Crazy ideas thread

[AssassinsMace]

Solaris had made his point clear on environmental impact so I won't repeat it. As for the remaining stuffs, dude you can't just generalize that everyone's like that. That's gross generalizations. Plus, there are certainly people of either sides who are still genuine concerned citizens of animal welfare. The point of the study was to study species-ism.

Finally, even if they had an agenda, their studies would need to go through ethics committee before approval and peer reviews and replications of studies before publications. Not only they can't just twist or spin the data, they can't spin the outcomes to abide by their bias. If they manipulate the experimental group and the methods for these purposes, their study will be criticized and scrutinized for bias, inaccuracy, and a bunch of administrative works to deal with. As for data, the numbers don't lie, particularly by large sample sizes. Anyways yes although there are occassional controversial studies with questionable studies, however some either demonstrates consistent results for replications, or if they don't they may get revoked.

Anyway the point is, the study is probably valid with all the checks in place to govern the quality and ethics. However, even then the study only looks into attitude and cognitive from behaviours, and certainly it's not conclusive nor does it demonstrates 100% external validity. To generalize from one study to all human is fallible, but even more inappropriate to make statements to condemn animal-lovers, vegetarians as narcissist by basing on the example of one individual. (albeit the worst example ever too, hitler).

It is strange, however, that you'd rather go deny the academic study and accuse them instantly as bias.

You mean like gross generalizations declaring people who eat meat have less compassion and less sympathy? That's not extreme? You don't like gross generalizations but you back a study that makes gross generalizations. That's strange. So what makes it okay for you to make gross generalizations but I cannot? Is it the same thing how you think there's a difference between wolves dying off because they killed-off too many deer and how humans will die-off because they ruined the environment? You guys haven't shown any proof how it's different except because you say so. So far the only difference you pointed is method. Wolves kill themselves off "figuratively" because they eaten up their food supply faster than it can naturally replenish. Humans will kill themselves off "figuratively" because of the environmental damage they inflict. The whole argument that you seem to disagree with is that's mother nature at work. It's is mother nature at work because killing off is an act of balancing by nature. What would not be act of nature is someone killed people off on there own to balance things out.

You actually think such studies are neutral? That's why people hide behind studies to make it look whatever they believe in is right. Which means anyone can make a study and there's no neutral body that checks and declares if it's correct or not. How do they come up with the idea for the study. It starts off with someone with an opinion looking to make a point. Every time I see someone with a study that says that, the person who conducted it is affiliated with some organization that deals with animals like the last one I saw the guy was from the SPCA. I don't call that neutral.

 

[Solaris]

You don't think human beings wiped out from what they do is nature balancing things out?

Again, you are the only one here talking about humans being wiped out. Your wolf-killing-deer analogy does not apply. There is no balancing act in what we are doing to nature, there's nothing natural about it. Nature has the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the oxygen cycle, etc. Does nature have the chlorofluorocarbon cycle?

I never said causes were wrong. My point was people use them to advertise themselves. Do corporations give money to charity because they care about the cause or do they do it for their image? Look at the LA Clippers scandal right now. Don Sterling gave tens of millions to charity. And he spent money advertising it patting himself on the back. He's not unique which comes to rich people and charity.

Yes, a lot of people who "advertise" their causes are doing it for show. This much is obvious. But a lot of people who advertise their causes are doing to bring attention to their causes. You can't just generalize and say that people who don't advertise are the only ones who really believe in their causes.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Again, you are the only one here talking about humans being wiped out. Your wolf-killing-deer analogy does not apply. There is no balancing act in what we are doing to nature, there's nothing natural about it. Nature has the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the oxygen cycle, etc. Does nature have the chlorofluorocarbon cycle?



Yes, a lot of people who "advertise" their causes are doing it for show. This much is obvious. But a lot of people who advertise their causes are doing to bring attention to their causes. You can just generalize and say that people who don't advertise are the only ones who really believe in their causes.

Yeah I'm the one that brought it up and I wasn't the one replying to you. Like you have explained what? Again the method is different? My wolf-killing-deer analogy does apply. What exactly does nature do? For wolves, the less food means the less wolves that get fed that can breed. They create an environment that's unsustainable for the wolf population. That's why the population goes down. No one goes in there actually killing off wolves to which is why the numbers go down. That's what would be unnatural. Now when humans pollute, does someone go off killing anyone to balance things out. No, nature selects. Those that are unfit to live in the new environment don't survive. That's an act of nature. Wolves change their environment. Humans change their environment. What makes the difference to you? Because it's man-made as oppose to wolf made? They did it to themselves just like humans are responsible for their own actions. Yeah and if wolves die off because they killed-off the food supply, that is wolf made. Just because humans can add extra steps because of intelligence to make things that are destructive to the environment, that makes all the difference?

Ever hear of action speaks louder than words? Those that advertise are just words. Donald Trump rails against China because of outsourcing yet all his products in his signature line that is sold in stores are outsourced to China. If you're so environmentally conscious... are you daring to drive a car which is a major contributor to green house gases? Do you eat meat? Do you produce 100% of your green energy needs? If your answer is no to any one of them, your advertisement against made man causes to environmental problems is just words. Maybe be if you demand someone else follow it, that balances it out. Or how about you're going to argue a difference because you're just one person so what you do has little impact on the macro environment just like wolves because it's not as big a scale as everyone else who does it.

 

[airsuperiority]

You mean like gross generalizations declaring people who eat meat have less compassion and less sympathy? That's not extreme? You don't like gross generalizations but you back a study that makes gross generalizations. That's strange. So what makes it okay for you to make gross generalizations but I cannot? Is it the same thing how you think there's a difference between wolves dying off because they killed-off too many deer and how humans will die-off because they ruined the environment? You guys haven't shown any proof how it's different except because you say so. So far the only difference you pointed is method. Wolves kill themselves off "figuratively" because they eaten up their food supply faster than it can naturally replenish. Humans will kill themselves off "figuratively" because of the environmental damage they inflict. The whole argument that you seem to disagree with is that's mother nature at work. It's is mother nature at work because killing off is an act of balancing by nature. What would not be act of nature is someone killed people off on there own to balance things out.

You actually think such studies are neutral? That's why people hide behind studies to make it look whatever they believe in is right. Which means anyone can make a study and there's no neutral body that checks and declares if it's correct or not. How do they come up with the idea for the study. It starts off with someone with an opinion looking to make a point. Every time I see someone with a study that says that, the person who conducted it is affiliated with some organization that deals with animals like the last one I saw the guy was from the SPCA. I don't call that neutral.

I don't think you understand the scientific method. Everyone will score differently individually. A vegetarian like Hitler might score very low somewhere, lower than a meat eater. However, the point of the study isn't to look at the scores of an individual. The point is to take two groups, accumulated scores of a hundred vegetarians, vs accumulated scores of a hundred omnivore, then average each out or something. The average of both groups will then yield differences, where then the numbers are studied, went through analysis, and eventually the numbers that come out will represent the "average" score of each group. The numbers then therefore are compared. The results in such a case will demonstrate that overall, the average are higher for vegetarians in scoring higher for compassion, than meat eaters. This is also why they always do study from a very large pool of people because this reduces the chances of oddballs like Hitler, or people who just give false data, who might score particularly lower than everyone else in terms of compassion, from skewing the data. This also reduces the impact of sampling errors on the data.

So what makes it okay for you to make gross generalizations but I cannot?

So if someone murdered people, you can also go and shoot people?

Is it the same thing how you think there's a difference between wolves dying off because they killed-off too many deer and how humans will die-off because they ruined the environment?

Solaris and I had already identified how that's different, but you're ignoring what we said.

You guys haven't shown any proof how it's different except because you say so.

No we did. Did you even read?

Wolves kill themselves off "figuratively" because they eaten up their food supply faster than it can naturally replenish. Humans will kill themselves off "figuratively" because of the environmental damage they inflict.

Woah that don't even make sense. I had already stated how wolves can't kill themselves off because a limited number of prey will lead to decline in predator. As the number of predator declined, prey are given the chance to replenish and reproduce in numbers. This increased supply will then permit predator numbers to increase up to a point until eventually their ratios are proportionate to their reproduction:mortality rate. That said, first there's no way wolves can kill themselves off.

It is not natural because that's not normal animal behaviours, or part of the human life cycle, to produce nuclear waste and spew toxic substances into the atmosphere. I don't get how that isn't clear, or how that can even be considered "mother nature" at work.

You actually think such studies are neutral?

Proper studies have to abide by guidelines in order to be considered.

Which means anyone can make a study and there's no neutral body that checks and declares if it's correct or not.

There are ethics committee in these universities that govern these for a reason, as well as why there are peer reviews for reviewing studies. Many studies also tended to be replicated because other scholars will use or modify them for their own research purposes and they better demonstrate consistent results.

How do they come up with the idea for the study. It starts off with someone with an opinion looking to make a point.

It's only a hypothesis, aka educated guess(which means there's a logic to it, and could be based on speculations from reading previous studies, or yes could be what someone thinks) until backed by studies to confirm or disprove it. Until then, it can also be considered an opinion. This is why I say "hypothesize" or "speculate" in my posts sometimes.

Every time I see someone with a study that says that, the person who conducted it is affiliated with some organization that deals with animals like the last one I saw the guy was from the SPCA. I don't call that neutral.

That's why people hide behind studies to make it look whatever they believe in is right.

There are those ones are definitely questionable, and often they are at scrutiny because they are paid to do so. This is the same as that Wakefield guy who intentionally published an intentionally-wrong journal that claimed vaccinations lead to autism. It was eventually revealed he was paid by a group of lawyers who wanted to sue pharmaceutical firms. What ended up happening was that the ethics committee ran a review on him, pulled back the piece, revoked his license. However in the end damage has already been done.

And no mine didn't come from SPCA or something

 

[airsuperiority]

Yeah I'm the one that brought it up and I wasn't the one replying to you. Like you have explained what? Again the method is different? My wolf-killing-deer analogy does apply. What exactly does nature do? For wolves, the less food means the less wolves that get fed that can breed. They create an environment that's unsustainable for the wolf population. That's why the population goes down. No one goes in there actually killing off wolves to which is why the numbers go down. That's what would be unnatural. Now when humans pollute, does someone go off killing anyone to balance things out. No, nature selects. Those that are unfit to live in the new environment don't survive. That's an act of nature. Wolves change their environment. Humans change their environment. What makes the difference to you? Because it's man-made as oppose to wolf made? They did it to themselves just like humans are responsible for their own actions. Yeah and if wolves die off because they killed-off the food supply, that is wolf made. Just because humans can add extra steps because of intelligence to make things that are destructive to the environment, that makes all the difference?

Ever hear of action speaks louder than words? Those that advertise are just words. Donald Trump rails against China because of outsourcing yet all his products in his signature line that is sold in stores are outsourced to China. If you're so environmentally conscious... are you daring to drive a car which is a major contributor to green house gases? Do you eat meat? Do you produce 100% of your green energy needs? If your answer is no to any one of them, your advertisement against made man causes to environmental problems is just words. Maybe be if you demand someone else follow it, that balances it out. Or how about you're going to argue a difference because you're just one person so what you do has little impact on the macro environment just like wolves because it's not as big a scale as everyone else who does it.

Those that are unfit to live in the new environment don't survive. That's an act of nature.

No one can live in a toxic environment, and nature don't produce a nuclear wasteland. And wolves don't actually alter the environment and cause climate change and global warming. We do that and that's why we are changing the environment to something that it isn't what it is, which is why we have the responsibility to revert it back to how it is.

No one goes in there actually killing off wolves to which is why the numbers go down. That's what would be unnatural.

So yes you're right, intervention to disrupt an ecosystem is unnatural. Therefore, we poisoning our waters and environment with toxins and wastes which causes animals to die from causes that they shouldn't have been exposed to in their original environment is unnatural.

No, nature selects.

Are you proposing that we don't do anything until the environment gets too toxic that we wipe out ourselves and life?

Humans change their environment.

Yes that's exactly why we got to change our methods so we stop harming the environment.

Ever hear of action speaks louder than words? Those that advertise are just words. Donald Trump rails against China because of outsourcing yet all his products in his signature line that is sold in stores are outsourced to China. If you're so environmentally conscious... are you daring to drive a car which is a major contributor to green house gases? Do you eat meat? Do you produce 100% of your green energy needs?

That's why 1. I hate that guy because he's very close-minded denialist and a lot of other things. I simply think he's one of the worst human beings there are. You don't have to be Hitler to be evil; people like him who are filthy capitalist with double standards, living in his own world of privilege, and just a ton of things I'd like to criticize him for, but it's 1 am and I'm not interested in letting him ruin my last few hours before sleeping.

2. I actually planned on getting a Hybrid because not only it's so quiet, it's very fuel efficient and less pollution. 2. I cut down my consumption of meat, don't eat beef, heading towards vegetarian diet, and here in Vancouver we even sort out our recycle and decompose. In fact in my course we had to do individual projects on habit change, so I did managed to change at least one of my habits..or at least working on it quite well. I will say I am pretty proud in senses where I can do things to minimize my environmental footprint, but all of this is an ongoing process, and there's always more to do. The point is, we are all responsible for our own actions, although ultimately I do believe there's a lot more to this, and I'd think this topic is better if we have a new thread discussing solely on this.

Or how about you're going to argue a difference because you're just one person so what you do has little impact on the macro environment just like wolves because it's not as big a scale as everyone else who does it.

That's a common argument we all hear, and in our class we did talk about the diffusion of responsibility for that matter.

 

[AssassinsMace]

I don't think you understand the scientific method. Everyone will score differently individually. A vegetarian like Hitler might score very low somewhere, lower than a meat eater. However, the point of the study isn't to look at the scores of an individual. The point is to take two groups, accumulated scores of a hundred vegetarians, vs accumulated scores of a hundred omnivore, then average each out or something. The average of both groups will then yield differences, where then the numbers are studied, went through analysis, and eventually the numbers that come out will represent the "average" score of each group. The numbers then therefore are compared. The results in such a case will demonstrate that overall, the average are higher for vegetarians in scoring higher for compassion, than meat eaters. This is also why they always do study from a very large pool of people because this reduces the chances of oddballs like Hitler, or people who just give false data, who might score particularly lower than everyone else in terms of compassion, from skewing the data. This also reduces the impact of sampling errors on the data.

So if someone murdered people, you can also go and shoot people?

Solaris and I had already identified how that's different, but you're ignoring what people say again. It seems like you don't really listen.

No we did. Did you even read?

Woah that don't even make sense. I had already stated how wolves can't kill themselves off because a limited number of prey will lead to decline in predator. As the number of predator declined, prey are given the chance to replenish and reproduce in numbers. This increased supply will then permit predator numbers to increase up to a point until eventually their ratios are proportionate to their reproduction:mortality rate. That said, first there's no way wolves can kill themselves off.

It is not natural because that's not normal animal behaviours, or part of the human life cycle, to produce nuclear waste and spew toxic substances into the atmosphere. I don't get how that isn't clear, or how that can even be considered "mother nature" at work.

Proper studies have to abide by guidelines in order to be considered.

There are ethics committee in these universities that govern these for a reason, as well as why there are peer reviews for reviewing studies. Many studies also tended to be replicated because other scholars will use or modify them for their own research purposes and they better demonstrate consistent results.

It's a hypothesis, aka educated guess(which means there's a logic to it, and could be based on speculations from reading previous studies, or yes could be what someone thinks) until backed by studies to confirm or disprove it. This is why I say "hypothesize" or "speculate" in my posts sometimes.


There are those ones are definitely questionable, and often they are at scrutiny because they are paid to do so. This is the same as that Wakefield guy who intentionally published an intentionally-wrong journal that claimed vaccinations lead to autism. It was eventually revealed he was paid by a group of lawyers who wanted to sue pharmaceutical firms. What ended up happening was that the ethics committee ran a review on him, pulled back the piece, revoked his license. However in the end damage has already been done.

And no mine didn't come from SPCA or something

And did the study that you're not showing proof of that proves that meat-eaters are less compassionate and less sympathetic is scientific? Did they follow a whole lot of people around for how many years to check off what they do in life to determine compassion and sympathy? What makes one compassionate and sympathetic to them?

Murdering people has to do with what gross generalizations? You're the one arguing that a select few is an example of the whole by using that study. And I'll remind you of past conversations where you obviously didn't read my posts. If you read a previous post here I said I didn't believe everyone who is an animal rights activist is a Hitler. I was using the example that you just did of painting everyone who eats meat is less passionate and less sympathetic. You obviously didn't read that part earlier and you just fell into the trap of what I was talking about.

No it's not that I'm not listening. It's you guys don't want to admit that humans dying off as a result from their own actions is an act of nature. Ever hear of natural selection? That's what you guys disagreed.

Prove that your study that makes gross generalizations was done by proper guidelines. It says something that you haven't come up with this study. I just have to go by your word. That's why my point from the beginning was about environmentalism and narcissism. You just proved it.

Did I say your study you say exists came from the SPCA? I said the one I last I heard of came from a guy from the SPCA. Which is why I want to see yours to see who was behind it.

And the same questions apply to you that I gave to Solaris.

If you're so environmentally conscious... are you daring to drive a car which is a major contributor to green house gases? Do you eat meat? Do you produce 100% of your green energy needs? If your answer is no to any one of them, your advertisement against made man causes to environmental problems is just words.

 

[airsuperiority]

And the same questions apply to you that I gave to Solaris.

If you read my last post(the one above yours), I did answer it. I just noticed the bottom first so I will respond the rest after.

 

[AssassinsMace]

If you read my last post(the one above yours), I did answer it. I just noticed the bottom first so I will respond the rest after.

I drive about a hundred miles a month. I've reduced water usage in my house to around 70 gallons a day for three people when the average is about a 100 gallons a day per person. I do as much as I can but I don't do it by going around calling myself environmentally conscious.

 

[airsuperiority]

I drive about a hundred miles a month. I've reduced water usage in my house to around 70 gallons a day for three people when the average is about a 100 gallons a day per person. I do as much as I can but I don't do it by going around calling myself environmentally conscious.

I respect that. Well I'm not sure if you do so because you care about the environment, but if you are environmentally conscious, then I'd say you deserve to describe yourself that way. And yes I understand there are plenty of people who actually acts without speaking. Those people deserve my respect.

 

[airsuperiority]

And did the study that you're not showing proof of that proves that meat-eaters are less compassionate and less sympathetic is scientific? Did they follow a whole lot of people around for how many years to check off what they do in life to determine compassion and sympathy? What makes one compassionate and sympathetic to them?

Murdering people has to do with what gross generalizations? You're the one arguing that a select few is an example of the whole by using that study. And I'll remind you of past conversations where you obviously didn't read my posts. If you read a previous post here I said I didn't believe everyone who is an animal rights activist is a Hitler. I was using the example that you just did of painting everyone who eats meat is less passionate and less sympathetic. You obviously didn't read that part earlier and you just fell into the trap of what I was talking about.

No it's not that I'm not listening. It's you guys don't want to admit that humans dying off as a result from their own actions is an act of nature. Ever hear of natural selection? That's what you guys disagreed.

Prove that your study that makes gross generalizations was done by proper guidelines. It says something that you haven't come up with this study. I just have to go by your word. That's why my point from the beginning was about environmentalism and narcissism. You just proved it.

Did I say your study you say exists came from the SPCA? I said the one I last I heard of came from a guy from the SPCA. Which is why I want to see yours to see who was behind it.

And the same questions apply to you that I gave to Solaris.

And did the study that you're not showing proof of that proves that meat-eaters are less compassionate and less sympathetic is scientific?

I don't know about any studies out there that might refute this claim. If there are, I don't know about them.

Did they follow a whole lot of people around for how many years to check off what they do in life to determine compassion and sympathy? What makes one compassionate and sympathetic to them?

This COULD be a potential limitations, but I guess the overall explanation is that because even if individuals are influenced by their life stories or individual experiences that affected their compassion or dietary behaviours, it will only be one individual scores that's getting affected. It would not be enough to affect or throw the data off balance. However, I will say your point has a very thoughtful touch to it because IF the study was conducted only on one group of people of a certain demographic, then yes we can go on to argue it's possible groups of certain demographic, age bracket, areas, may pose significant confounds. This is why replications of the study, meta-analysis, and random sampling is extremely important. By having a large enough sample of people of all sorts and walks, then the data will be even more accurate. However often they are limited by funding, so again what you said I will say there's some weight to it. As for the actual operation definition, I don't remember, but often they avoid bias or letting the participants from detecting the study by hiding the stuffs within a bunch of distractors.

Murdering people has to do with what gross generalizations?

This is just to rebuff your idea I do because others do it too.

You obviously didn't read that part earlier and you just fell into the trap of what I was talking about.

I do admit I didn't read it carefully, but I did get confused with the wordings back and forth at some point. And actually I brought up the study not exactly because I believe that's the golden truth, but rather because I just happened to know of it so I want to share it as a "speaking of which". It's an interesting study, which I think i mentioned, because I was surprised about that myself.

No it's not that I'm not listening. It's you guys don't want to admit that humans dying off as a result from their own actions is an act of nature. Ever hear of natural selection? That's what you guys disagreed.

Nature don't set up the environment to kill us off. Let's say supervolcanic eruption happened, or natural climate change or some forms of physical geographic phenomenon happened that wasn't the cause of human activity occurred and as a result we are dying, then that is natural. Anything that's happened as a result or from the cause of human behaviour, then we are responsible.

Prove that your study that makes gross generalizations was done by proper guidelines.

It was published and cited.

It says something that you haven't come up with this study.

What?

I just have to go by your word.

Not sure what you mean, but do you mean because I didn't provide sufficient information, therefore you just have to assume with what I have told you? I'm slightly lost at what you mean. Um as for the paper, I have to find it, although I do think it's actually cited material in a journal called species-ism, which explored how humans see ourselves as superior to other forms of beings, and thus also creates hierarchy and classisms and so on. In the reference they will always have the original paper, so usually that's how you can find where it's from. Anyway, IF you really do want it, I can try and search it up. It's a good read because they explore classism amongst many things, and it's very interesting.

That's why my point from the beginning was about environmentalism and narcissism. You just proved it.

What? What are you talking about?