As an athiest married to a christian, that is.... but then again, we're both pretty easy going about it. Or well, he is, I can be kind of rabid in my home discussion LOL, but only when someone else rages me out.


Interestingly, I'm an atheist, maybe agnostic, not sure, but regardless I recently ended a relationship with a Christian girl. Religion was never an issue in our relationship, neither were her much more conservative political views, we certainly had some heated conversations but that just keeps things interesting. I'm very much open to dating a girl with different religious or political views, because for the most part, those don't actually effect anything. Whereas I see eating meat as causing very real and measurable suffering, and being in the presence of someone engaging in that practice throughout the day, everyday, it kind of gets to me. 



bubba13 said:


> Mind, will you marry ME?
> 
> :lol:


Hmm.. you're a vegetarian, biologist, who loves horses and would like to become a vet or professor?

You sound like the exact type of girl I'd like to meet 

I'm on a very similar path. If only it weren't so difficult to be accepted into veterinary school, in my area something like 3% of applicants actually get in, that number is a bit skewed due the number of people who apply multiple times, but still. My back up plan is a Ph.D.. I'd love to work in a wild life research position or teach at the levels of university if being a vet isn't possible. I should probably make a realistic back up plan one day :lol:


----------



## demonwolfmoon

mind said:


> Interestingly, I'm an atheist, maybe agnostic, not sure, but regardless I recently ended a relationship with a Christian girl. Religion was never an issue in our relationship, neither were her much more conservative political views, we certainly had some heated conversations but that just keeps things interesting. I'm very much open to dating a girl with different religious or political views, because for the most part, those don't actually effect anything. Whereas I see eating meat as causing very real and measurable suffering, and being in the presence of someone engaging in that practice throughout the day, everyday, it kind of gets to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.. you're a vegetarian, biologist, who loves horses and would like to become a vet or professor?
> 
> You sound like the exact type of girl I'd like to meet
> 
> I'm on a very similar path. If only it weren't so difficult to be accepted into veterinary school, in my area something like 3% of applicants actually get in, that number is a bit skewed due the number of people who apply multiple times, but still. My back up plan is a Ph.D.. I'd love to work in a wild life research position or teach at the levels of university if being a vet isn't possible. I should probably make a realistic back up plan one day :lol:


Heh, see, I can argue that organized religion CAN AND DOES cause all sorts of MEASURABLE suffering in the world. Not the religion itself per se, but the way that people choose to follow it. For example: the current issue with gay marriage is causing a lot of people emotional suffering. The recent issue with gay men being arrested on "suspicion" of being gay (from a change.org email, not sure the country)...not to mention the GENOCIDE that has been perpetrated in the name of the various religions over time. I mean really...human on human violence in the name of religions who ALL request tolerance from their adherents. xD

Anyway, that is a horrible horrible admittance rate. And here I am just DYING over the grad school applications right now. I am SO STRESSED OUT that I'm actually sick. It's ridiculous, 20 and thirty percent acceptance rates, and you get to pay them to apply so they can reject you....between that, calculus and the fear of taking the GRE, I'm a flat out mess....

PS: I was going to go the MD route, but for forensics, its a stupid amount of Post Doc training...so I'm going to grad school, then at a later date, on for my Ph.D.


----------



## bubba13

mind said:


> Interestingly, I'm an atheist, maybe agnostic, not sure, but regardless I recently ended a relationship with a Christian girl. Religion was never an issue in our relationship, neither were her much more conservative political views, we certainly had some heated conversations but that just keeps things interesting. I'm very much open to dating a girl with different religious or political views, because for the most part, those don't actually effect anything. Whereas I see eating meat as causing very real and measurable suffering, and being in the presence of someone engaging in that practice throughout the day, everyday, it kind of gets to me.


But are you a vegan? I really have no qualms with people eating meat, though I'd prefer they not, for the simple fact that I realize that even I am a hypocrite and how dare I judge others? I eat dairy because I need to get calcium and protein somehow, even though I know that in many ways the dairy industry is worse than the meat one. It's just not affordable or practical to cut it out of y diet. And dairy/eggs are in practically _everything_. And I use leather, which comes from....dead things. My "positive impact," I realize, is negligible.

Someone was bitching at me for being a vegetarian one time, and sent me this picture. It made me made, sure, but she had a point....













> I'm on a very similar path. If only it weren't so difficult to be accepted into veterinary school, in my area something like 3% of applicants actually get in, that number is a bit skewed due the number of people who apply multiple times, but still. My back up plan is a Ph.D.. I'd love to work in a wild life research position or teach at the levels of university if being a vet isn't possible. I should probably make a realistic back up plan one day :lol:


What is your area? I'm in Missouri, and 1 in 9 applicants get into Mizzou vet school. However, that's including all of the out-of-state applicants, of which there are around 800, competing for 110 spots. Of in-state people, about 1 in 3 are accepted.

Then there's always Ross, apparently, the scary school in the Caribbean that apparently has nearly-guaranteed acceptance, or so I've heard.... :shock:


----------



## Faceman

bubba13 said:


> Then there's always Ross, apparently, the scary school in the Caribbean that apparently has nearly-guaranteed acceptance, or so I've heard.... :shock:


True, and the really good thing about Ross is when you graduate you have your choice of receiving a DVM or MD...:rofl:


----------



## bubba13

Oh, Face, here's a story for you. A few months ago I was at PFI and started talking to the saddle salesmen Josh and Larry (great guys, if you don't know them, and some might recognize them from infomercials on RFD-TV). They asked how school was going, and I said great, getting ready to apply to vet school, yada yada. They said, oh really, meet "Jamie," she's a vet! And Jamie came up and said hi, nice to meet you, yes I just graduated, and great news, I just found out that my vet school was accredited last week! :shock:

So, apparently, she's working on commission as a sales clerk at a Western store with a sleazy employee reputation after "graduating" from a non-accredited vet school that was in St. Thomas or somewhere like that. Sounds like a plan.


----------



## bubba13

This interesting evolution article just popped up on Facebook, so I thought I'd post it here: MSU News Service - Dinosaurs with killer claws yield new theory about flight


----------



## Faceman

bubba13 said:


> Oh, Face, here's a story for you. A few months ago I was at PFI and started talking to the saddle salesmen Josh and Larry (great guys, if you don't know them, and some might recognize them from infomercials on RFD-TV). They asked how school was going, and I said great, getting ready to apply to vet school, yada yada. They said, oh really, meet "Jamie," she's a vet! And Jamie came up and said hi, nice to meet you, yes I just graduated, and great news, I just found out that my vet school was accredited last week! :shock:
> 
> So, apparently, she's working on commission as a sales clerk at a Western store with a sleazy employee reputation after "graduating" from a non-accredited vet school that was in St. Thomas or somewhere like that. Sounds like a plan.


Wow...yeah, those schools rank right up there with the internet "get your MBA at home" schools...:rofl:


----------



## sarahver

Faceman said:


> Wow...yeah, those schools rank right up there with the internet "get your MBA at home" schools...:rofl:


I personally *love* those schools cos they add value to _my_ AACSB accredited institution when all the other suckers enter the job market with their degree that was printed on the back of a cereal box :thumbsup:

Bubba, I'm gonna check out that article later, thanks for sharing....


----------



## Bearkiller

mind said:


> I wonder if that has anything to do with vegetarians statistically having higher IQs


 
haha. Let's pretend that you're right, for a second, and go straight into the biggest problem for vegetarians trying to convert people. Most of you quickly depart from intelligent conversation and FACTS and head straight into the holier than thou BS. Let's see the peer reviewed study that you have, that supports this theory. Statistics are easily manipulted or misrepresented. I also wonder about someone who doesn't know if they are agnostic or athiest but thinks they're some form of higher being.


----------



## bubba13

Here's your peer-reviewed study, Bearkiller: BBC NEWS | Health | High IQ link to being vegetarian


----------



## demonwolfmoon

bubba13 said:


> Here's your peer-reviewed study, Bearkiller: BBC NEWS | Health | High IQ link to being vegetarian


I'm going to go ahead and say the same thing to you guys that I've repeatedly said to my husband (he and his brother have a lot more "IQ" pointage than I do lol)

*"IQ" means NOTHING unless you do something with it.*
If you have a high IQ and sit around congratulating yourself at how smart you are and discussing complicated things, twiddling your thumbs and accomplishing NOTHING, who cares how high your IQ is?

I'm not saying this about you, Bubba13....but I think that the "high IQ with vegetarianism" argument is pretty much...well a moot point *unless you can show that vegetarians are DOING something with it that benefits society and not just patting themselves on the back for their high moral standards.*

On that note, trying another stint of "veganism"...xD
Let's see how long I last this time hehe.


----------



## bubba13

I don't think it's a moot point, but I don't think it means what some people are saying it means. It comes down to interpretation of the data.

The causative factor, I would think, has to do with socioeconomic background, culture, and education. A lot of IQ has to do with how you were raised and stimulated from a young age. Meaning you have a far better chance of being smarter, and having the propensity to learn, if you have good parents with comfortable incomes and time to spend with you teaching you things. It's not 100%, but fair or not, like it or not, it's a _huge_ factor.

So say you get into a better school, learn more, question more, have more support, can devote more time to moral quandries (think Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs here)....you can spare a lot more compassion for animals. You have more time and more concern and more options to eliminate them from your diet. 

Anecdotally speaking, I've only known a couple of dumb vegetarians (and they generally don't last all that long, the temptation of bacon being too great), but the vast majority have been highly intelligent people, college professors and the like, but we aren't talking crazy radicals here, either. People who had studied religion and philosophy and come to the final moral conclusion. Which isn't to say that they're aren't plenty of bright meat-eaters as well....loads of them. And loads of dumb and moderate ones, too. But that's where "statistics" come into play. Since there are far fewer vegetarians, it doesn't take much to pull that IQ number up.

So it's not that refraining from eating meat makes you smarter. It's just that smart people are slightly more likely to become vegetarian. My life experience supports the numbers.


----------



## mind

Bearkiller said:


> haha. Let's pretend that you're right, for a second, and go straight into the biggest problem for vegetarians trying to convert people. Most of you quickly depart from intelligent conversation and FACTS and head straight into the holier than thou BS. Let's see the peer reviewed study that you have, that supports this theory. Statistics are easily manipulted or misrepresented. I also wonder about someone who doesn't know if they are agnostic or athiest but thinks they're some form of higher being.


The iq comment was a joke, nothing more, hence the smilie which followed it. Iq tests have no validity, applying a numerical value to an individuals intelligence is impossible. An example, a gifted artist is equally intelligent as an accomplished mathematician, but no test can apply a numerical value to an artists ability, therefore an iq test would infer that artist is not intelligent.

As a vegetarian, I do not try to convert people, I simply point out that the current system is grossly flawed. I don't support the way animals are treated, slaughtered, or the disconnect which exists between the life of a living creature and a object in the grocery store. If a person chooses to continue a omnivorous diet well fully aware of the facts, that's their decision and are fully entitled to it.

Are there people with ridiculous, foolish opinions who poorly represent vegetarians and vegans by making outlandish claims and presenting unprovable information in debate, of course! Is that not the case in every movement with significant followings? I'm sure there are pro-gun activists who would argue ordinary citizens be allowed to own rocket launchers for personal protection, but that doesn't invalidate the positions of those who present logical arguments on hand or long gun ownership.

Do I have a firm knowledge on my exact beliefs regarding the creation of the universe, no. My opinion on that subject, is like all things, ever evolving as new information is presented to me. My openness to new information is a positive quality, but I wouldn't consider myself a higher being because of it, I'm just a complex arrangement of elements forming an interdependent cell structure that happens to be self aware, how very special we humans are.

I do however agree with you on one point, statistics are a nearly useless piece of information.


----------



## demonwolfmoon

mind said:


> I do however agree with you on one point, statistics are a nearly useless piece of information.


Hm...do you mean this as a field-wide statement?
Because I have to say, at least with respect to forensic purposes, statistics are a valuable tool, when used correctly.


----------



## mind

demonwolfmoon said:


> Hm...do you mean this as a field-wide statement?
> Because I have to say, at least with respect to forensic purposes, statistics are a valuable tool, when used correctly.


Certainly in specific fields statistics can be useful, they're useful in some of the very contained population groups I've studied in school. I was more referring to the type that are frequently thrown around in the media and such, because I think that's what bearkiller was referring too, should have been more specific.


----------



## demonwolfmoon

mind said:


> Certainly in specific fields statistics can be useful, they're useful in some of the very contained population groups I've studied in school. I was more referring to the type that are frequently thrown around in the media and such, because I think that's what bearkiller was referring too, should have been more specific.


Oh, ok yeah, those are misused, miscalculated and misrepresented.
I'm thinking more along the lines of forensic anthropology...statistics are used in reconstruction among other things 

Actually, my Statistics for Forensics Science professor was a funny guy...when you can understand his English (lol).
He said that he wanted to call the class, "How Not to Screw up at Statistics", but the administration wouldn't let him. In fact, he pointed out errors in a common statistical method and proved it, though I have to say I've already forgotten which one....


----------



## Bearkiller

mind said:


> I'm sure there are pro-gun activists who would argue ordinary citizens be allowed to own rocket launchers for personal protection, but that doesn't invalidate the positions of those who present logical arguments on hand or long gun ownership.


 
As a pro-gun person (who is in no way an activist) I will submit to you that the positions taken by anti gun people are invalid based on one (of the many) glaring weakness in their arguments. People have the RIGHT to defend themselves. I personally think that rocket launchers are not only ok for people in a free society to own but I think all local communities should have armory's set up (non government owned) with weapons to defend itself FROM THE GOVERNMENT. US history is pretty clear on this. The second ammendment is clear on this. Lets use this for an example: If you were dropped on an island in the middle of no where, with nothing. Your first basic instinct is self preservation. Food, water, and shelter. If someone were to try and attack you, would you have the right to defend yourself? Or would you be required to wait for some "authority"? The answer is simple. Defend yourself with whatever means required. We don't all live 5 minutes from the police station. I feel like it is my DUTY to defend my family. That's why I have a concealed weapons permit. People shouldn't have to have a permit to defend themselves. People have been killing people long before there were guns. There is no dispute to that.


----------



## bubba13

Bearkiller said:


> I personally think that rocket launchers are not only ok for people in a free society to own but I think all local communities should have armory's set up (non government owned) with weapons to defend itself FROM THE GOVERNMENT.


And this about sums it up.

If you can't beat it with words or peacefully coexist, just BLAST IT TO SMITHEREENS.


----------



## Bearkiller

bubba13 said:


> And this about sums it up.
> 
> If you can't beat it with words or peacefully coexist, just BLAST IT TO SMITHEREENS.


Wow, going with racism charges? Strange that I come from a mixed race family. haha 

I believed in freedom long before Obama was ever elected. In fact, i never mentioned him. I just believe in *personal* accountability.


----------



## bubba13

It was the only photo I could find of him in the crosshairs. I do recall your old signature, though.... "If you voted for Obama to prove you're not a racist, you'll have to vote for someone else to prove you're not an idiot this time," or something to that effect. Those politics are fine. The radical right notion that we need to batten down the hatches and arm ourselves with nukes to defend ourselves from the evil Guvmint is, well, alarmist and absurd.

And changing subject, how about the peer-reviewed article I provided, that you said did not and could not exist?


----------



## Bearkiller

I, personally, believe in peacefully coexisting. I'm a Ron Paul supporter. I believe that every human being has a right to exist EQUALLY with other human beings from the day they are conceived. Government is a GREAT mechanism for discrimination. I believe in personal liberty not collective liberty.


----------



## Bearkiller

bubba13 said:


> The radical right notion that we need to batten down the hatches and arm ourselves with nukes to defend ourselves from the evil Guvmint is, well, alarmist and absurd.


See, this is where we depart ways. I don't think freedom is a radical idea. 


I LOVE our government. I think we have the BEST form of government ever implemented. In fact, there has never been a better "social experiment" than our self governing system. Is it perfect? No. But it's still the best. 


BTW, I found the racism charge classless and irresponsible. 


My old signature said pretty much what you said it did and it was meant to be funny. 

I'll read your study tonight, even though you've already admitted it was flawed.


----------



## mind

Bearkiller said:


> As a pro-gun person (who is in no way an activist) I will submit to you that the positions taken by anti gun people are invalid based on one (of the many) glaring weakness in their arguments. People have the RIGHT to defend themselves. I personally think that rocket launchers are not only ok for people in a free society to own but I think all local communities should have armory's set up (non government owned) with weapons to defend itself FROM THE GOVERNMENT. US history is pretty clear on this. The second ammendment is clear on this. Lets use this for an example: If you were dropped on an island in the middle of no where, with nothing. Your first basic instinct is self preservation. Food, water, and shelter. If someone were to try and attack you, would you have the right to defend yourself? Or would you be required to wait for some "authority"? The answer is simple. Defend yourself with whatever means required. We don't all live 5 minutes from the police station. I feel like it is my DUTY to defend my family. That's why I have a concealed weapons permit. People shouldn't have to have a permit to defend themselves. People have been killing people long before there were guns. There is no dispute to that.


The fire arms example was intended to illustrate my point on why the inevitable irrational individuals points should not be a basis to dismiss the valid points of those within the same movement, I really don't want to discuss American gun policies to much, because that's dramatically off-topic. 

I will say however, I've never felt so threatened by another person that a gun would be necessary to defend myself and can't imagine a situation where it would. It's entirely possible that I would feel there is a possibility someone would threaten me to that extent living in America, but certainly not in Canada. Perspective is a huge motivator in forming opinions, and ours are very different due to living in different places 

It's nice to hear your a Ron Paul supporter, he's very popular among Canadians and makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Faceman

bubba13 said:


> The radical right notion that we need to batten down the hatches and arm ourselves with nukes to defend ourselves from the evil Guvmint is, well, alarmist and absurd.


Easy for you to say, Mo - you are 21, so it's only the last 10 or 12 years that you are socially concious of. You have no basis of comparison because you know no other way of life. For those of us that are (substantially) older, we can remember a time when freedom actually existed in this country...too bad you missed it...


----------



## Faceman

Well, let's see. I was born and raised dirt poor, my parents were uneducated and did not emphasize education at all in my upbringing, and I am not a vegetarian. I must be an anomally or some kind of throwback as my IQ is extremely high.

Sorry - I don't buy the wacko liberal view that IQ is related to socioeconomics...that is just another socialistic ploy to entitle everyone, whether they earn/deserve it or not...


----------



## bubba13

Faceman said:


> Easy for you to say, Mo - you are 21, so it's only the last 10 or 12 years that you are socially concious of. You have no basis of comparison because you know no other way of life. For those of us that are (substantially) older, we can remember a time when freedom actually existed in this country...too bad you missed it...


Certainly the country has changed, and certainly I don't know what the "good old days" were like....but do you really think that warrants everyone arming themselves and preparing for Armageddon, as was implied? It's not about gun rights' of the private citizen. It's about a battle royale between citizens and evil government, or something, apparently.



Faceman said:


> Well, let's see. I was born and raised dirt poor, my parents were uneducated and did not emphasize education at all in my upbringing, and I am not a vegetarian. I must be an anomally or some kind of throwback as my IQ is extremely high.
> 
> Sorry - I don't buy the wacko liberal view that IQ is related to socioeconomics...that is just another socialistic ploy to entitle everyone, whether they earn/deserve it or not...


It's been studied, Face. The more "stimulation" you have at a young age, the higher your intelligence....in all animals. You can even see the differences in the cortex on brain scans. It's not directly related to socioeconomics except that, statistically again, wealthier people are probably slightly more likely to be "good" parents. Don't twist that the wrong way. There are terrible parents from all social strata, and a dirt poor kid living a good life in the country is far more likely to grow up right than a rich one with no parental interaction who lives in front of the TV. But those who don't have to work three jobs, or worry where their next meal is coming from, or sweat about the rent, have more opportunities to raise their children right. There are lower test scores among the impoverished for a reason, and higher rates of violence, and so on. As you yourself have said before, it's not discrimination if it's true.


----------



## mind

Faceman said:


> Well, let's see. I was born and raised dirt poor, my parents were uneducated and did not emphasize education at all in my upbringing, and I am not a vegetarian. I must be an anomally or some kind of throwback as my IQ is extremely high.
> 
> Sorry - I don't buy the wacko liberal view that IQ is related to socioeconomics...that is just another socialistic ploy to entitle everyone, whether they earn/deserve it or not...


Intelligence is a product of nurturing and genetics, most commonly that is through a conventional academic education, but a child who never attends school and plays chess everyday is still exercising their mind, socioeconomic status is irrelevant if the desire to learn exists.

No one ever stated that intelligent people are exclusively vegetarian, precluding omnivores from that status. Most vegetarians are intelligent, not most intelligent people are vegetarians. I've never met a vegetarian who I would not consider to be an intelligent person, probably because it requires a deep thought process to make the decision to go so against the grain of society.


----------



## demonwolfmoon

bubba13 said:


> ht. There are lower test scores among the impoverished for a reason, and higher rates of violence, and so on. As you yourself have said before, it's not discrimination if it's true.


Higher rates of violence have been linked conclusively to employment rates, in several countries. 

I do somewhat agree with Faceman...I'm 30...and I remember when our country was not the way it is now. It's so WEIRD to be saying that! :shock:
And as for intelligence, again, I have to go back to the whole, who cares unless you use it argument. I go to school with a LOT of rich or upper middle class "kids" 18-20ish. There are SO MANY of them that are complete wtf idiots who are supposedly very smart. And those are just the ones who bothered to go to college. 

In My personal experience, my mother is VERY VERY book smart, she was an art major, and *is* an artist.....but she's now poor as dirt, barely has food, hasn't worked more than one official job in the entire time I've been alive, can't/won't drive...you see what I'm getting at, yes? My husband's brother is VERY VERY bright...again, not sure the exact score since it's been YEARS, but he scored much better than I did on IQ tests....Yeah, he dropped out of High school and works as a parts buyer at his dad's mechanic shop, last I heard. My husband also scores far higher than I have, he got a 99 on his ASVAB, joined the MARINES, could go to school but doesn't....oh, but he'll argue peer reviewed papers, politics and criminal justice with me. xD

Again, to make a short story long....saying vegetarians are more intelligent (for whatever reason) doesn't impress me. I'm sure we all know at least one REALLY REALLY bright person who has done absolutely nothing for themselves or society. Now vegetarianism can make a positive impact, theoretically...but so can limiting meat consumption or raising your own meat or any number of things....including politics X_X


----------



## Faceman

bubba13 said:


> Certainly the country has changed, and certainly I don't know what the "good old days" were like....but do you really think that warrants everyone arming themselves and preparing for Armageddon, as was implied? It's not about gun rights' of the private citizen. It's about a battle royale between citizens and evil government, or something, apparently.


But you don't have any conception of just how much it has changed. That's not your fault - again you have no basis of comparison. There was a time when the federal government did only what the federal government was supposed to do..it didn't have its hand into every single facet of society, and where it was involved, it was not nearly to the extent it is today. There was a time when a high school graduate actually had a high school education - hard to believe by today's standards. There was a day you could actually take home the majority of the money you earned, and there was a day you were expected to work for a living rather than living off of handouts. There was a day you could afford going to the doctor because there were fewer government regulations to push up the cost of medical care and prescriptions. There was a day when an employer could pay a high enough wage for employees to live on and still make a profit rather than having to give up his revenues for taxes and to comply with oppressive regulations. There was a day when you could go to a store and receive good customer service because government regulations hadn't forced so many small businesses to go belly up that only a handful of mega businesses could survive. There was a day when there was true competition in the oil industry before the government sanctioned so many mergers and acquisitions that the oil industry is no longer competitive, which permits price fixing - which most assuredly is done. There was a time when almost everyone paid federal income tax - and could afford it...now more than 50% of the people pay no federal income tax at all and make no contribution to the country - unless you consider taking handouts making a contribution.

I could go on and on, and the last few years are just the icing on the cake. I'm not being critical, just stating fact, but Obama has run up more debt than all other Presidents combined in our 235 year history...just think about that - it is simply incredible.

The sad fact is that as we continue to lose our freedoms, each passing generation becomes, like you, so removed, that they don't know any better. But the cumulative result of the last 45 years of chipping away of our freedoms has been a massive transition. We are not even remotely the same country we were 45 years ago. Some may say that is good, but with the exception of the socialists, those that think it is good don't know any better - they don't know what it is like to live in a truly free country. Again, that's not your fault or their fault - your benchmark/baseline for measurement is after many many freedoms have already been lost. The same thing applie to me - I have no idea what it was like to live during the roaring 20's or the Great Depression.

Sorry for the rant, and I am not trying to pull the age card, but the fact of the matter is, no one in this country under the age of 45 or 50 can really measure or comprehend just what has happened. It has nothing to do with longing for the "olden days" - heck, I like having a computer and a television and a cell phone and microwave and all the other conveniences that weren't around when I was young...I wouldn't want to go back to the "olden days" in those respects. But I feel a true loss when I look around and see just how our freedoms have been gradually chipped away, leaving us where we are today, and it saddens me that young people are not well enough versed in history and economics to even have any conception of what we once were...


----------



## bubba13

[/


Bearkiller said:


> BTW, I found the racism charge classless and irresponsible.


I didn't play the racism card. I simply chose a photo off of Google Images to illustrate the point I felt you were making: the citizens versus the government, in a battle of arms.



mind said:


> Intelligence is a product of nurturing and genetics, most commonly that is through a conventional academic education, but a child who never attends school and plays chess everyday is still exercising their mind, socioeconomic status is irrelevant if the desire to learn exists.


Right. But in the formative years, "desire" to learn has little affect on, say, a two-year-old. It's all got to be environment here. And it doesn't have to be "Baby Einstein" videos. Anything stimulating will cause and increased development of the cortex. In animals like rats and pigs, they've simply created different living conditions experimentally: a bare cage or a tunnel of mazes with lots of toys. Unsurprisingly, the animals kept in the latter environment are much smarter, better adjusted, and better at problem-solving as adults. The same is true in humans. Bringing money into the equation was misguided, I guess--not really sure how that got brought up, unless it has to do with affording education and such, but by that time, "IQ" has already developed. The fact still remains that there is a definite link between intelligence and vegetarianism, for whatever reason, with no value judgment attached to that statement. I've simply given my hypothesis as to why that occurs. This may not hold true outside of Western countries, say in India, where in some places vegetarianism is the cultural norm.



demonwolfmoon said:


> And as for intelligence, again, I have to go back to the whole, who cares unless you use it argument.


IQ doesn't mean you're "smart" in terms of knowing stuff. It just relates to how quickly you can learn and how well you retain knowledge. And there are different forms of IQ, as well, as you'll see with autistic savants and the like. Think the Rainman.



> Again, to make a short story long....saying vegetarians are more intelligent (for whatever reason) doesn't impress me. I'm sure we all know at least one REALLY REALLY bright person who has done absolutely nothing for themselves or society. Now vegetarianism can make a positive impact, theoretically...but so can limiting meat consumption or raising your own meat or any number of things....including politics X_X


I don't think anyone is saying that vegetarians are smarter and thus better people. All of what you're saying is really besides the point of this argument, true or not. 



Faceman said:


> But you don't have any conception of just how much it has changed....


Same with you, Face. What you're saying is fine and good--no doubt guilty as charged--but it has no bearing on what Bearkiller said. Do you really agree with this?

_I personally think that rocket launchers are not only ok for people in a free society to own but I think all local communities should have armory's set up (non government owned) with weapons to defend itself FROM THE GOVERNMENT._

If it comes to this, it's going to come down to a free-for-all, and anarchy, and the death of both democracy and America. It's not going to be brave patriots fighting nobly for their freedoms. It's going to be chaos, and misery, and murder, and rape, and pillaging....irredeemable. Apocalyptic.


----------



## tempest

demonwolfmoon said:


> My husband also scores far higher than I have, he got a 99 on his ASVAB, joined the MARINES, could go to school but doesn't....oh, but he'll argue peer reviewed papers, politics and criminal justice with me. xD


A 99!! Wow, tell him I said congratulations. What was/is his job?


----------



## demonwolfmoon

tempest said:


> A 99!! Wow, tell him I said congratulations. What was/is his job?


Lol
He's Supply xD
I guess if he were to be in a civilian job it would be Logistics. Right now he is the one and only active duty supply person at an I&I in PA.


----------



## Faceman

bubba13 said:


> [/
> 
> Same with you, Face. What you're saying is fine and good--no doubt guilty as charged--but it has no bearing on what Bearkiller said. Do you really agree with this?
> 
> _I personally think that rocket launchers are not only ok for people in a free society to own but I think all local communities should have armory's set up (non government owned) with weapons to defend itself FROM THE GOVERNMENT._


No, of course not - nor did I intimate that I did. Armed chaos is rarely, if ever, a reasonable solution to a problem...


----------



## bubba13

Then am I missing the point of your post in #203? Afraid I'm not following.


----------



## Faceman

bubba13 said:


> Then am I missing the point of your post in #203? Afraid I'm not following.


Evidently you are. I hadn't even read the post you were referring to that someone made about arming citizenry with rockets. Actually, I still haven't. Can't agree or disagree with something I haven't even read now, can I? My post was obviously in response to yours - not someone else's...did you miss the quote too?


----------



## bubba13

This was the progression:



Bearkiller said:


> As a pro-gun person (who is in no way an activist) I will submit to you that the positions taken by anti gun people are invalid based on one (of the many) glaring weakness in their arguments. People have the RIGHT to defend themselves.* I personally think that rocket launchers are not only ok for people in a free society to own but I think all local communities should have armory's set up (non government owned) with weapons to defend itself FROM THE GOVERNMENT.* US history is pretty clear on this. The second ammendment is clear on this. Lets use this for an example: If you were dropped on an island in the middle of no where, with nothing. Your first basic instinct is self preservation. Food, water, and shelter. If someone were to try and attack you, would you have the right to defend yourself? Or would you be required to wait for some "authority"? The answer is simple. Defend yourself with whatever means required. We don't all live 5 minutes from the police station. I feel like it is my DUTY to defend my family. That's why I have a concealed weapons permit. People shouldn't have to have a permit to defend themselves. People have been killing people long before there were guns. There is no dispute to that.





bubba13 said:


> It was the only photo I could find of him in the crosshairs. I do recall your old signature, though.... "If you voted for Obama to prove you're not a racist, you'll have to vote for someone else to prove you're not an idiot this time," or something to that effect. Those politics are fine. *The radical right notion that we need to batten down the hatches and arm ourselves with nukes to defend ourselves from the evil Guvmint is, well, alarmist and absurd.*
> 
> And changing subject, how about the peer-reviewed article I provided, that you said did not and could not exist?





Faceman said:


> Easy for you to say, Mo - you are 21, so it's only the last 10 or 12 years that you are socially concious of. You have no basis of comparison because you know no other way of life. For those of us that are (substantially) older, we can remember a time when freedom actually existed in this country...too bad you missed it...


The "nukes" thing was hyperbole, but easy to draw from rocket launchers, really. Bearkiller was saying far more than "we need our freedoms." He was, in effect, implying a physical revolution against the government should it encroach any more upon the individual's rights--or at least that's how I read the post. Not sure how else it could be read. Again, guns and war and anarchy. Hardly democracy; hardly realistic.

Perhaps I'm making a big deal of this when it's not warranted (and I apologize, if so), but I simply would have thought you'd have known me better to interpret my posts in the way you have, thinking I needed a lecture on how America has deviated from the Founding Fathers' ideals and whatnot....I may be, in your eyes, a liberal and naive college student, but I'm not an closed-minded, history-illiterate idiot (and I know you aren't exactly calling me that, but my feelings are a bit bruised all the same). Your points are all fine and good, in other words, I'm just not sure why you felt the need to mention them at all except through a misinterpretation of what I've said. I'm hardly against personal rights (or tighter gun control), and I'm hardly against changing the governments' policies to grant more individual freedoms....

And now I've created a scene, but I'm going to go ahead and make a fool of myself and post this as I've already spent the time typing it up....


----------



## mind

> As a pro-gun person (who is in no way an activist) I will submit to you that the positions taken by anti gun people are invalid based on one (of the many) glaring weakness in their arguments. People have the RIGHT to defend themselves. I personally think that rocket launchers are not only ok for people in a free society to own but* I think all local communities should have armory's set up (non government owned) with weapons to defend itself FROM THE GOVERNMENT.* US history is pretty clear on this. The second ammendment is clear on this. Lets use this for an example: If you were dropped on an island in the middle of no where, with nothing. Your first basic instinct is self preservation. Food, water, and shelter. If someone were to try and attack you, would you have the right to defend yourself? Or would you be required to wait for some "authority"? The answer is simple. Defend yourself with whatever means required. We don't all live 5 minutes from the police station. I feel like it is my DUTY to defend my family. That's why I have a concealed weapons permit. People shouldn't have to have a permit to defend themselves. People have been killing people long before there were guns. There is no dispute to that.


In a society, and I'm not referring exclusively to that of America although that is the primary focus of the thread, rather all developed nations, where voter participation levels hover between fifty and sixty percent in federal elections and progressively lessen for state/provincial and municipal bodies I would find it ironic to physically arm citizens against the government. Without bloodshed, without an ugly struggle that suspends the progress of the majority of institutions, without tearing apart families and destroying property, more people could take a few minutes every few years and actually cast a ballot. For people to have the desire to fight a government that they effectively participated in putting into place is bewildering to me. 



bubba13 said:


> And now I've created a scene, but I'm going to go ahead and make a fool of myself and post this as I've already spent the time typing it up....


I'll briefly touch on this, although I'm questioning if I should, I don't think you've created a scene at all, you've made very valid and good points and I'm glad you chose to post that response. 

Not in this thread exclusively, but in general, older and more conservative people seem to think that young liberal people are naive and that influences our decision making processes. That couldn't be farther from the truth though, we grew up in a different world than someone in their forties and as such our opinions are different, but that does not invalidate them.


----------



## Faceman

bubba13 said:


> This was the progression:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "nukes" thing was hyperbole, but easy to draw from rocket launchers, really. Bearkiller was saying far more than "we need our freedoms." He was, in effect, implying a physical revolution against the government should it encroach any more upon the individual's rights--or at least that's how I read the post. Not sure how else it could be read. Again, guns and war and anarchy. Hardly democracy; hardly realistic.
> 
> Perhaps I'm making a big deal of this when it's not warranted (and I apologize, if so), but I simply would have thought you'd have known me better to interpret my posts in the way you have, thinking I needed a lecture on how America has deviated from the Founding Fathers' ideals and whatnot....I may be, in your eyes, a liberal and naive college student, but I'm not an closed-minded, history-illiterate idiot (and I know you aren't exactly calling me that, but my feelings are a bit bruised all the same). Your points are all fine and good, in other words, I'm just not sure why you felt the need to mention them at all except through a misinterpretation of what I've said. I'm hardly against personal rights (or tighter gun control), and I'm hardly against changing the governments' policies to grant more individual freedoms....
> 
> And now I've created a scene, but I'm going to go ahead and make a fool of myself and post this as I've already spent the time typing it up....


I don't think you're making a fool of yourself - you know how much respect I have for your reasoning ability and logic - and your opinion. Nonetheless, your baseline is far different than mine when it comes to assessing our freedoms. In 40 years you will be able to compare then with now and see what changes, for the good or bad, have transpired in your lifetime, but at this point in time it is mere conjecture. Where it might be a surprise to you that so many people are anti government right now, it comes as no surprise to me because I have seen government change from its constitutional duty to an omnipotent monster that dictates our daily life. If and when you open your vet clinic, you will be shocked at just how difficult it will be to comply with all the regulations, taxes, and paperwork with which you will be challenged.

We go through cycles - liberal cycles, and conservative cycles...ebb and flow. But because liberal cycles increase the size and scope of government, and because government is the epitome of enertia, regardless of the cycles the movement is always in the liberal direction, meaning bigger and more intrusive government with corresponding losses of freedoms. There is no magic or radical right wing interpretation there - that is just the way things are. 

The issue today is that we have in the last few years crossed some kind of breaking point. I can't point to the exact time or exact circumstance that caused it, but somewhere along the line the government became a benefactor rather than a governor, thus creating a sense of entitlement that the government's purpose was to "take care" of us. That, of course, is not its purpose. The "general welfare" of the people is not intended to mean to put food on the table, pay the light bill, help with the house payment, provide an income, or provide big screen TV's, cell phones, or anything else.

Because we have crossed that intangible line, there is currently a backlash, and in my mind rightfully so. But no, despite what radicals may say, violence is not the answer. We have a long tradition of peaceful successsion and I see no reason change cannot continue to be accomplished peacefully. In actual fact, the violence, and there may be violence at some point, is far more likely to come from those that feel entitled if and when their handouts are threatened or taken away or no longer possible, thanit is to come from the right. Look no farther than the riots in Europe or the "Wall Street" movement to see that...


----------



## Faceman

mind said:


> Not in this thread exclusively, but in general, older and more conservative people seem to think that young liberal people are naive and that influences our decision making processes. That couldn't be farther from the truth though, we grew up in a different world than someone in their forties and as such our opinions are different, but that does not invalidate them.


Naivity does not invalidate opinions, however it does make them naive opinions.

Naivity is not restricted to to young people. We older folks are just as naive about contemporary social trends and philosophies that are the norm to young people as you young people are naive about what life was like 40 or 50 years ago, and just as I am naive about what life was like 150 years ago. 

There is nothing strange or offensive about social naivity...for the old or the young...it is what it is. The only way to avoid it is to be immortal and to have experienced life from the beginning...


----------



## bubba13

I wouldn't be surprised if violence comes from either direction. Both sides have practically avowed it, if the crazy posts that show up on my Facebook feed are any indication. Radicals--of any kind--are dangerous and despicable. And I hope and pray it never comes to large scale violence or even a "civil war" of sorts....because that will set in motion a path of destruction that will end all semblance of the way of life we know....no hyperbole there.

In other words, to bring us back full circle:


----------



## demonwolfmoon

Well guys, I surely hope it does not come to violence....my husband IS military after all, and it's the military that would suffer losses during any civil war or other violent uprisings.

My issue is that I'm not sure voting is the answer. FFS, people seem to believe that we have only two political parties and vote accordingly! So now here's the choice: Dirty Liar #1 or Dirty Liar #2: NEITHER ONE OF THEM will accomplish half of the platform they campaign on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The current system is not working....all our industry is overseas, our economy is shot, and there are NO JOBS out there. We have no pride in American society really, and the one huge campaign issue despite this is....Abortion?! 0.o
American society needs to collectively pull their heads out of the SAND and take a good look at what we have allowed our government to do...did I ever tell you guys that my husband (the Marine) orders office chairs, plain old office chairs for more than 5-6 *hundred* dollars each??? And he is limited to certain companies that have military contracts? Ever wonder where our tax money goes? Well my husband is sitting in a POS six hundred dollar office chair.

When I was a little kid, they filled our heads with "America the Great!", and how we could be ANYTHING we wanted, and how awesome we are...now there are no jobs, people are desperate and the patriotism is GONE. I think that patriotism is about respect and pride, and we have lost our pride in our country....hell, how much was that tea tax we fought England over? I think that we suffer a lot more now and are just TOO COMPLACENT to do anything about it, even simply by refusing to elect corrupt idiots who we should know by now...are lying through their teeth while stabbing us in the back.

/end rant.

But seriously...something has to be done.... at what point do things start to change for the better?


----------



## Faceman

demonwolfmoon said:


> Well guys, I surely hope it does not come to violence....my husband IS military after all, and it's the military that would suffer losses during any civil war or other violent uprisings.


Yeah, that is pretty spooky. I was in the Army from 1967 - 1969 during the Vietnam war. Vietnam was bad enough, but that was also the time of all the big riots in this country, and part of my training was riot training. While I was stateside we were always on call to be shipped to wherever there was a riot. That was a far bigger fear to me than going to Vietnam. The prospect of shooting my own people just petrified me, and of course the Kent State massacre was just a year later. Luckily I never had to go to suppress a riot, and it is a good thing, because I would probably still be in prison for desertion. I absolutely could not have fired on my own people just because of civil unrest. A murderer or rapist or child molestor is one thing, but I could never have fired on our own people just because they were protesting political or social issues - whether I agreed with them or not. These things can get very ugly...


----------



## mind

demonwolfmoon said:


> Well guys, I surely hope it does not come to violence....my husband IS military after all, and it's the military that would suffer losses during any civil war or other violent uprisings.
> 
> *My issue is that I'm not sure voting is the answer. FFS, people seem to believe that we have only two political parties and vote accordingly! So now here's the choice: Dirty Liar #1 or Dirty Liar #2: NEITHER ONE OF THEM will accomplish half of the platform they campaign on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> *
> The current system is not working....all our industry is overseas, our economy is shot, and there are NO JOBS out there. We have no pride in American society really, and the one huge campaign issue despite this is....Abortion?! 0.o
> American society needs to collectively pull their heads out of the SAND and take a good look at what we have allowed our government to do...did I ever tell you guys that my husband (the Marine) orders office chairs, plain old office chairs for more than 5-6 *hundred* dollars each??? And he is limited to certain companies that have military contracts? Ever wonder where our tax money goes? Well my husband is sitting in a POS six hundred dollar office chair.
> 
> When I was a little kid, they filled our heads with "America the Great!", and how we could be ANYTHING we wanted, and how awesome we are...now there are no jobs, people are desperate and the patriotism is GONE. I think that patriotism is about respect and pride, and we have lost our pride in our country....hell, how much was that tea tax we fought England over? I think that we suffer a lot more now and are just TOO COMPLACENT to do anything about it, even simply by refusing to elect corrupt idiots who we should know by now...are lying through their teeth while stabbing us in the back.
> 
> /end rant.
> 
> But seriously...something has to be done.... at what point do things start to change for the better?


The option of voting for either a conservative republican or even a moderately socialist democratic democratic candidate is one of many things that perplexes me about American politics, from my perspective, it's creates ineffectiveness. In Canada there are five political parties that garner in excess of ten percent of the vote and of those four have strong strategic positions in parliament, not only does that allow us as citizens to have our votes more directly reflect our views, but it prevents the stalemates that seem common in America. Now Ron Paul begins to rise in popularity during the marathon federal election campaign, but because of his more radical views which depart from the traditional rhetoric of either party, he's completely shut out by the media. 

Political positions aren't elected in America, they're bought. Government and business should be kept separate, government is the regulating body, business is the regulatee, but instead business self regulates by ensuring that the right candidates are elected to continue the status quo of corruption. Six hundred dollar office chairs that should cost twenty dollars, Chinese made office chairs I might add, I wonder how much of a roll that type of inefficiency plays in the debt crisis. 

I have a friend who is a pharmacist, she told me yesterday about the charter bus loads of Americans who come to her store to buy prescriptions, because the cost difference is so significant. The pill is the same on either side of the border, but it costs two thirds less here, not because we regulate pharmacutical companies any less, but because we don't allow lobbying or advertisements medications. To me that is a testament to how damaging a relationship between government and business can become.


----------



## Faceman

mind said:


> The option of voting for either a conservative republican or even a moderately socialist democratic democratic candidate is one of many things that perplexes me about American politics, from my perspective, it's creates ineffectiveness. In Canada there are five political parties that garner in excess of ten percent of the vote and of those four have strong strategic positions in parliament, not only does that allow us as citizens to have our votes more directly reflect our views, but it prevents the stalemates that seem common in America. Now Ron Paul begins to rise in popularity during the marathon federal election campaign, but because of his more radical views which depart from the traditional rhetoric of either party, he's completely shut out by the media.
> 
> Political positions aren't elected in America, they're bought. Government and business should be kept separate, government is the regulating body, business is the regulatee, but instead business self regulates by ensuring that the right candidates are elected to continue the status quo of corruption. Six hundred dollar office chairs that should cost twenty dollars, Chinese made office chairs I might add, I wonder how much of a roll that type of inefficiency plays in the debt crisis.
> 
> I have a friend who is a pharmacist, she told me yesterday about the charter bus loads of Americans who come to her store to buy prescriptions, because the cost difference is so significant. The pill is the same on either side of the border, but it costs two thirds less here, not because we regulate pharmacutical companies any less, but because we don't allow lobbying or advertisements medications. To me that is a testament to how damaging a relationship between government and business can become.


There is some truth to your political assumptions about politics here, but please don't go into healthcare. We looked at the Canadian healthcare system and rejected it as an option. Your system has advantages over ours, but ours has advantages over yours, too. Thousands of Canadians come to the US every year for procedures...they wouldn't if they could get the same level of work done in Canada or didn't have to wait forever to get the procedures done. And where the heck do you think your pharmaceuticals come from - certainly not Canada. Every single American has access to healthcare. Our system is not perfect, but no system is...


----------



## mind

Faceman said:


> There is some truth to your political assumptions about politics here, but please don't go into healthcare. We looked at the Canadian healthcare system and rejected it as an option. Your system has advantages over ours, but ours has advantages over yours, too. Thousands of Canadians come to the US every year for procedures...they wouldn't if they could get the same level of work done in Canada or didn't have to wait forever to get the procedures done. And where the heck do you think your pharmaceuticals come from - certainly not Canada. Every single American has access to healthcare. Our system is not perfect, but no system is...


Pharmaceuticals and universal health care are two entirely different discussions, please take note of that and do not misinterpret my points. Prescriptions drugs are sold privately in both countries, without government subsidies, and they cost a fraction of the price here. The additional costs faced by Americans are entirely a result of the government regulations, which you have repeatedly spoken about and were the subject of my post. I'm also not sure how the location of production has any relevance, but okay. The majority of the compounds used to make prescription drugs are produced in China or India and not America, just like everything else and I can like you to an article supporting that statement if you wish. 

I will however respond to the statements you made, despite them being misinterpretations. Very few Canadians choose to come to America for health care service, but those who do are reimburced by the domestic health care system. The reasons for the trips are two fold; wait times, which are primarily a result of an immigration issue and have improved dramatically since the issue was brought to light, like you said, no system is perfect; highly advanced procedures that cannot be handled domestically, this is very rare, but it happens, and it stands to reason that with a population ten fold the size of ours there would be some more advanced surgical teams in America.

Now, please return the prior discussion, the influence of business over the American government is an issue. I do not expect that a single person in America who pays taxes would be happy to hear that an office chair costs six hundred dollars.


----------



## Bearkiller

bubba13 said:


> I didn't play the racism card. I simply chose a photo off of Google Images to illustrate the point I felt you were making: the citizens versus the government, in a battle of arms.


 I guess you are opposed to the american revolution and would feel better about yourself as a British subject then you do as an american citizen? The idea that freedom is given to us by the government is completely backwards. Our freedom was earned by the many who have fought for it. With guns. I am not a conspiracy theory person who thinks that the government is going to come take my guns tomorrow. If I was, I wouldn't bother getting a concealed weapons permit and new guns. All of that is tracked by the government. It should be clear that with rocket launchers I was talking in theory. I couldn't ever see a scenario where I would want to own one. In fact, I don't own a single (so called) "assault rifle". Those are all currently legal to own. Just one more question. When was the last time that you did something that didn't have some sort of government regulation associated with it? Can you think of anything? I can't. Everything has some regulation attached to it. Maybe not on the surface but deep down.


----------



## Bearkiller

mind said:


> Now, please return the prior discussion, the influence of business over the American government is an issue. I do not expect that a single person in America who pays taxes would be happy to hear that an office chair costs six hundred dollars.


 
I didn't read all of the last couple pages but I started this post to ask vegetarians a question, not to discuss business influence over the american government. haha

I think that business' influence over government is a direct result of the establishment of income taxes and the IRS. Think about it, when a company like GE can make BILLIONS and pay no income taxes while people making 50K a year pay alot. Now democrats are saying the mortgage interest shouldn't be allowed to be deducted for homeowners? That's a broken system.


----------



## bubba13

Bearkiller said:


> I guess you are opposed to the american revolution and would feel better about yourself as a British subject then you do as an american citizen?


Would depend on a lot of factors, now, wouldn't it? I can't weigh the pros and cons very accurately having never lived in Britain. Now of course I'd much prefer to live in America today versus the America of 1776...being a woman, I wouldn't have even been a citizen, and would literally not have had a vote. So that much is a moot point, as is the insistence that you really compare the world of 250 years ago with the world today. BIG difference. An armed struggle nowadays isn't exactly redcoat formations, muskets, and bayonets. It's a little higher stake than that.





> When was the last time that you did something that didn't have some sort of government regulation associated with it? Can you think of anything? I can't. Everything has some regulation attached to it. Maybe not on the surface but deep down.


Of course some government regulation is extraneous, even unethical, and certainly annoying. But the last time_ I_ was hobbled by the government? Can't think of it. The foods I eat, the care I drive, the places I go, the activities I participate in....? I'd be doing the exact same thing no matter _what_ the law book said.


----------



## Bearkiller

bubba13 said:


> Can't think of it. The foods I eat, the care I drive, the places I go, the activities I participate in....? I'd be doing the exact same thing no matter _what_ the law book said.


 
So you think the role of government should only to be to not hobble you? Anything else is ok? Are people hobbled by a depressed economy? Is it harder for people to find jobs and take care of their families? I think it is. I happen to know several people that would love to have a job. Government regulation "hobbles" that.


----------



## Faceman

Bearkiller said:


> So you think the role of government should only to be to not hobble you? Anything else is ok? Are people hobbled by a depressed economy? Is it harder for people to find jobs and take care of their families? I think it is. I happen to know several people that would love to have a job. Government regulation "hobbles" that.


What does your comment have to do with Bubba's statement that you quoted? Obviously nothing, but just thought I would ask...


----------



## Bearkiller

Nothing. Looks like I deleted too much of the statement. No big deal. The post is right above mine. haha







bubba13 said:


> Of course some government regulation is extraneous, even unethical, and certainly annoying. But the last time_ I_ was hobbled by the government?


 
That's what I meant to quote.


----------



## mind

Bearkiller said:


> I didn't read all of the last couple pages but I started this post to ask vegetarians a question, not to discuss business influence over the american government. haha
> 
> I think that business' influence over government is a direct result of the establishment of income taxes and the IRS. Think about it, when a company like GE can make BILLIONS and pay no income taxes while people making 50K a year pay alot. Now democrats are saying the mortgage interest shouldn't be allowed to be deducted for homeowners? That's a broken system.


Interesting how conversations progress, I just didn't want the conversation to shift to discussing the merits of private versus public healthcare, because that was a severe misreading of my prior post.

I think income tax is a necessary evil in the world today, people's expectations of what the government should provide them with has increased so dramatically that a purely sales tax system would be unsustainable. I'm not referring to arguably necessary entitlement expectations like medicare either, I'm referring to things like the FAA, FDA and highways.


----------



## Bearkiller

I said that being completely facetious. The conversation has covered just about every topic, why not that one? As far as people's expectations, I agree. They have very selfish desires to have someone provide to you, something you've never earned, taken from from someone who has. It's theft in any other context other than taxes. The federal government should raise its money from tariffs and excise taxes. Not punishing people for working. As far as highways and the FDA, ect......

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.- 10th amendment to the us constitution and part of the bill of rights


----------



## bubba13




----------



## Bearkiller

What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## Faceman

About the same as the Bill of Rights under the current administration...


----------

