Thinking about becoming a vegetarian

[ska_is_alive]

I've been giving this a lot of thought now and have come up with one conclusion. That meat is murder and taking away an innocent life that doesn't deserve to die. So taking this into thought, I was wondering what one would have to do to become a vegetarian. Such as what would you replace for meat and all that stuff. And also, would milk be valid? Considering milk comes from a cow and the cow is used for meat, but the cow doesn't have to die for it. Thoughts and comments would be helpful here.

[xgregx]

do it

www.vegkids.com

do it

[ska_is_alive]

Thanks!

[Dummy]

if we didn't eat cows
the cows would eat us.

[xgregx]

no they wouldn't, cows are not the smartest creatures, and they don't eat meat either...

yes I know you were kidding.

[xsecx]

Originally posted by xshadowsfallx
no they wouldn't, cows are not the smartest creatures, and they don't eat meat either...

yes I know you were kidding.

cows will eat what you put in front of them. hence mad cow.

[xgregx]

Originally posted by xsecx
cows will eat what you put in front of them. hence mad cow.

that is true.

[Straightedgecat]

I whent Vegan not only because meat really is murder of inocent animals.. but also cows are the fucking shit.. they are th nices caring (not so smart) animals ..and you can get all the nutrience and better stuff from Tofu products.. Soy Milk tis da Shit..

[XprennaX]

Cows just don't seem smart because the farmers are too busy milking them to send them to school, the bastards!!

Free education for cows!!!

[xgregx]

Originally posted by XprennaX
Cows just don't seem smart because the farmers are too busy milking them to send them to school, the bastards!!

Free education for cows!!!

haha...

About the killing of the animals in factories...Factory Farming is fucking horrible. I have protested against it on many accounts, but whats worse is the testing on animals. IAMS...that animal food corperation...man, it is so fucking messed up what the do to the animals...

another note
The animals that you get delivered to your school to be disected, were drowned in the embalming fulid. Kittens, rabbits, pigs, they get thrown in to a tank.

people are fucked up

[Straightedgecat]

Originally posted by xshadowsfallx
haha...

About the killing of the animals in factories...Factory Farming is fucking horrible. I have protested against it on many accounts, but whats worse is the testing on animals. IAMS...that animal food corperation...man, it is so fucking messed up what the do to the animals...

another note
The animals that you get delivered to your school to be disected, were drowned in the embalming fulid. Kittens, rabbits, pigs, they get thrown in to a tank.

people are fucked up

yea animal testing and the drowning of the kittens in fluid is the worst... i only buy shit if it specificly says NOT TESTED ON ANIMALS.. i havnt disected anything in class yet.. but what would you do when your teacher tells you too

[xgregx]

Simply tell her, that it is against what you believe in, and if you could do a seperate activity. if she does tell you, "if you don't do it, you will fail the lab." Go to your principal and tell him that you will do it, because of your belief's...if he says the same thing, write a letter to the school board. But ask your teacher soon, so you can get this figured out before hand.

[Straightedgecat]

yea thats what i thought the response would be.. that was my plan, thanks

[Actofdepression]

no they wouldn't, cows are not the smartest creatures, and they don't eat meat either...

you just compaired yourself to a cow...... and there not smart cus they dont eat meat......... and i just ate the best fucking roast beef sandwich it was so bloody sooo tasty have fun not eating meat.....

[straightXed]

Originally posted by Actofdepression
you just compaired yourself to a cow...... and there not smart cus they dont eat meat......... and i just ate the best fucking roast beef sandwich it was so bloody sooo tasty have fun not eating meat.....

Are you saying that not eating meat is not smart?

[Actofdepression]

nope ,im saying not useing all of your resources is not smart...

[xsecx]

Originally posted by Actofdepression
nope ,im saying not useing all of your resources is not smart...

usually if you're going to talk about people being smart or not smart, usually a good idea to focus on things like spelling and grammar.

[xgregx]

Originally posted by Actofdepression
you just compaired yourself to a cow...... and there not smart cus they dont eat meat......... and i just ate the best fucking roast beef sandwich it was so bloody sooo tasty have fun not eating meat.....

ok to you, that means absolutly nothing. but that is pretty gross shit, and I would appreciate it if you didn't talk about that. some of us really don't want to read that, Ok?

p.s. learn how to spell.

[Straightedgecat]

Originally posted by Actofdepression
you just compaired yourself to a cow...... and there not smart cus they dont eat meat......... and i just ate the best fucking roast beef sandwich it was so bloody sooo tasty have fun not eating meat.....
do you have fun insulting people.. because right now my first impression of you is that your a sinister fuck.. and by the way i dont want a roasst beef sandwich pal.. because we all gave up meet for a reason meaning that we dont want to eat it so this was our choice its not like we were forced into not eating meat.. so you go eat your dead animal and have fun with that

[straightXed]

Originally posted by Actofdepression
nope ,im saying not useing all of your resources is not smart...

So what if you don't like meat, is that making you stupid by default?

Are you saying you use all recources in your diet?

and what about when your resources begin to effect biodiversity, The fact is resources are there right but why and how are they there, its a domesticated resource, its a production line, there are many ways to use resources smarter. Clear cutting for farm land isn't the best thing for biodiversity and neither is mono crop.

[xvunderx]

Originally posted by Actofdepression
you just compaired yourself to a cow...... and there not smart cus they dont eat meat......... and i just ate the best fucking roast beef sandwich it was so bloody sooo tasty have fun not eating meat.....

Scandalous!

[XrandomideazX]

Originally posted by xvunderx
Scandalous!
You shouldnt watch Recess

[xvunderx]

Originally posted by XrandomideazX
You shouldnt watch Recess

I don't

[XrandomideazX]

oh well there are thses girls that run around say "SCANDALOUS!"
On Recess.....not that i watch it or anything like that

[Master Yoda]

Originally posted by XrandomideazX
oh well there are thses girls that run around say "SCANDALOUS!"
On Recess.....not that i watch it or anything like that
What's wrong with Recess? *cocks eyebrow*

[xsweetrecoveryx]

Originally posted by xshadowsfallx
haha...

About the killing of the animals in factories...Factory Farming is fucking horrible. I have protested against it on many accounts, but whats worse is the testing on animals. IAMS...that animal food corperation...man, it is so fucking messed up what the do to the animals...

another note
The animals that you get delivered to your school to be disected, were drowned in the embalming fulid. Kittens, rabbits, pigs, they get thrown in to a tank.

people are fucked up


....what exactly does IAMS do to the animals?

[xvunderx]

Originally posted by XrandomideazX
oh well there are thses girls that run around say "SCANDALOUS!"
On Recess.....not that i watch it or anything like that

Ah! Maybe I should sue them for taking my life and putting it on TV?

[xsecx]

Originally posted by xsweetrecoveryx
....what exactly does IAMS do to the animals?

it feeds them.

[xsweetrecoveryx]

Originally posted by xsecx
it feeds them.

lol..alright. thats good enough for me.

[xgregx]

Originally posted by xsweetrecoveryx
....what exactly does IAMS do to the animals?

if you really want to know...

- dogs are dumped on to cold concrete flooring after large chunks of muscle were cut from there thighs. (no medication)

- tubes are forced down animals throats to make them ingest vegetable oil.

- if an animal is dead, it could lie in it's cage for weeks with out anyone noticing.

- lab directors ordered that the dog's vocal cords be cut because of their frightened and lonely barking irritated him.

any thing else you want to know?

[xsecx]

Originally posted by xshadowsfallx
if you really want to know...

- dogs are dumped on to cold concrete flooring after large chunks of muscle were cut from there thighs. (no medication)

- tubes are forced down animals throats to make them ingest vegetable oil.

- if an animal is dead, it could lie in it's cage for weeks with out anyone noticing.

- lab directors ordered that the dog's vocal cords be cut because of their frightened and lonely barking irritated him.

any thing else you want to know?

supporting evidence would be nice.

[xsweetrecoveryx]

Originally posted by xshadowsfallx
if you really want to know...

- dogs are dumped on to cold concrete flooring after large chunks of muscle were cut from there thighs. (no medication)

- tubes are forced down animals throats to make them ingest vegetable oil.

- if an animal is dead, it could lie in it's cage for weeks with out anyone noticing.

- lab directors ordered that the dog's vocal cords be cut because of their frightened and lonely barking irritated him.

any thing else you want to know?

aw..how sad.
i think i like dustys answer better.

[xgregx]

Originally posted by xsecx
supporting evidence would be nice.

I am quoting directly from a flyer I have on my computer desk. PETA2 made it.

http://peta.org

[xsecx]

Originally posted by xshadowsfallx
I am quoting directly from a flyer I have on my computer desk. PETA2 made it.

http://peta.org

that doesn't really many anything though. I can make a flyer and put pretty much whatever I want on it, does that make it true?

[xgregx]

Originally posted by xsecx
that doesn't really many anything though. I can make a flyer and put pretty much whatever I want on it, does that make it true?

A person from peta recorded all the stuff she saw. I don't understand what you are saying.

[xsecx]

Originally posted by xshadowsfallx
A person from peta recorded all the stuff she saw. I don't understand what you are saying.

ok. so where is the footage? where is anything other than you saying this is what it is?

[xgregx]

I am sure you can find the footage some where on the internet, you can find footage of a factory farm as well.

[xsecx]

Originally posted by xshadowsfallx
I am sure you can find the footage some where on the internet, you can find footage of a factory farm as well.

I'm not the one making the claims.

[xgregx]

damn you

[xsecx]

Originally posted by xshadowsfallx
damn you

house rules apply, if you're going to make a statement as fact, you need to be able to back it up otherwise it's useless.

[xgregx]

*sticks tongue out* you're not coming to my birthday party

[PhoenixRising]

Originally posted by Actofdepression
nope ,im saying not useing all of your resources is not smart...

neither is overusing your resources. Our culture is obessed with the overconsumption of meat products these days. just look at the fucking atkins diet. I'd like to throw a nice fluffy piece of bread at dr.atkins.

[xsecx]

Originally posted by PhoenixRising
neither is overusing your resources. Our culture is obessed with the overconsumption of meat products these days. just look at the fucking atkins diet. I'd like to throw a nice fluffy piece of bread at dr.atkins.


throwing bread at the dead doesn't do much good.

[AFuzziBunni]

I've been considering veganism...only problem is, there aren't a lot of vegetables that I like, but I do want to start eating more varieties (i.e. spinach, mushrooms, squash, different types of lettuce). I've eaten meat all of my life...I was raised with either chicken or steak at every dinner. I just think that I would be a lot healthier if I didn't eat meat, or butter or eggs for that matter.

Any advice or helpful recipes?

[xsecx]

Originally posted by AFuzziBunni
I've been considering veganism...only problem is, there aren't a lot of vegetables that I like, but I do want to start eating more varieties (i.e. spinach, mushrooms, squash, different types of lettuce). I've eaten meat all of my life...I was raised with either chicken or steak at every dinner. I just think that I would be a lot healthier if I didn't eat meat, or butter or eggs for that matter.

Any advice or helpful recipes?

the ultimate healthy diet would be a diverse omnivore one.

[Sean The Red]

Originally posted by xsecx
ok. so where is the footage? where is anything other than you saying this is what it is?

You can go and ask anyone who previously worked in such fields, and they will tell you the same thing.

Originally posted by xsecx
that doesn't really many anything though. I can make a flyer and put pretty much whatever I want on it, does that make it true?

PETA has a record of reporting things that happen, and being able to back them up. But if you started printing up flyers, and had no record, or were known to not be able to back them up with facts, as you imply PETA does, nobody would listen to you.

[xsecx]

Originally posted by Sean The Red
You can go and ask anyone who previously worked in such fields, and they will tell you the same thing.



PETA has a record of reporting things that happen, and being able to back them up. But if you started printing up flyers, and had no record, or were known to not be able to back them up with facts, as you imply PETA does, nobody would listen to you.

ok so I'll ask you the same question. Where's the footage? I'm saying printing out flyers without pointing you in the direction of factual supporting data is useless. At what point do you know something is true or not? At what point do you know what's being distributed is even linked to PETA? That's the whole point. if anyone is going to make a statement they need to be able to provide supporting evidence of it.

[Sean The Red]

Originally posted by xsecx
ok so I'll ask you the same question. Where's the footage? I'm saying printing out flyers without pointing you in the direction of factual supporting data is useless. At what point do you know something is true or not? At what point do you know what's being distributed is even linked to PETA? That's the whole point. if anyone is going to make a statement they need to be able to provide supporting evidence of it.

I dont know where the footage is, nor do I know specifically what flyer is being talked about. He is citing PETA as the source, and if you dont believe it, you would have to go to them and ask them to prove their claims. As I read it, he was backing it up with factual data, by saying he got it from PETA, who say they can prove it. *BUT you would have to ask him for a copy of the flyer to prove it is linked to PETA.* Just because he didnt gather the evidence first hand doesnt mean it is less true. there is nothing invalid or falicous about pointing to someone else's research when talking about something.

As for "At what point do you know something is true or not?" That is a personal thing to which there is no ultimatly correct answer

[xgregx]

well dusty it looks like sean is agreeing.
not everyone hates me.

[xsecx]

Originally posted by Sean The Red
I dont know where the footage is, nor do I know specifically what flyer is being talked about. He is citing PETA as the source, and if you dont believe it, you would have to go to them and ask them to prove their claims. As I read it, he was backing it up with factual data, by saying he got it from PETA, who say they can prove it. *BUT you would have to ask him for a copy of the flyer to prove it is linked to PETA.* Just because he didnt gather the evidence first hand doesnt mean it is less true. there is nothing invalid or falicous about pointing to someone else's research when talking about something.

As for "At what point do you know something is true or not?" That is a personal thing to which there is no ultimatly correct answer

then you're easily the most gullible human being ever and think that because it's linked to an organization that organization's name is enough to make something true on its own. Making a statement without supporting evidence is completely useless. Repeating a statement from another source that doesn't have supporting evidence is useless. What you read on a flyer isn't factual data. It's a flyer. It's propaganda regardless of who's distro'ing it. Propaganda only has real value when it's supported by evidence. The problem here is that no research was pointed to. Things were simply regiritated from propaganda without anything to support it.

[xsecx]

Originally posted by xshadowsfallx
well dusty it looks like sean is agreeing.
not everyone hates me.

I don't think anyone hates you. But I wouldn't celebrate someone who doesn't think things through before he opens his mouth most of the time as a viable defender of truth.

[Sean The Red]

Originally posted by xsecx
then you're easily the most gullible human being ever and think that because it's linked to an organization that organization's name is enough to make something true on its own. Making a statement without supporting evidence is completely useless. Repeating a statement from another source that doesn't have supporting evidence is useless. What you read on a flyer isn't factual data. It's a flyer. It's propaganda regardless of who's distro'ing it. Propaganda only has real value when it's supported by evidence. The problem here is that no research was pointed to. Things were simply regiritated from propaganda without anything to support it.

You should think things through before saying them yourself. First, to say I am the most gullible person out there is an absurd accusation with the sole intent to anger me, and you have nothing to back it up... after all, YOU are the one who posted excellent evidence to the contrary, the article about the guy who sat on a kid till he died, while trying to 'exorcise a demon'... Showing two people certainly more gullible than I may be, the man doing the 'exorcism' and the mother who was stupid enough to let him try it. Secondly, nowhere along the way did I say anything about believing it or not believing it, all I have stated is that citing another organization's reports is valid, if I havent said anything about me believing it, you cant very well show that I am what you charged.

There is nothing wrong with taking something at face value if "it's linked to an organization that organization's name is enough to make something true on its own," provided that organization can also provide you with specific evidence when you ask, which PETA will do. The findings of research was what was being quoted, research done by PETA, the validity of the research is for PETA to defend, not whoever is behind 'shadowfall.' All he needs to do is be accurate that it was who he said it was that made the flyer, and that there is not substantial evidence to the contrary.

[xsecx]

Originally posted by Sean The Red
You should think things through before saying them yourself. First, to say I am the most gullible person out there is an absurd accusation with the sole intent to anger me, and you have nothing to back it up... after all, YOU are the one who posted excellent evidence to the contrary, the article about the guy who sat on a kid till he died, while trying to 'exorcise a demon'... Showing two people certainly more gullible than I may be, the man doing the 'exorcism' and the mother who was stupid enough to let him try it. Secondly, nowhere along the way did I say anything about believing it or not believing it, all I have stated is that citing another organization's reports is valid, if I havent said anything about me believing it, you cant very well show that I am what you charged.

There is nothing wrong with taking something at face value if "it's linked to an organization that organization's name is enough to make something true on its own," provided that organization can also provide you with specific evidence when you ask, which PETA will do. The findings of research was what was being quoted, research done by PETA, the validity of the research is for PETA to defend, not whoever is behind 'shadowfall.' All he needs to do is be accurate that it was who he said it was that made the flyer, and that there is not substantial evidence to the contrary.

why aren't you christian? Do you believe everything the catholic church says?
Do you even understand the difference between citing a report and spitting out what you read on a flyer? Are they even different in your mind? Do you even have the ability for independent thought or critical thinking?

You're willing to take something at face value without any independent verification by yourself before you believe it. This explains volumes about you and helps to prove that you are the most gullible human ever.

[xgregx]

Originally posted by xsecx
I don't think anyone hates you. But I wouldn't celebrate someone who doesn't think things through before he opens his mouth most of the time as a viable defender of truth.

wait, what the hell does that mean?

[xsecx]

Originally posted by xshadowsfallx
wait, what the hell does that mean?

that having someone who's an idiot on your side is sometimes worse than being alone.

[xgregx]

Originally posted by xsecx
that having someone who's an idiot on your side is sometimes worse than being alone.

thats mean.

[xsecx]

Originally posted by xshadowsfallx
thats mean.

but completely accurate. If you believe things you are fed without independently verifiying them for yourself, you're an idiot.

[xvunderx]

It's like anything else, you have to evaluate your sources. Peta aren't exactly an unbiased organization.

Is it possible that it's true? yes. Is it also possible that it is incorrect? yes.

The fact is with the flyer you are given an allegation. No proof. There for at this point it is far too early to say "this is fact, because an unsubstantiated flyer said so." is the point here.

Peta is a properganda machine. Even if you agree with their view point, the source has to be dealt with as such.

[Sean The Red]

Originally posted by xsecx
why aren't you christian? Do you believe everything the catholic church says?
Do you even understand the difference between citing a report and spitting out what you read on a flyer? Are they even different in your mind? Do you even have the ability for independent thought or critical thinking?

You're willing to take something at face value without any independent verification by yourself before you believe it. This explains volumes about you and helps to prove that you are the most gullible human ever.


Listen up short man, you're making hollow charges to incite anger, and its annoying, so cut that crap and start asking questions in a noninflammatory manner like an adult. You've been trying to make this be about what I believe and its not, its about being able to use somebody else as a source of information.

But for the record, I see no difference in citing a report versus citing a flyer, both are stating something, and both need to be verified against the distributor's bias. There is nothing that says a news report is unbiased. Such a thing does not exist, everybody has an agenda, so regardless of the form, its all propaganda. There is no reason a news report could not circulate in flyer form.

What I think is key to this, and sets it apart from other situations, is that the organization in question has an undeniable and public record for making truthful statements. Does PETA have an agenda? Yes. Do they have a record of taking extreme action? Yes. Do they have a record of reporting things that are true? Yes. Would they risk that reputation by publishing things that were not substantiate? Probably not. Are the slaughter and dairy industry watching every step PETA makes for something that is not true? Yes. Do they have the means to let the entire world know? Yes.

Yes, I am willing to take some things at face value without any independent verification, provided that I trust the source. Everything else aside, what is the real damage that would be done if it turned out that everything PETA said was a lie? Who would be injured? Would people die? no, nothing terribly negative would happen. At worst the general population would lose all faith in what they said, and they would not be able to recover. So when I know that there are groups out there that are anal retentive enough to watch and challenge PETA at every step, I am content to let them do the fighting and I will find out if the hammer drops on PETA. I cant say exactly what goes on when you get home, but I would dare to say that things are said, and you take things at their face value too. Every time that you get home, and you ask/ viv tells you what she did that day, is all suspect until you go through and check receipts from the USPS, fabric stores, etc; the mileage on her car, the contents of the garbage, etc. you don't know just what she did, or if she was being honest, yet I would hope you take her word for it because you trust the source. Is it gullible? You can call it that if you want to, but your actions would be wrong to do it any other way.

Do you even have the ability for independent thought or critical thinking? Don't be so inflammatory.

All your insistence that I am "the most gullible human ever. " just weakens your argument.

[straightXed]

http://www.americandaily.com/article/1195

http://community-2.webtv.net/PRECIOUSFORD/PETALIES/

apparently peta is full of shit, it says so.

as it is however, there is plenty of evidence to support that flyers claims it just asstounds me that no one is willing to support their claims on this board. If you are really passionate about animal rights then wouldn't you want to give your statement some solid substance? I put 2 websites up saying peta is lying and shit about their motives and i don't even care, i'm still not supportive of peta but judging by the reports made by IAMS and PETA i have come to a conclusion, but i can't take it on face value from a flyer. I mean i can read a newspaper and it will tell me elvis is alive and theres a number 23 bus on the moon. Its, at least in my opinion, imperitive to have some just sources of research to support claims and alligations.

[xsecx]

Originally posted by Sean The Red
Listen up short man, you're making hollow charges to incite anger, and its annoying, so cut that crap and start asking questions in a noninflammatory manner like an adult. You've been trying to make this be about what I believe and its not, its about being able to use somebody else as a source of information.

But for the record, I see no difference in citing a report versus citing a flyer, both are stating something, and both need to be verified against the distributor's bias. There is nothing that says a news report is unbiased. Such a thing does not exist, everybody has an agenda, so regardless of the form, its all propaganda. There is no reason a news report could not circulate in flyer form.

What I think is key to this, and sets it apart from other situations, is that the organization in question has an undeniable and public record for making truthful statements. Does PETA have an agenda? Yes. Do they have a record of taking extreme action? Yes. Do they have a record of reporting things that are true? Yes. Would they risk that reputation by publishing things that were not substantiate? Probably not. Are the slaughter and dairy industry watching every step PETA makes for something that is not true? Yes. Do they have the means to let the entire world know? Yes.

Yes, I am willing to take some things at face value without any independent verification, provided that I trust the source. Everything else aside, what is the real damage that would be done if it turned out that everything PETA said was a lie? Who would be injured? Would people die? no, nothing terribly negative would happen. At worst the general population would lose all faith in what they said, and they would not be able to recover. So when I know that there are groups out there that are anal retentive enough to watch and challenge PETA at every step, I am content to let them do the fighting and I will find out if the hammer drops on PETA. I cant say exactly what goes on when you get home, but I would dare to say that things are said, and you take things at their face value too. Every time that you get home, and you ask/ viv tells you what she did that day, is all suspect until you go through and check receipts from the USPS, fabric stores, etc; the mileage on her car, the contents of the garbage, etc. you don't know just what she did, or if she was being honest, yet I would hope you take her word for it because you trust the source. Is it gullible? You can call it that if you want to, but your actions would be wrong to do it any other way.

Do you even have the ability for independent thought or critical thinking? Don't be so inflammatory.

All your insistence that I am "the most gullible human ever. " just weakens your argument.

heh. I guess I'm getting to you since you have to resort to trying to call me short man. It's not really my fault that most of the time you spew shit for the sake of it.

So wait, now things need to be verified? You just said they didn't need to be?

you believe it and take it at face value because it fits within your existing political structure, not because PETA has never been wrong. There isn't an organization that has been around for any amount of time that is 100% correct at any time. What sets it apart is that it's what you want to believe, nothing else.

So people can now say whatever they want just as long as people don't die, and it's ok with you? Also you can't really compare interpesonal relationships with a political organization, can you? My wife isn't trying to tell me how I should think or feel about a situation. So that doesn't really hold.

And it's not inflammatory to make the assumption based on whatyou've said. By your own admission you don't critically view or think about things as long as they already fit within your existing structure. that is gullible.

[xvunderx]

Originally posted by straightXed
http://www.americandaily.com/article/1195

http://community-2.webtv.net/PRECIOUSFORD/PETALIES/

apparently peta is full of shit, it says so.

as it is however, there is plenty of evidence to support that flyers claims it just asstounds me that no one is willing to support their claims on this board. If you are really passionate about animal rights then wouldn't you want to give your statement some solid substance? I put 2 websites up saying peta is lying and shit about their motives and i don't even care, i'm still not supportive of peta but judging by the reports made by IAMS and PETA i have come to a conclusion, but i can't take it on face value from a flyer. I mean i can read a newspaper and it will tell me elvis is alive and theres a number 23 bus on the moon. Its, at least in my opinion, imperitive to have some just sources of research to support claims and alligations.

Which is the whole point of this argument. No one ever said that flyer was a lie. Just that bullet points off a flyer aren't enough. They are great to trigger a debate. But after that I want to hear what the individualt making the posts has to say in their own words, and I want to know where this footage is. If you care about things, and want to make a change and educate people on your point of view, you need to do it as convincingly as possible, and that will always mean backing things up, and using your own words.

To Sean, You are a good friend, and I think you're a great person. But I do often get the feeling when you write about certain things, like some times with communism, and especialy with the crimethink things, that I'm not hearing your own words, just cut and paste from different sources. And that isn't convincing to me, because it doesn't give me the feeling that it's something you've taken on board fully, and thought about and proved to be true in your own mind.

[xvunderx]

Originally posted by Sean The Red
Every time that you get home, and you ask/ viv tells you what she did that day, is all suspect until you go through and check receipts from the USPS, fabric stores, etc; the mileage on her car, the contents of the garbage, etc. you don't know just what she did, or if she was being honest, yet I would hope you take her word for it because you trust the source. Is it gullible? You can call it that if you want to, but your actions would be wrong to do it any other way

No need to. It came straight from the horses mouth. But If I came home and said "Oh Hey, Aaron from Bane sold out" yeah I would bet that he'd check it out unless he and i were hanging out and my information came straight from him. Likewise if Dusty were hangin out with Aaron and got the info from the man himself he wouldn't need to varify it.

If I were an undercover agent from Peta working at the Iams place, and I came home and said "shit you wouldn't belive what I saw today..... I got it all on tape" I'd bet he'd want to see the tape, not out of some sadistic fascination. But to know the truth in his own mind. Is it becasue he'd think I was lying? No. Is it because he would like some first hand source so that he could make up his own mind about what was happening with as much evidence and knowledge as possible? yes.

Hell look at the fun we have now with bogus unchecked evidence. "ah yes there are WMD plants here and here....." "ok good enough let's go!"

[xsecx]

Originally posted by xvunderx
No need to. It came straight from the horses mouth. But If I came home and said "Oh Hey, Aaron from Bane sold out" yeah I would bet that he'd check it out unless he and i were hanging out and my information came straight from him. Likewise if Dusty were hangin out with Aaron and got the info from the man himself he wouldn't need to varify it.

If I were an undercover agent from Peta working at the Iams place, and I came home and said "shit you wouldn't belive what I saw today..... I got it all on tape" I'd bet he'd want to see the tape, not out of some sadistic fascination. But to know the truth in his own mind. Is it becasue he'd think I was lying? No. Is it because he would like some first hand source so that he could make up his own mind about what was happening with as much evidence and knowledge as possible? yes.

Hell look at the fun we have now with bogus unchecked evidence. "ah yes there are WMD plants here and here....." "ok good enough let's go!"

no viv, tell the good people the truth. Every time I get home you have to go through a formal inquisiton.

[xvunderx]

Originally posted by xsecx
no viv, tell the good people the truth. Every time I get home you have to go through a formal inquisiton.

But you do it because you love me!!!

[Sean The Red]

Originally posted by xsecx
...

So wait, now things need to be verified? You just said they didn't need to be?

you believe it and take it at face value because it fits within your existing political structure, not because PETA has never been wrong. There isn't an organization that has been around for any amount of time that is 100% correct at any time. What sets it apart is that it's what you want to believe, nothing else.

So people can now say whatever they want just as long as people don't die, and it's ok with you? Also you can't really compare interpesonal relationships with a political organization, can you? My wife isn't trying to tell me how I should think or feel about a situation. So that doesn't really hold.

And it's not inflammatory to make the assumption based on whatyou've said. By your own admission you don't critically view or think about things as long as they already fit within your existing structure. that is gullible.

No, that is not what I said. What I said is that is if you have no reason to doubt the integrity of something, and good reason to trust the source, then you can take it at face value. If it later turns out to be untrue, then you need to re-evaluate why you didn't doubt it. In the mean time, there are many better things that your energy and time can be spent on than double checking sources you trust. Now, its also important to note that not everything has the same importance, reports of animal abuse do not carry the same consequences as reports of genocide or weapons of mass destruction. Some situations call for more vigilance than others

I also said that PETA is generally a reliable source, --certainly the most reliable source for information about animal abused-- and that if you want proof about something somebody is passing out, go and talk to the source, don't kill the delivery man. Just because PETA is a reliable source doesn't mean that people should believe everything they say, if they say something, and are reluctant to provide the proof when asked for it, that is a good reason to not believe them.

Fine, lets say its' not inflammatory to make the assumption based on what I've said. However it is inflammatory to state it like an asshole.

Note: I haven't said anything about if believe this IAMS stuff. Gullible would be if I were easily duped or cheated. I am neither, despite what you might think or say.

[xsecx]

Originally posted by Sean The Red
No, that is not what I said. What I said is that is if you have no reason to doubt the integrity of something, and good reason to trust the source, then you can take it at face value. If it later turns out to be untrue, then you need to re-evaluate why you didn't doubt it. In the mean time, there are many better things that your energy and time can be spent on than double checking sources you trust. Now, its also important to note that not everything has the same importance, reports of animal abuse do not carry the same consequences as reports of genocide or weapons of mass destruction. Some situations call for more vigilance than others

I also said that PETA is generally a reliable source, --certainly the most reliable source for information about animal abused-- and that if you want proof about something somebody is passing out, go and talk to the source, don't kill the delivery man. Just because PETA is a reliable source doesn't mean that people should believe everything they say, if they say something, and are reluctant to provide the proof when asked for it, that is a good reason to not believe them.

Fine, lets say its' not inflammatory to make the assumption based on what I've said. However it is inflammatory to state it like an asshole.

Note: I haven't said anything about if believe this IAMS stuff. Gullible would be if I were easily duped or cheated. I am neither, despite what you might think or say.

What's the criteria for trusting a source? a 100% track record? but that doesn't exist anywhere. So what does "But for the record, I see no difference in citing a report versus citing a flyer, both are stating something, and both need to be verified against the distributor's bias." mean then if not that you should verify what someone is saying is true or not? And no, the reason they don't weigh the same are based on your political view not the importance of the situation. Because it is something that already fits in your world view you are comfortable with assuming that it's fact. if it isn't then you give it scrutiny. That's what makes you gullible because you will believe what you're fed and not question it as long as it fits your existing world view.

So the person repeating it isn't responsible for backing up what they're stating? How does that work? Taking something at face value and repeating it as fact without presenting evidence with it has no value. That's the entire point of this conversation and has been from the beginning. If you're to say something, back it up with something. It has no value if you say something is true if you don't take the time to explain why you think it is and provide evidence, simply stating where you heard it from is simply not enough. And why are you suddenly back pedaling? you just said that PETA was beyond reproach and now they might be wrong so they should be evaluated as to if they're being truthful?

And you're not gullible? crimethinc and cpusa.

[Sean The Red]

Originally posted by xshadowsfallx
if you really want to know...

- dogs are dumped on to cold concrete flooring after large chunks of muscle were cut from there thighs. (no medication)

- tubes are forced down animals throats to make them ingest vegetable oil.

- if an animal is dead, it could lie in it's cage for weeks with out anyone noticing.

- lab directors ordered that the dog's vocal cords be cut because of their frightened and lonely barking irritated him.

any thing else you want to know?

In the future, a better way to say that, and that eliminates the kind of controvercy that is going on is to say:

Acording to a statement by PETA...
- dogs are dumped on to cold concrete flooring after large chunks of muscle were cut from there thighs. (no medication)

- tubes are forced down animals throats to make them ingest vegetable oil.

- if an animal is dead, it could lie in it's cage for weeks with out anyone noticing.

- lab directors ordered that the dog's vocal cords be cut because of their frightened and lonely barking irritated him.

if there is any thing else you want to know, you can see more at <state source that you got it from>.

[Sean The Red]

Originally posted by xsecx
What's the criteria for trusting a source? a 100% track record? but that doesn't exist anywhere. So what does "But for the record, I see no difference in citing a report versus citing a flyer, both are stating something, and both need to be verified against the distributor's bias." mean then if not that you should verify what someone is saying is true or not? And no, the reason they don't weigh the same are based on your political view not the importance of the situation. Because it is something that already fits in your world view you are comfortable with assuming that it's fact. if it isn't then you give it scrutiny. That's what makes you gullible because you will believe what you're fed and not question it as long as it fits your existing world view.

So the person repeating it isn't responsible for backing up what they're stating? How does that work? Taking something at face value and repeating it as fact without presenting evidence with it has no value. That's the entire point of this conversation and has been from the beginning. If you're to say something, back it up with something. It has no value if you say something is true if you don't take the time to explain why you think it is and provide evidence, simply stating where you heard it from is simply not enough. And why are you suddenly back pedaling? you just said that PETA was beyond reproach and now they might be wrong so they should be evaluated as to if they're being truthful?

And you're not gullible? crimethinc and cpusa.

I'm only going to address the last issue right now, I'll get back to the rest when i have more time.

No, I'm not gullible. as far as:
Crimethinc, interesting, but I dont read anything they have to say, or even pay attention to them. I got a kick out of Evasion, thought it was well written, and mack is a nice guy.
CPUSA, so what, I have allied myself with the largest communist group and want to see them expand and gain power. I dont follow a party line, I dont attend functions, I disagree with many of the things they do; however, I also know that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[xsecx]

Originally posted by Sean The Red
I'm only going to address the last issue right now, I'll get back to the rest when i have more time.

No, I'm not gullible. as far as:
Crimethinc, interesting, but I dont read anything they have to say, or even pay attention to them. I got a kick out of Evasion, thought it was well written, and mack is a nice guy.
CPUSA, so what, I have allied myself with the largest communist group and want to see them expand and gain power. I dont follow a party line, I dont attend functions, I disagree with many of the things they do; however, I also know that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

so the conversations you've had about crimethinc with viv were imaginary? the talk about shoplifting as a polictical statement didn't happen?

your statement about the cpusa doesn't even make sense. how do you ally yourself with something, but not actually do anything about it and call yourself sean the red?

[straightXed]

hi, i'm the enemy of the enemys friends enemy who had a bit of a falling out with his old friend, so the old friends enemy is my other friends enemy but is my friend.

[Sean The Red]

Originally posted by xsecx
so the conversations you've had about crimethinc with viv were imaginary? the talk about shoplifting as a polictical statement didn't happen?

your statement about the cpusa doesn't even make sense. how do you ally yourself with something, but not actually do anything about it and call yourself sean the red?

The conversation, not plural, a singluar one on that subject. I dont have to agree with something, to understand the basis for why its being said, and thus, be able to make that same argument. People argue for things they dont believe in all the time, playing devil's advocate isnt that uncommon. MY argument was that gross profits had by corporations literally, at the expense of consumers, are unethical. That dovetails easily with his argument for shop lifting as a political statement.

Ally myself with them and dont do anything about what?

[xsecx]

Originally posted by Sean The Red
The conversation, not plural, a singluar one on that subject. I dont have to agree with something, to understand the basis for why its being said, and thus, be able to make that same argument. People argue for things they dont believe in all the time, playing devil's advocate isnt that uncommon. MY argument was that gross profits had by corporations literally, at the expense of consumers, are unethical. That dovetails easily with his argument for shop lifting as a political statement.

Ally myself with them and dont do anything about what?

hello backpedal nice to see you. It's convient that now it's you arguing devils advocate. The bottom line and the reality of it is that shoplifting is at the expense of the consumer not the corporation so any argument that it's doing anything to benefit consumers is bullshit.

"I have allied myself with the largest communist group and want to see them expand and gain power. I dont follow a party line, I dont attend functions, I disagree with many of the things they do"

so you ally yourself but don't actually do anything.