Would you like to be eaten?
in [Vegetarian]
|
From: ant and dec on 1 Feb 2006 17:14 Autymn D. C. wrote: > pails -> pales > You talk absolute bollocks. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
From: Dave on 1 Feb 2006 22:49 pearl wrote: > "Dave" <prplbn(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1138248563.796259.133480(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > pearl wrote: > > > "Dave" <prplbn(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1137368753.160005.223390(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > <..> > > > > It is relevant ad hominem. I am not attacking the messenger for > > > > the sake of attacking the messenger. I am questioning the > > > > messenger's methods of reaching conclusions. > > > > > > Why? Question what I post by all means, but don't lie about me. > > > > I am not lying about you. I am merely observing that the conclusions > > you reach *appear* to demonstrate a certain lack of objectivity and > > overreliance on sources that tell you what you want to "know". > > You'd like me to argue against myself? I'll leave that to you. > > > Given that your methods of research have led you to believe that > > inside of the Earth is hollow > > 'Seismic waves travelled through the planet for weeks as > Earth rang like a bell from the shock of the Alaska earthquake, > wrote Doug Christensen, associate director of the University > of Alaska's Geophysical Institute. ' > http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF16/1689.html > > 'In terms of the planet, Dr McQueen compares the difference > between the magnitude 9.0 quake and more common large > quakes to "tapping a bell with a spoon and belting it with a > hammer". > http://tinyurl.com/b5mnw > > 'Common to all bells is their hollow form, ...' > http://www.msu.edu/~carillon/batmbook/chapter4.htm > > What's your theory to explain this phenomenon, Dave? I'll leave that to the scientists. > > and inhabited by beings of light and darkness > > The belief is as ancient as it is universal. > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/inner4.htm > > > you will have to accept my continued scepticism. > > Because I don't blindly accept 'established' but unproven dogma? > > The irony. Touche. I still can't take these ideas seriously though. > > > > > Virtually everything I cite is from authoritative sources no matter > > > > > where it was published, although much (most) is from source. > > > > > > > > How did you reach the conclusion that meat was unhealthy? > > > > > > Personal experience, research and observation. > > > > I'm still no nearer to understanding. > > I was raised on a meat-centric diet and was suffering from > some form of arthritis by age eighteen. I recovered from the > condition after I became vegetarian. That suggests (but doesn't prove) that the diet you adopted when you became vegetarian was better suited to your body's needs than the diet you had previously. > Also, looking at available > clinical and epidemiological studies, I have not scrutinized any of these studies and just rely on the advice of groups I rightly or wrongly assume to be authorities on the subject. I am not in a position to argue the point. >and direct observation. As in what you have learnt as a reflexologist? > HTH. To some extent. > > > > How did you reach the conclusion that animal testing is > > > > anti-scientific? > > > > > > Research. Common sense. > > > > Common sense tells me that scientists would be more likely > > to research using methods they consider effective. > > You would think so, wouldn't you. Common sense tells me > and others, that results from other species, who react differently, > and made to suffer artificially-induced disorders, are in no way > transferable to human beings with a 'naturally'-occuring disease. > Believing otherwise has led to the current sorry state of affairs. Common sense tells me that there are some biochemical similarities between species and it seems plausible that animal experiments may be able to yield clues regarding the treatment of humans. > > How does your common sense tell you that animal experiments have > > nothing to teach us? > > It may teach you about that species, or more accurately, that individual. Yes. > > > > If you look in the right place you can find plenty of information, > > > > that sounds authoritative, for *or* against all of these claims. How > > > > do you assess which are genuine and which are fraudulent? > > > > > > If I'm unsure about something, I generally look into it further. > > > > Of course you do. The question is how do you become so sure in > > things that closed minded people like me would dismiss out of hand? > > By actually examining the evidence.
From: Autymn D. C. on 3 Feb 2006 11:12 ant and dec wrote: > Autymn D. C. wrote: > > pails -> pales > > > You talk absolute bollocks. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc. I talk you.
From: ant and dec on 3 Feb 2006 12:20
Autymn D. C. wrote: > ant and dec wrote: >> Autymn D. C. wrote: >>> pails -> pales >>> >> You talk absolute bollocks. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc. > > I talk you. > You talk absolute bollocks. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc. |