"You don't have to believe something has a soul to believe it should have rights one way or another."
The logical possibilities are:
1. Animals have minds, even souls, and so should have certain rights.
2. Animals have minds, even souls but should not have certain rights.
3. Animals do not have minds, even souls but should have certain rights.
4. Animals do not have minds, even souls and should not have certain rights.
I'm sorry, which position are you arguing?
"What something is called has little bearing on what it is in many instances."
Yes, but what something is should have some bearing on what it is called.
"I don't understand, is this debate about animal rights or about what to call animals?"
It is about what to call animals if they have no soul. :)
I'll concede the rights part.
Use of this is contraindicated for those who have already achieved mentopause. Sarah Palin, for example, will not be needing this pill.
Otherwise, anyone who show signs of independent judgment are good candidates. Expect that a lot of liberals to be required to use Lybrel.
"So, your suggesting that the British Medical Journal is rubbish and the Mayo Clinic is far superior. OK!! Those are not flaws, but only Criticism."
The British Medical Journal simply publish a study other scientists found to be flawed. That's not me suggesting anything about the journal itself. And no, its not just criticism by these other scientists. Its criticism that the study is flawed.
Flawed.
Not scientifically valid.
No fucking good.
No truth to the claims it makes.
But hey, the Surgeon General works for the government as so is a scientific whore for some position you have yet to prove the government holds. But a scientist funded by the tobacco industry is beyond reproach,even if his study is flawed. Nice logic there buddy.
You amaze me. You simply amaze me. If you were to argue against yourself, you couldn't do any better than this.
Thanks for outlining the administrative structure of all these pertinent bodies. However, your reply was not pertinent to this question:
"Proof for the claim that there is a government position as opposed to a scientific position on this issue?"
Yes, you proved that there is a government. You have not proved there is a government position separate from the generally accepted science on the question of the harmfulness of smoke.
"How is the government destroying the tobacco industry? The anti-tobacco campaign in public places that they created and fueled by people like yourself."
The anti-smoking campaign is largely paid for by the tobacco industry.
"As part of a $206 billion dollar settlement, major tobacco companies like Philip Morris agreed to pay for advertising campaigns to educate consumers about the dangers of tobacco. Not only were they barred from advertising their own products or sponsoring events geared towards teenagers, they also had to contribute millions annually to support these anti-smoking ads in every state." [1]
Cigarette manufacturers engaged in a 50 year massive racketeering scheme that included falsely denying the adverse health effects of their products, falsely denying that nicotine is addictive, falsely representing that “light” and “low-tar” cigarettes present fewer health risks, falsely denying that they marketed to kids, and falsely denying that secondhand smoke causes disease.
Says one commentator:
"Like smoking, lying is a tough habit to break. Tobacco companies have been lying to the American people for decades about the harmful nature of their products "
I like songs about winter:
5 little Snowman standing in a row,
Each had a hat and a big red bow.
Out came the sun and it shone all day,
1 Little snowman melted away.
4 Little Snowman standing in a row,
Each had a hat and a big red bow.
Out Came the the sun and it shone all day,
1 Little snowman melted away.
"The Surgeon General is an partial opinion because he works for the government; what a surprise that he supports it."
Proof for the claim that there is a government position as opposed to a scientific position on this issue?
"The government will stop at none to destroy the tobacco industry."
Proof of that claim?
James Enstrom's study, published in the British Medical Journal, is flawed for several reasons:
There's no information on smoking habits after 1972, even though the observation period went another 26 years. "We don't know if the nonsmokers continued to be exposed to secondhand smoke, or if their spouses continued to smoke," Thun tells WebMD.
Since the participants were an average of age 52 when the study began in 1959, many smoking spouses could have died, quit smoking, or ended the marriage before 1972, when Enstrom started his observation phase. This would have affected the secondhand smoke exposure of the nonsmokers. In addition, environmental factors such as secondhand smoke are less apparent in older ages.
Participants were first enrolled in 1959, when secondhand smoke was pervasive. "Most people were exposed to it, pretty much everywhere, whether or not they were married to smokers."
The finding is based on only 10% of the original study participants.
* The tobacco industry funded the study as part of an ongoing campaign to publish studies that question the dangers of secondhand smoke. "It views secondhand smoke as one of the most dangerous components against it, since it's what causes cities and states to restrict public smoking," says Thun. "And it actively seeks out this kind of research to confuse the public."
This from the link you proved to support your argument that second-hand smoke is a government conspiracy against the poor picked on tobacco industry. So, hey, way to undercut your own argument!
"Are we going to outlaw guns just because it kills people too?"
No, we are going to outlaw using guns to kill people. Oh, we already have.
In the same way, we are going to outlaw tobacco when it is harmful to others. Pay close attention to my argument. I am calling for the regulation of the industry and the banning of smoking in public places, due to the document dangers of second hand smoke.
The Mayo Clinic, a very reputable source, has this to say about second hand smoke:
"The Surgeon General reported in 2006 that scientific evidence shows there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."
"Tobacco smoke contains more than 4,000 chemical compounds, more than 250 of which are toxic. And more than 50 of the chemicals in cigarette smoke are known or suspected to cause cancer."
"Health experts have recognized the relationship between secondhand smoke and health risks for decades."
Any questions?
And so...the facts to support your suspicion about Muslims being offended by the opportunity to swear on the Koran in court?
I didn't realize that Joe had pointlessly amassed points recently. Didn't you say that unlike Joe, you went for quantity, not quality. Stop using Joe to try to justify your point-mongering ways.
"Vegetarians are trying to win the war. You're trying to win the battle."
That's a rather odd statement, considering the fact that at one time I was a "professional vegetarian" so to speak, serving as Director of EarthSave International.
"I hope you're not using PETA as your vegetarian/vegan visions."
I hope you can read what I wrote about the basis of the strategy behind the programs I encouraged our chapters to follow. Its based on my professional experience helping people make positive changes in their life, and the positive results of an particular approach used by an organization that was able to help people quit smoking.
"You're basing most of your ideals in western worlds"
I don't have ideals so much as I have the facts about how a moving more toward a plant-based diet has beneficial results for your health, the health of the planet and for the ethical treatment of animals, as well as a practical strategy for helping people change their dietary habits.
One of those facts, in fact, is a landmark study done in China, comparing people who had adopted the Standard American Diet (SAD) to people who maintained a traditional diet, low in the consumption of meat.
Well, don't bother to take the trouble to find out or not. That might just slow you down in your contest with yourself to gather up an increasingly meanless lead in points.
Hey, who needs facts at a debate sight? Points are all you need. Points! Points! You are the Gollum in search for precious points. How very very sad.
Um, no.
Water is a great medium for storing heat. We are experiencing the result of increased water temperature interacting with the seasonal cold air, resulting in snowfall.
If you'd like to explain the science behind your wildly hyperbolic claims about directly bringing about the end of droughts and world hunger by means of global warming, please do. Otherwise, you yourself have become a Global warming or "Climate Change" nut -- of the species "Denier Unscientific"
" it is global warming because our earth is trying to cool itself"
Um, not really. Water is a great medium for storing heat. We are experiencing the result of increased water tempture interacting with the seasonal cold air, resulting in snowfall.
Science News
Global Warming Means More Snow For Great Lakes Region
Global warming has had a surprising impact on the Great Lakes region of the U.S. – more snow. A comparative study of snowfall records in and outside of the Great Lakes region indicated a significant increase in snowfall in the Great Lakes region since the 1930s but no such increase in non-Great Lakes areas.
Syracuse, NY, one of the snowiest cities in the U.S., experienced four of its largest snowfalls on record in the 1990s – the warmest decade in the 20th century, as a result of global warming.
“Recent increases in the water temperature of the Great Lakes are consistent with global warming,” said Burnett. “Such increases widen the gap between water temperature and air temperature – the ideal condition for snowfall.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/
So now you know.
"People have the right to do what ever they want inside the laws"
Obviously. And once tobacco products are made illegal, people won't have that right.
The question is, should we make tobacco products illegal, which really is the only effective way to ban their use.
While it is true that "As long as it legal under the law, tobacco products use is a matter of choice." What is being argued is if we should make the use of tobacco products illegal and take away people's choice. Your answer fails to declare a position on that question.
If burglery were outlawed, then all the burglers would be out of work. ;)
As a society, we can and do make decisions to not allow someone to do harm to others purely for their own financial gain. It's been demonstrated, for example, that second hand smoke is harmful. It's been shown that smoking while pregnant harms the fetus.
Should we allow the tobacco industry to continue to harm people so they can maintain their profits? The fact is, the industry knew long ago that smoking was harmful, but spent tons of money to hire scientists to lie for them. Oh dear, now those cancer-causing lying sons-of-bitches are out of work. (Well no. Now they are being employed by the energy industry to lie about global warming. Fact.)
Now if people choose to smoke and limit the harm to themselves alone, fine. But otherwise, the industry needs to regulated and the practice of smoking in public spaces forbidden.
Well, first, I think dietary choices should be based on fact, not belief. If someone wants to argue the facts about the benefits of a purely vegetarian diet, they are welcome to do it. They should be prepared to be largely ineffective and, in fact, have the effort be counter-productive.
Many have people have come to a decision to stop eating meat all together after first making small changes in their diet. Even if not everyone does that, I'd rather have 1000 people make just a small change than to have one convert to "pure" vegetarianism. The overall impact is greater.
The fact is, much of the world does have a largely plant-based diet, with meat being served in small amounts, almost like a condiment, or reserved for special occasions. The result is that these people are healthier and the environment and the animals do not suffer from the ill-effects of factory farming. I'd be happy is much of the world returned to this kind of diet.
So no, I am not going to do what you think a vegetarian should do. I much prefer being effective than being a self-righteous ass.
I'm happy that the video viewing worked for you. But I decided that other organizations had that video thing covered. Also, although I didn't do any kind of survey, my observations were that very few people would watch those videos. Like you said, they did not want their world-view challenged. It is fine for persuading a few, but its not an effective strategy for appealing to a broad spectrum of people. In fact, I think people associate their distaste with what they see on the screen with the organization showing it!
There is lots of information out there about the harm eating meat can do to the environment, to your health, and how it impacts the humane treatment of animals. Plenty of people have heard, and heeded, the advice to cut down on the consumption of red meat. Also, various widely publicized animal food safety scares over recent years have led people towards semi-vegetarianism or vegetarianism. So while more people could benefit from more information, the educational component was also pretty well covered by other organizations and the general media.
EarthSave was primarily involved in this kind of mission to educate folks. After all, it got started as a result of a best-selling book that provided compelling information about the benefits of not eating meat.
But like quiting smoking, once people were convinced to change, they needed practical help to experience success. There was not only this need that was not being met, but there was the need for the organization to differentiate itself from other such organizations and not duplicate their services. Like I said, we had a unique vision, strategy and programs to help people make practical changes in how they eat.
Well yes, the pictures are disturbing. Just as disturbing is the illegal invasion of Iraq and all the resulting deaths. Let me explain the link that ties these two seemingly different events.
The Nuremberg trials prosecuted prominent members of Germany's political, military, and economic leadership. Most folks think the trials were just about the crimes against humanity that your photos depict.
However, the indictments were for:
1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace, which is "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression."
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace, specifically, the unwarranted invasion of its European neighbors.
3. War crimes (limited to atrocities against combatants or conventional crimes committed by military units)
and finally
4. Crimes against humanity, the major crime being the Holocaust. The 5-6 million Jews that died were but a part of the at least 10 million, and perhaps over 20 million innocent non-combatants systematically murdered by the Nazi regime.
Convicted of these crimes, 12 defendants were sentenced to death by hanging.
Please note that two of the indictments were for the Nazi wars of aggression. The chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated: "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".
This same man, Robert H. Jackson, judged the Invasion of Iraq by George W. Bush was a war of aggression.
We still await the hanging of Bush and his gang for this "supreme international crime."
That famous electric shock experiment was conducted by the psychologist, Stanley Milgram a half-century ago.
In a new study, most people willingly pulled a lever to deliver pain to others when instructed to do so, showing that little has changed in all these years.
A rivalry implies that the competition is mutual. Would I join a contest to see which of us can spam and scam our way to the top of the vote pile? Not my style.
It is said that the guy with the tallest tower feels superior to others. But if the tower is made of shit, it is not especially impressive to anyone.
Can they all be called debates? As you yourself said, you are going for quantity rather than quality -- and it shows.
What is the point of getting the most points if they are gained illegitimately?
But congratulations. You have the most points. You are the big weiner. :)
I'll look for the quote if I need to, but I'm sure you'll be honest and admit that you said that unlike joecalvary, you go for quantity rather than quality.
Which basically means most of your debates suck and you are point mongering. Sure, if we were seagulls, you could claim to have more fish than anyone else. The problem is, they are all rotten.
I'm happy to be at the number of points I have. Other than my silly and satiric debates (which actually have a point after all), my debate topics and supporting arguments are well thought out, artfully presented and well documented with plentiful links. That's what matters to me. Points are meaningless, as proven by your high count
And you? Spam-bot.
"OK, so forgive me for saying not "millions""
Well, its not exactly a sin or a major offense to not use the right number. It's easily corrected by using all the available facts, which I have done.
"I provided pictures of the plaques that are at all three of the major concentration camps."
But not the others, in which deaths also took place, which results in numbers higher than those you claim. Let's use all of the facts please.
"I honestly don't remember the ridiculous number you posted."
You mean the one citing documented facts about all of the deaths, not just those at the three camps you are using for your figures?
You are not disputing my figures with this argument, just explaining the limitations of yours. I appreciate you acknowledging that.
1. There are two links. The first is NOT to wikipedia and it addresses the main point: the millions of Jews killed in the holocaust. The 2nd link supports some additional but not not necessary points. They need not be true for your point to be untrue.
2. You could have provides data which disproves this secondary point, but you can't or won't. Instead, you attack the source of the data. This is a well know logical fallacy. But you can safely ignore the secondary point as you've already been proven wrong on the main point.
