Time for the Calgary Stampede to Evolve... ?

[Monty]

This again

[kingofsurrey]

13 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I dunno... is it OK to use the word "fruit" in Calgary? I mean we don't want to get people riled up. 

I have only visited Calgary a few times....... but i did live in Edmonton for a few years....   from what i saw Edmonton is a way more liveable city than  Calgary.

 

[Violator]

1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said:

I have only visited Calgary a few times....... but i did live in Edmonton for a few years....   from what i saw Edmonton is a way more liveable city than  Calgary.

 

Your hot takes are some of the best kos

[canuckistani]

14 hours ago, The Vancouver Connection said:

I'm going to leave this right here...LOL @ people thinking a meat based diet requires less resources. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07k3z96

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/video-un-says-plant-based-diets-can-help-fight-climate-change/

Meat based diet that is asiatic in its meat consumption is more eco friendly than vegan diet. That is mathematically proven.

[Angry Goose]

6 hours ago, canuckistani said:

Meat based diet that is asiatic in its meat consumption is more eco friendly than vegan diet. That is mathematically proven.

Here we go again with the guy that doesnt understand facts

[bishopshodan]

6 hours ago, canuckistani said:

Meat based diet that is asiatic in its meat consumption is more eco friendly than vegan diet. That is mathematically proven.

However Monsieur Mustard Plant,

A nice side effect is a vegan diet removes the suffering from the animals that have intelligence and emotions that we can relate to. 

 

I have some lyrics for you:

 

And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber.
And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself.
And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own Midwest.
And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil.
One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear. And terror possessed me then

And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"

And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots!
You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust."

And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared,
"Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you!
Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!"

Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus

 

MJK
 

[Angry Goose]

On 7/20/2019 at 1:24 PM, Monty said:

But if people push their beliefs on others, it’s annoying, and usually comes across badly. 

 

 

Im not one for being pushy or putting people down (unless they acting adversarial as well) to try and persuade people.  At the same time you have to stand up for what you believe in so I get that side of it too.  

 

I do wonder if people followed advocacy groups like:

https://twitter.com/DxEverywhere?s=17 

 

and saw the rampant abuse in the industry, whether, they might re consider their actions over time.  

Edited August 9, 2019 by SILLY GOOSE

[canuckistani]

4 hours ago, bishopshodan said:

However Monsieur Mustard Plant,

A nice side effect is a vegan diet removes the suffering from the animals that have intelligence and emotions that we can relate to. 

That’s like saying it’s more ethical to support your criminal family member over the innocent stranger coz you relate to your family more. While that may be true(relatability to animals over plants), it doesn’t make it more ethical. We are vertibrates. We relate more to vertibrates. It’s not that plants don’t react to pain, they do. We just relate pain response from vertibrate animals more than non vertibrates and even more them than plants. That’s called cognitive bias. Not ethics. 

 

[canuckistani]

4 hours ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

Here we go again with the guy that doesnt understand facts

Lol. Fact is if you feed your animal farm waste cellulose and eat that animal, provided the animal you eat survives only on such farm waste, omnivore diet is decisively more environmentally friendly than vegan diet. This is because vegan diet wastes the calories of cellulose that other animals can digest but we cannot. Fact is, asiatic or at least non modern western omnivore diet is the most sustainable and healthy diet for us.

[canuckistani]

3 hours ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

Im not one for being pushy or putting people down (unless they acting adversarial as well) to try and persuade people.  At the same time you have to stand up for what you believe in so I get that side of it too.  

 

I do wonder if people followed advocacy groups like:

https://twitter.com/DxEverywhere?s=17 

 

and saw the rampant abuse in the industry, whether, they might re consider their actions over time.  

Cognitive bias is not an argument for anything but cognitive bias. It’s not an argument for more or less suffering. We cannot prove that  cows suffer more than mollusks or clams and if clams suffer more than corn. What we can prove is all life forms take defensive and avoidance measures toward painful experiences, thresholds of which varies from species to species.

[Angry Goose]

26 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Cognitive bias is not an argument for anything but cognitive bias. It’s not an argument for more or less suffering. We cannot prove that  cows suffer more than mollusks or clams and if clams suffer more than corn. What we can prove is all life forms take defensive and avoidance measures toward painful experiences, thresholds of which varies from species to species.

Like Ive said before, I'm not going to discuss a topic with a guy who doesn't understand simple reasoning based on facts.  To think plant consciousness is equivalent or closely similar to the mental lives of non human animals and humans based on scientific research you can't seem to grasp/understand important factual differences is absurd.  You couldn't even grasp what conditional reasoning entails so let that sink in.

 

Second, you missed the point regarding the persuasiveness of animal suffering.  It's called empathy and rational assent based on evidence people may not be aware of.  Not surprised you went off on your own tangent though.

 

37 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Lol. Fact is if you feed your animal farm waste cellulose and eat that animal, provided the animal you eat survives only on such farm waste, omnivore diet is decisively more environmentally friendly than vegan diet. This is because vegan diet wastes the calories of cellulose that other animals can digest but we cannot. Fact is, asiatic or at least non modern western omnivore diet is the most sustainable and healthy diet for us.

Waste cellulose eh?  Whatever that is, does it magically grow and not require other resources like water and land to grow?  

 

It's not rocket science pal.    When you account for the total amount of resources to raise animals in concentrated feed operations, then compare the calories you get from eating said animals, the equation is significantly in efficient.  If CAFO's in "Asia" are so different I wouldn't be surprised, but then again so are their animal protection/welfare laws, not that North America or Europe are pillars of Justice on this front either.  The way you describe it I'd be even more wary of eating animals exploited in Asia.  

 

I'm not even going to get into the question marks of whatever this waste cellulose is that you think is OK for animals to eat.

 

Continue on with your vendetta however. 

[canuckistani]

Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:Like Ive said before, I'm not going to discuss a topic with a guy who doesn't understand simple reasoning based on facts.  To think plant consciousness is equivalent or closely similar to the mental lives of non human animals and humans based on scientific research you can't seem to grasp/understand important factual differences is absurd.  You couldn't even grasp what conditional reasoning entails so let that sink in.

I never for one instance said plant consciousness is comparable to humans. For the simple reason that no other species can be objectively compared to ours as we lack the basic means of communication. 

 

As for plants vs animals , I have cited actual biologists and their papers. It came as a shock to me too, but unlike you, years of science training and experience has taught me to defer to the findings and statements of scientific authorities in the field, even if it’s counter intuitive. 

 

I realize that plant cognition is counter intuitive. Many things in science are. Such as the moon drifting away from our planet and not coming closer to it ( as any standard gravitational analysis predicts). This is why you are struggling to accept this basic fact because this counter intuitive idea is also influenced by your cognitive bias towards life forms more similar to you (animals).

Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:I 

Second, you missed the point regarding the persuasiveness of animal suffering.  It's called empathy and rational assent based on evidence people may not be aware of.  Not surprised you went off on your own tangent though.

 

There is no rational basis to conclude that a cow recoiling from a fire is suffering more than a plant emitting stress symptoms from fire. Empathy is irrelevant to ethics and is actually unethical in an ethical comparison, since empathy is fundamentally a case of bias. This is why we are more empathetic to the emotions of our children than a random stranger. 

Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:

Waste cellulose eh?  Whatever that is, does it magically grow and not require other resources like water and land to grow?  

?? This makes no sense. Animal poop is more fertilizing than direct plant matter. It means it’s more ecologically friendly to have an animal eat the husks of corn, eat the animal and use its poop for fertilizer, than use the husks directly as fertilizer. It’s mathematically provable. 

Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:

 

It's not rocket science pal.    When you account for the total amount of resources to raise animals in concentrated feed operations, then compare the calories you get from eating said animals, the equation is significantly in efficient.  If CAFO's in "Asia" are so different I wouldn't be surprised, but then again so are their animal protection/welfare laws, not that North America or Europe are pillars of Justice on this front either.  The way you describe it I'd be even more wary of eating animals exploited in Asia.  

 

I'm not even going to get into the question marks of whatever this waste cellulose is that you think is OK for animals to eat.

 

Continue on with your vendetta however. 

Waste cellulose is any and all plant matter that herbivores can digest but we cannot. Husks,stalks, barks, leaves etc. Unlike you, I am not the kind to pass off my cognitive bias towards animals as some ethical consideration. All life is sacred and all things kill life forms to live, except for those species that eat rocks or amino acids directly. And this POV of all life being sacred, with plant life and animal life on equal footing is not just some vendetta, there are millions of people who live by this motto. They are called Jains, who have been practicing their non violence ethics for 2500 years longer than these new age vegans. The only difference between them and me, is I consider it part of the natural cycle to eat anything I am capable of digesting without presenting a biological threat to me. But carry on with your cognitive bias and newfound ideology of Veganism. It’s ethics are objectively inferior to those of the Jain ethics regarding nonviolence as well as being an immature ideology, since it hasn’t been around long enough to iron out its kinks. 

[bishopshodan]

1 hour ago, canuckistani said:

That’s like saying it’s more ethical to support your criminal family member over the innocent stranger coz you relate to your family more.

I was just talking about that this morning in another thread. 

 

1 hour ago, canuckistani said:

While that may be true(relatability to animals over plants), it doesn’t make it more ethical. We are vertibrates. We relate more to vertibrates.

Now you're with me.

 

1 hour ago, canuckistani said:

We just relate pain response from vertibrate animals more than non vertibrates and even more them than plants.

Yep pain, fear... emotion, communication etc

1 hour ago, canuckistani said:

That’s called cognitive bias. Not ethics. 

yep.

relatabilty. 

Edited August 10, 2019 by bishopshodan

[falcon45ca]

4 hours ago, bishopshodan said:

However Monsieur Mustard Plant,

A nice side effect is a vegan diet removes the suffering from the animals that have intelligence and emotions that we can relate to. 

 

I have some lyrics for you:

 

And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber.
And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself.
And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own Midwest.
And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil.
One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear. And terror possessed me then

And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"

And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots!
You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust."

And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared,
"Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you!
Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!"

Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus

 

MJK
 

August 30th...

[canuckistani]

3 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

I was just talking about that this morning in another thread. 

 

Now your with me.

 

Yep pain, fear... emotion, communication etc

yep.

relatabilty. 

So because we relate to something more, it doesn’t make our responses ethicsl towards them. It makes it more biassed, that’s all. Sorry if it’s repeating myself but your post was a lil bit too short for me to fully grasp if you were agreeing or not. 

 

Plants show pain, fear etc responses too. We just don’t relate to it intuitively because they do not have hairs that stand up, eyes that go wide in shock or vocal cords that emit frequency of sound we interpret as distress. We relate more to animals and value animal suffering more not because we have evidence that animals feel more than plants ( the evidence shows that plants also feel though it’s hard to quantify which species or individual life form feels stimuli x more), but because we relate to their organ structure of eyes ears tongues etc more than species which lack all these organs.

Edited August 10, 2019 by canuckistani

[bishopshodan]

Just now, canuckistani said:

So because we relate to something more, it doesn’t make our responses ethicsl towards them. It makes it more biassed, that’s all. Sorry if it’s repeating myself but your post was a lil bit too short for me to fully grasp if you were agreeing or not. 

I am agreeing .

 

I don't want to have something I can relate to suffer. It is biased. 

I feel bad for the carrots. Not as bad as I feel for the Pigs. 

 

I still eat carrots, I have to eat something. 

 

When they develop a pill for my nutrients. I'm in. 

 

 

[canuckistani]

Just now, bishopshodan said:

I am agreeing .

 

I don't want to have something I can relate to suffer. It is biased. 

I feel bad for the carrots. Not as bad as I feel for the Pigs. 

 

I still eat carrots, I have to eat something. 

 

When they develop a pill for my nutrients. I'm in. 

 

 

But why pill ? What’s wrong with suffering done to food ?? Billions of species do it every day ,the bulk majority of life does it. That is the most objective benchmark of it being perfectly natural to suffer if you are food to something. Maybe it’s a consequence of being brought up in the artificiality of western supermarket lifestyle, where you don’t get to interact with your food from its living state to its death. I am thankful my kids grew up picking the chicken they want, live and seeing it butchered in front of them, as is natural for our species since time immemorial. Maybe this is why this whole laughable ethics of slaughter mentality is seen amongst people who grow up the supermarket only lifestyle. 

[bishopshodan]

2 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

But why pill ? What’s wrong with suffering done to food ?? Billions of species do it every day ,the bulk majority of life does it. That is the most objective benchmark of it being perfectly natural to suffer if you are food to something. Maybe it’s a consequence of being brought up in the artificiality of western supermarket lifestyle, where you don’t get to interact with your food from its living state to its death. I am thankful my kids grew up picking the chicken they want, live and seeing it butchered in front of them, as is natural for our species since time immemorial. Maybe this is why this whole laughable ethics of slaughter mentality is seen amongst people who grow up the supermarket only lifestyle. 

I remember butchering chickens at my friends farm. They can do quite a sprint without their heads. 

 

Maybe I'm just evolved. I've never cared much for food. Eat and drink the same thing at my local, they don't even need to ask. I like to keep it healthy as I've always been in shape. I don't like the suffering that I understand regarding what we eat. That's it in a (poor little suffering) nutshell. 

[Angry Goose]

1 hour ago, canuckistani said:

I never for one instance said plant consciousness is comparable to humans. For the simple reason that no other species can be objectively compared to ours as we lack the basic means of communication. 

 

 

You see, this sums you up in a nutshell.  

 

You have compared human consciousness to plant 'consciousness', or have you already forgotten?  I argued quite clearly that the mental life humans and animals have are distinctly different than any type of broad, very general functionalist account of plant 'consciousness'.  The paper you cited supports this claim because it made no reference to it either- guess what: there are no grounds for doing so.  Instead, they looked as a very broad, functional account of plant consciousness which I outlined to you.  You simply dismissed this distinction as unscientific and went on and on about how there really is no substantive difference.  Hilarious given the amount of research and focus on the subjective/phenomenal aspect of consciousness in neuroscience.  Instead, you deemed both types of consciousness as comparable for all intents and purposes based on a very vague and therefore weak justification of signal theory yadda yadda yadda.  This is not bias.  This is empirically justified given neurophysiology.  Not interested in getting into that nonsense again.

 

Second, you just dont get it.  Your ability to reason and critically look at information is weak.  You make very outlandish ethical claims which could be avoided if you thought about them first. 

 

 

2 hours ago, canuckistani said:

There is no rational basis to conclude that a cow recoiling from a fire is suffering more than a plant emitting stress symptoms from fire. Empathy is irrelevant to ethics and is actually unethical in an ethical comparison, since empathy is fundamentally a case of bias. This is why we are more empathetic to the emotions of our children than a random stranger. 

  

First, cows have mental states of pain, and also additional mental states of not wanting to be in a state of pain.  Second, plants do not have mental states, whatsoever, because mental states require a brain.  So there is such a  rational basis for saying animals suffer more than plants.  In fact, there is no basis for saying plants "suffer" because there is no basis for stating plants have a mental life comparable to that of humans and animals .  You can't say plants feel anything.  You CAN state they react to external stimuli.  Big difference.   

 

lso, we empathize with other humans and animals in moments of distress BECAUSE we have REASON to.  We know this based on how we experience the world- its one way of how we relate to others.

 

Like Ive said before, no point in going in circles with someone who is un reasonable, untruthful and misleading.  Cant have a rational discussion with this type of person.  Enjoy yelling at clouds

 

 

[canuckistani]

2 hours ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

 

You see, this sums you up in a nutshell.  

 

You have compared human consciousness to plant 'consciousness', or have you already forgotten? 

Nope, never. I have simply maintained our unique and incomparable position in consciousness to any other known lifeform on a purely cognitive comparability basis. This is not a ‘ first amongst equals’ line of reasoning, it’s ‘species x cannot compare its consciousness to any other species on the basis of lacking conclusive communication TO species studies consciousness to ever say with decisive confirmation the nature of consciousness’.

 

in simple terms, we cannot say for certain if burning a goat makes the goat feel burning the same way we do or if it’s a stabbing pain. We guess on that count and it’s largely a practically irrelevant point to any but the issue of confirmatory consciousness. 

Quote

 

I argued quite clearly that the mental life humans and animals have are distinctly different than any type of broad, very general functionalist account of plant 'consciousness'. 

And your argument was summarily dismissed due to lacking a basic form of scientific control. You cannot cite superior consciousness based on organs response, when consciousness itself is not tied to those organ responses. Ie, you cannot use ‘ it twitches it’s eyes and looks at me lovingly when pet’ to compare consciousness response with a being LACKING EYES as a physiology. 

 

The only rational scientific control, as mentioned in the article and which you are completely unable to grasp, is evaluation of consciousness on the basis of signal response analysis. Ie, if the responses it is capable of, is showing organized, conscious thought pattern, then that and that alone is the basis of consciousness appraisal. On this facet, plants show remarkable conscious response. So much so that cutting edge research is linking it with a remarkable synaptic mimicry facilitates by a complex network of roots and fungi on the roots. Clearly, you have zilch comprehension of the scientific discussion on consciousness and are simply stuck in the confirmatory bias of ‘ no eyes, no twitch, no, salivation,no locomotion equals no consciousness’.

Quote

The paper you cited supports this claim because it made no reference to it either- guess what: there are no grounds for doing so.  Instead, they looked as a very broad, functional account of plant consciousness which I outlined to you. 

You are mistaken. The paper said what I said above. It won’t give you the answer you seek because a being like a plant cannot show the same ‘ oh $&!# swish away to bad stuff or release perfume bomb to animal that is saying loving things’ because it is not thst sort of lifeform.

consciousness requires a species wide control. The only control, as the article state, barring direct communication , is signal response analysis. Aka McKlintock’s smart cell. As I said, please science more. 

Quote

 

You simply dismissed this distinction as unscientific and went on and on about how there really is no substantive difference.

See above. I am dismissing your objections to a scientific peer reviewed paper on plant intelligence because your objections stem mostly from lack of basic scientific education on how to set up controls to a said experiment. Clearly, you have never researched a serious scientific project akin to a thesis defence or self directed grad studies in pure sciences. In such, you become very familiar with the concepts of controls to an experiment that makes the experiment scientifically valid. 

Quote

  Hilarious given the amount of research and focus on the subjective/phenomenal aspect of consciousness in neuroscience.  Instead, you deemed both types of consciousness as comparable for all intents and purposes based on a very vague and therefore weak justification of signal theory yadda yadda yadda.  This is not bias.  This is empirically justified given neurophysiology.  Not interested in getting into that nonsense again.

Neurophysiology of intelligence is limited by mathematical constrains to beings possessing neurons. It’s inapplicable to machine learning, never mind other beings. Signal theory isn’t yadda yadda, it’s the universal benchmark of discerning if output is intelligent, self aware, repeater, random noise, etc. It’s data analysis that you clearly have no idea, is the most sophisticated benchmark in and of itself of consciousness of lack of, of a signal. Again, just because you are ignorant of those scientific concepts, doesn’t mean your two bit memorization of a few philosophy courses is overriding to the scientific reality.

Quote

 

Second, you just dont get it.  Your ability to reason and critically look at information is weak.  You make very outlandish ethical claims which could be avoided if you thought about them first. 

 

You seem so, because you are simply not familiar or strong enough in mathematics to represent reasoning mathematically and verify. Hence you are stuck in the ‘ memorized theories and intuitive loop’ of thinking. It’s okay, I hurt your feelings by citing peer reviewed paper that’s two years old on plant intelligence. It wrecks your vegan religion, so it’s no different than science denial of religious people. I get it. 

Quote

  

First, cows have mental states of pain, and also additional mental states of not wanting to be in a state of pain.  Second, plants do not have mental states, whatsoever, because mental states require a brain.

Conciosness or lack of it, is based on displayed response. Source of displayed response, as in AI does not need to be a brain or CPU. distributed signal processing is older than CPU tech btw. 

Quote

  So there is such a  rational basis for saying animals suffer more than plants. 

Nope. See above. It’s observers bias using observers physiological parameters that’s not valid to non veribral consciousness. 

Quote

In fact, there is no basis for saying plants "suffer" because there is no basis for stating plants have a mental life comparable to that of humans and animals .  You can't say plants feel anything.  You CAN state they react to external stimuli.  Big difference.   

If your signal response matches to PTSD, you got PTSD. Same stimuli pattern customized to species yields PTSD. Whether it’s human, cow or mustard plant. 

Quote

lso, we empathize with other humans and animals in moments of distress BECAUSE we have REASON to.  We know this based on how we experience the world- its one way of how we relate to others.

Reason to is not because we know how it percieves the world. But because it’s similar enough to us for us to make observational guesses that make sense to us. 3 year olds get upset equally when their pet fish or cat get distressed, not more so for the cat because it’s way smarter and cognitive, but because both have eyes, skin, ears, howl, etc. A cat in pain shows far more relatable benchmarks of pain than a fish. Yet my daughter mourned their deaths the same as a kid of 4. This is the basis of empathy: like life forms. Not nonsense about consciousness or ability to feel. If that’s the case people with crazy parents would empathize more with empathy than their parents. Yet they don’t. Empathy is based on your ability to relate to a life on instinct, not a rational decision based on complexity of the lifeform. 

Quote

 

Like Ive said before, no point in going in circles with someone who is un reasonable, untruthful and misleading.  Cant have a rational discussion with this type of person.  Enjoy yelling at clouds

 

 

You are just mad because I cited science, told you the science and you don’t get the science and get lost in the science stated. It’s ok. This isn’t about you only. This is expose of vegan nonsense for others.

 

 

PS: I see you pretty rapidly dropped the whole optimal eco friendly ness of veganism vs optimized omnivory. I guess you found out the data and math to that is pretty elementary once you look up the nitrification of manure vs compost....

 

PPS: arguing that it’s immoral for a species to eat something that it biologically evolved to eat, without a divine writ against said diet, is a remarkable logical own-goal in itself. If there is no God, it cannot be morally wrong for any creature, including us, to exist in its most fundamental form of life, which is self sustainance. Ergo, it cannot be immoral for an evolving lifeform to eat something that it has evolved eating, on a moral basis alone. That’s pretty much saying your ideology is directly superior to objective material evidence. But that’s a whole another gamut of ethics. 

 

Edited August 10, 2019 by canuckistani