PETA party

[varwoche]

Seriously, why say anything if you have nothing to offer?

Well hrumph. I offered: (1) feedback on the quality of your post and (2) an example of how to deal with posts that consist of pseudo-skeptical arm waving.

Do you have anything that states that plants don't feel pain?

Sorry, but your line of inquiry is so asinine that to respond to it seriously would also be asinine, at least in the context of this thread.

 

[Cain]

Can't defend a position? Turn into a blithering child when confronted? Not my problem. Too many intelligent people on this Forum so I'm not wasting any more time on you. Bye!

I'm the one acting like a child. You seem fond of taking whatever you're feeling and attributing it to me. Have fun with your ball.

 

[Slimething]

The definition of life is irrelevant to anything I'm interested in discussing. Why you'd think I care about having a "better" one is beyond me.

Nice dodge. I was explaining to you where the concept of all life having the characteristic of irritability originates. You criticized it then I explained why it was probably not not your liking. Now you proclaim it irrelevant because you cannot offer a better one. Silly, no?

Psychological is exactly what I meant.

Well, then, you'd be wrong. Unless, of course, you're the Queen of Hearts? It's very difficult having a technical conversation with someone who doesn't know the lexicon or has their ideas so balled-up that they use it in a sloppy manner that they think evades dissection. I have no idea what category you fall into but I'm sensing a lot of confusion on your end.

Your link doesn't support your claim whatsoever.

Only that it renders your "all pain in the brain" posit completely wrong. It does. Read it.

That's the point I was trying to make. ESMO.

Then, why didn't you just state it? You've wasted a lot of my time by misinterpreting your statement that people who reject your approved activities are sociopaths. That doesn't follow. Your direct statement would have gone unchallenged.

This is a nonsensical statement.

Because? (I don't allow people to use "just so" statements. Back it up. If you can't, leave it alone.)

This is also nonsensical.

See above. Your mastery of logic is, so far, unimpressive. Actually, the statement is quite obvious. Morality vs physicality. To me, it's blatantly obvious. So much so that only a knee-jerk ideologue would object to it.

How does one "use a standard on people"?

Ever read a court case? I'm sorry but you're either locked in a cell without benefit of reading material or you just like escaping reality. Most social institutions apply standards to people in varieties of ways.

Dreamed this up in your head?

Nope. I"m old. Seen it. What, you have no counter?

Anecdotes about your subjective opinion of a few people's personalities is not evidence. I'm sure you know this.

I know that. I can hypothesize based on observation. Sue me or come up with some evidence to the contrary. Even a little. Please. All you do is make insipid statements about how wrong I am. I've posted evidence. You have not. I think perhaps you're afraid of what you might find if you dig.

 

[Slimething]

Well hrumph. I offered: (1) feedback on the quality of your post and (2) an example of how to deal with posts that consist of pseudo-skeptical arm waving. Sorry, but your line of inquiry is so asinine that to respond to it seriously would also be asinine, at least in the context of this thread.

My recollection is that you offered feedback of a mundane sort with no explanation how you arrived at it. No, you did not offer anything of (2). All you did was post your silly, unsupported opinion.

Poor varwoche! This topic is beyond your pay scale, so to speak. There is a body of work supporting it. I was offering it up to someone who likes to judge others based on false assumptions. I realize this leads a little too close to home for you but, believe me, you were not the target. I apologize if I have upset your favorite modus operandi by obliquely criticizing it. Don't take it personally.

 

[Meed]

I was explaining to you where the concept of all life having the characteristic of irritability originates. You criticized it then I explained why it was probably not not your liking.

Alright I apologize for criticizing it. But it's still irrelevant to anything I'm interested in.

Well, then, you'd be wrong. Unless, of course, you're the Queen of Hearts? It's very difficult having a technical conversation with someone who doesn't know the lexicon or has their ideas so balled-up that they use it in a sloppy manner that they think evades dissection. I have no idea what category you fall into but I'm sensing a lot of confusion on your end.

I'm not wrong or confused. Psychology is my field.

Only that it renders your "all pain in the brain" posit completely wrong. It does. Read it.

I looked at it. It doesn't.

Because? (I don't allow people to use "just so" statements. Back it up. If you can't, leave it alone.)

Because it means nothing. Why don't you back up your statement "Morality-based vegetarianism is a refutation of the human body's nature."? How was it not "just so"?

See above. Your mastery of logic is, so far, unimpressive. Actually, the statement is quite obvious. Morality vs physicality. To me, it's blatantly obvious. So much so that only a knee-jerk ideologue would object to it.

That just shows how far off in your little world you are. Let's see..

"It's an overlay imposed on one's own body as a reflection of a value system, not for a biological reason."

Values are biological. They don't replace the body somehow.

Ever read a court case? I'm sorry but you're either locked in a cell without benefit of reading material or you just like escaping reality. Most social institutions apply standards to people in varieties of ways.

Since vegetarians aren't social institutions, how is it that you think they "apply standards to people"?

Nope. I"m old. Seen it. What, you have no counter?

Why would I feel the need to "counter" some silly unfounded assertion?

I know that. I can hypothesize based on observation. Sue me or come up with some evidence to the contrary. Even a little. Please.

I don't have to since it's not evidence. Hypothesize away, I don't care. If you're asking for a counter-anecdote (which is also not evidence) then I can tell you most vegetarians I've known have been the opposite of jerks, which is true. I don't see the point, though.

All you do is make insipid statements about how wrong I am. I've posted evidence.

Not evidence of anything that matters.

 

[Slimething]

I'm not wrong or confused. Psychology is my field.

It's your field and you believe that somatic pain has psychological impact? How do you differentiate trauma to the psyche from a sunburn?

I looked at it. It doesn't.

Yes, it does. If you are so sure, it would be very easy to explain the difference between cerebral avoidance and plexar reflex. Please begin. Or maybe correct the Wiki article?

Because it means nothing. Why don't you back up your statement "Morality-based vegetarianism is a refutation of the human body's nature."? How was it not "just so"?

Humans are omnivores. Simple. What do you have? Seriously, I thought that someone in psychiatry/psychology had to have a requisite number of hours in basic biology. Are you pulling my leg about your profession? This is basic stuff.

That just shows how far off in your little world you are. Let's see..

"It's an overlay imposed on one's own body as a reflection of a value system, not for a biological reason."

Values are biological. They don't replace the body somehow.

Now values are biological. Maybe in an ephemeral evolutionary sense. Not in any other way. And you think I'm in my own little world?

Since vegetarians aren't social institutions, how is it that you think they "apply standards to people"?

Individually. Is that an impossible concept where you live?

Why would I feel the need to "counter" some silly unfounded assertion?

Oh, dear. I've just told you it's personal experience and a logical construct of its etiology. Therefore, it is not unfounded. Tell me, what type of evidence is psychiatry based on again? At this point I'm going to call shenanigans on your claim of being in the psych professions. Too much you don't know. Either that or you're really bad at it.

I don't have to since it's not evidence.

This is a psychiatrist/psychologist writing this? Observation is not evidence? Are you for real?

Not evidence of anything that matters.

I doubt there's any type of evidence that matters to you. Religious much?

Tell you the truth, I don't think you're in a science-related field, let alone the psych services. You've presented no evidence, just denial after denial based on nothing, not even the factual or observational evidence I've offered. If you have nothing, let's end this conversation. From what I can see, you have nothing constructive to offer here.

 

[Meed]

It's your field and you believe that somatic pain has psychological impact? How do you differentiate trauma to the psyche from a sunburn?

It has psychological impact, because it is psychological. "Psychological" meaning something roughly to the effect of "as pertaining to the mind or mental phenomena".

If a sunburn "hurts" then that is psychological pain. However, UV radiation from the sun can also cause tissue damage without any pain being experienced. Tissue damage is not somatic pain, but often correlates with it.

Yes, it does.

Quote the relevant passage.

If you are so sure, it would be very easy to explain the difference between cerebral avoidance and plexar reflex. Please begin. Or maybe correct the Wiki article?

Why would I need to correct the article when it doesn't say what you say it does?

And WTH does "the difference between cerebral avoidance and plexar reflex" mean or have to do with anything? The article uses neither of these terms and "plexar reflex" does not mean anything (a google search for it brings up this thread alone).

Humans are omnivores. Simple. What do you have? Seriously, I thought that someone in psychiatry/psychology had to have a requisite number of hours in basic biology. Are you pulling my leg about your profession? This is basic stuff.

Most humans are omnivores, yes. So? Is != ought and saying vegetarianism is a refutation of nature is still meaningless.

Now values are biological. Maybe in an ephemeral evolutionary sense. Not in any other way. And you think I'm in my own little world?

They are biological in that they are a function of brain and behavior. Both the brain and animal behavior fall under the science of biology, which is the study of life.

Oh, dear. I've just told you it's personal experience and a logical construct of its etiology. Therefore, it is not unfounded. Tell me, what type of evidence is psychiatry based on again? At this point I'm going to call shenanigans on your claim of being in the psych professions. Too much you don't know. Either that or you're really bad at it.

You're confusing psychiatry with psychology. Psychiatry may draw from research done in psychology, but it itself is practice, not science. In the field of psychology as a science anecdotes are not considered good evidence of anything. Your conclusions about me not knowing things are just a result of your own misunderstandings. Your idea that I didn't know humans tend to be omnivorous, for example, was ridiculous and on the issue of somatic pain I think you are simply misunderstanding the term "psychological".

This is a psychiatrist/psychologist writing this? Observation is not evidence? Are you for real?

Well I'll rephrase that. Anecdotes are terribly poor evidence. And even if they were good evidence, your sample size is way too small to justify your conclusion. So, in a technical sense of the word you can call it "evidence", but practically speaking it is completely worthless evidence.

I doubt there's any type of evidence that matters to you. Religious much?

No. Scientific.

Tell you the truth, I don't think you're in a science-related field, let alone the psych services. You've presented no evidence, just denial after denial based on nothing, not even the factual or observational evidence I've offered. If you have nothing, let's end this conversation. From what I can see, you have nothing constructive to offer here.

Feel free to think so.

 

[Slimething]

Most humans are omnivores, yes. So? Is != ought and saying vegetarianism is a refutation of nature is still meaningless.

Meaningless to whom? You? Ideology is a cruel master, isn't it? I think I've tripped over your special assumption. You know, the key denial of reality upon which your house of cards is built. Face it. Humans are omnivores. Diets that don't include meat and vegetation are not natural to the being. Argue all you want. Actuall, don't. I've seen enough from you. You make no sense and refuse to acknowledge evidence.

They are biological in that they are a function of brain and behavior. Both the brain and animal behavior fall under the science of biology, which is the study of life.

Another gem. I study chemistry and can have thoughts based on my learning. Therefore, chemistry theory is biological. Hey, I just read the price of apples therefore the price of apples is biological. You live in a farce.

Feel free to think so.

I do. You've shown me nothing that would distinguish you from a science-illiterate ideologue. Waste of time, really.

Bye!

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

What is with the forum tonight? did Chodorov infect everyone with pissiness?

 

[Meed]

Meaningless to whom? You? Ideology is a cruel master, isn't it? I think I've tripped over your special assumption. You know, the key denial of reality upon which your house of cards is built. Face it. Humans are omnivores. Diets that don't include meat and vegetation are not natural to the being. Argue all you want. Actuall, don't. I've seen enough from you. You make no sense and refuse to acknowledge evidence.

Calling something 'natural' doesn't mean anything. It just means 'occurring in nature'. Humans eating omnivorous diets occurs in nature, just as humans eating vegetarian diets occurs in nature.

Another gem. I study chemistry and can have thoughts based on my learning. Therefore, chemistry theory is biological. Hey, I just read the price of apples therefore the price of apples is biological. You live in a farce.

Yes, your knowledge of chemistry is biological, just as your moral values are.

I do. You've shown me nothing that would distinguish you from a science-illiterate ideologue. Waste of time, really.

Bye!

Happy new year.