Vegetarian diets produce fewer greenhouse gases and increase longevity, say new studies

by Guest Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:02 pm

First topic message reminder :

Consuming a plant-based diet results in a more sustainable environment and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, while improving longevity, according to new research from Loma Linda University Health.

A study and an article, produced by researchers at Loma Linda University School of Public Health, will be published in full in the July issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, and were first presented at the 6th International Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition in 2013.
Based on findings that identified food systems as a significant contributor to global warming, the study focuses on the dietary patterns of vegetarians, semi-vegetarians and non-vegetarians to quantify and compare greenhouse gas emissions, as well as assess total mortality.

The mortality rate for non-vegetarians was almost 20 percent higher than that for vegetarians and semi-vegetarians. On top of lower mortality rates, switching from non-vegetarian diets to vegetarian diets or even semi-vegetarian diets also helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The vegetarian diets resulted in almost a third less emissions compared to the non-vegetarian diets. Modifying the consumption of animal-based foods can therefore be a feasible and effective tool for climate change mitigation and public health improvements, the study concluded.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140625145536.htm

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:33 pm

AND...i have a damn sight more comapssion for animals than you....who thinks it doesnt matter if you allow an animal to suffer...if you are going to kill it anyway.....

and dont deny it...you clearly stated that in that circular halal thread.....

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:34 pm

who stated its wrong to euthanise a sffering animal...because it cant make a choice Rolling Eyes

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:35 pm

do you really want me to go and trawl back through it...or are you gonna admit you screwed it?

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:36 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:well didge....since you insist on being a twat
I suggets YOU get educated and stop conflating WILD with DOMESTIC animals for a start

do you know the difference....

Fucking hilarious, one animal, score dummy

It is virtually impossible to fully tame and train a "wild" creature without breaking its spirit....

BUT

if you can obtain a young one it is in some cases possible to IMPRINT them, by handling them regularly
by hand feeding themso they view you as all things good...
Well is that why all ogs are related to Wolves dummy and how they claim you cannot tame them, you talk some much shit

for instance ...Meerkats
if you get a yong one....and do as I have said you will end up with a nice friendly tractable meerkat...but heres a puzzle
does the meerkat consider itself a "you (i.e human)
or does it consider you to be an (albeit right wierd looking) meerkat??
my experience with both meerkats AND parrots would seem to suggest that the latter is the case
and if you understand how they "tick" it is possible to forge a very strong bond with them
but .....
you have to know the rules, because if you transgress "meerkat" rules...you WILL get nipped (and they have damn sharp teeth let me tell you) just as if you break the "parrot rules" your macaw is gonna bite you...
Wow so in other words you tamed him, which is obvious to see, and again proves you do not understand the difference

AND therein is the difference between domsticated and imprinted....
No that has to be the funniest explanation I have ever heard to be honest

a domesticated animal learns to live by OUR rules.....
an imprinted animal learns to regard you as "super meerkat" but expects you to live by their rules
hence why unexperienced people should not keep "exotics"
Well as seen many animals can be domesticated of which you have done

and before you whine didge...I could get you veterinary cojnfirmation of this view point....but I dont see why I should ...if you dont believe me...go find your local "exotic" vet and ask them.....

I have no need as stated I already understood the difference but again you labour a point where it was your claim and not mine, you introduce this lame point because as seen your view on selfishness to pets exposed your stupidity, even worse how you think dogs cannot contemplate being free, that was not only daft but utterly stupid

So basically you had no answer to my points, you introduce something to try and look intelligent and still come off looking dumb

Score

by eddie Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:38 pm

Vic, I get your points about a dog having a wonderful life etc with humans - yours sound very loved as are my mums (they got her through my dad's death, let me tell you)

But ultimately, stripping it all back, we tamed dogs and cats and stuck fish in a glass box all for our own pleasure - that is not to say they dont have great lives - but ultimately that is what a pet is: a tamed and kept animal.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:39 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:AND...i have a damn sight more comapssion for animals than you....who thinks it doesnt matter if you allow an animal to suffer...if you are going to kill it anyway.....

and dont deny it...you clearly stated that in that circular halal thread.....

By killing them?

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

I do not own pets, so I advocate animals to be free though do not mind that people have pets, thus I have the greater compassion, as i do not advocate hunting animals for sport

You are clearly more retarded than I thought

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:41 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:do you really want me to go and trawl back through it...or are you gonna admit you screwed it?

Lets get one thing straight, you jumped in claiming my view that it is not selfish to keep pets, you then transgressed because you were getting fucking battered, you then bring in something you think you know, when you o not know psychology and then claim you do know when as seen all you did with your pet was tame him.
You are a blood thirsty moran who claims to love animals by advocating butchering them, clearly I would love to see how you would feel being hunted yourself by a pack of wolves an then tell me the thrill you receive when shitting your pants

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:45 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:who stated its wrong to euthanise a sffering animal...because it cant make a choice

Do we advocate this with humans, when we do not know if they are dying.
Tell me, do we try to make a soldier mortally wounded have ease of pain with drugs or shot him out of hand as you advocate with animals?
You see I treat animals with the same respect as humans, because you even view humans as racially different, you have a superiority complex, where you think you by right of technology should have superiority over them, that is both lame and morally wrong

by eddie Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:45 pm

eddie wrote:Vic, I get your points about a dog having a wonderful life etc with humans - yours sound very loved as are my mums (they got her through my dad's death, let me tell you)

But ultimately, stripping it all back, we tamed dogs and cats and stuck fish in a glass box all for our own pleasure - that is not to say they dont have great lives - but ultimately that is what a pet is: a tamed and kept animal.

Apart from rescuing animals, surely anything you buy ie a pet, is a selfish purchase?
A purchase bought for oneself that is not bought for survival purposes (ie food)

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:51 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:well didge....since you insist on being a twat
I suggets YOU get educated and stop conflating WILD with DOMESTIC animals for a start

do you know the difference....

Fucking hilarious, one animal, score dummy

It is virtually impossible to fully tame and train a "wild" creature without breaking its spirit....

BUT

if you can obtain a young one it is in some cases possible to IMPRINT them, by handling them regularly
by hand feeding themso they view you as all things good...
Well is that why all ogs are related to Wolves dummy and how they claim you cannot tame them, you talk some much shit
twat...YOU try taming an adult wolf....I love to see it eat you...
however you might....be able to tame a "feral" dog.....though I recon you are too stupid to.

for instance ...Meerkats
if you get a yong one....and do as I have said you will end up with a nice friendly tractable meerkat...but heres a puzzle
does the meerkat consider itself a "you (i.e human)
or does it consider you to be an (albeit right wierd looking) meerkat??
my experience with both meerkats AND parrots would seem to suggest that the latter is the case
and if you understand how they "tick" it is possible to forge a very strong bond with them
but .....
you have to know the rules, because if you transgress "meerkat" rules...you WILL get nipped (and they have damn sharp teeth let me tell you) just as if you break the "parrot rules" your macaw is gonna bite you...
Wow so in other words you tamed him, nope I IMPRINTED HIM...different......which is obvious to see, and again proves you do not understand the difference

AND therein is the difference between domsticated and imprinted....
No that has to be the funniest explanation I have ever heard to be honest

try asking someone who really knows instead of relying on your supposed intellect...

a domesticated animal learns to live by OUR rules.....
an imprinted animal learns to regard you as "super meerkat" but expects you to live by their rules
hence why unexperienced people should not keep "exotics"
Well as seen many animals can be domesticated of which you have done

idiot...did you not read the silver fox experiment??? and the difference between domesticating and imprinting tameing.....domesticating takes generations....but of course we all know the mighty didge knows better than ALL those soviet scientists...and others that have followed their path....

and before you whine didge...I could get you veterinary cojnfirmation of this view point....but I dont see why I should ...if you dont believe me...go find your local "exotic" vet and ask them.....

I have no need as stated I already understood the difference but again you labour a point where it was your claim and not mine, you introduce this lame point because as seen your view on selfishness to pets exposed your stupidity, even worse how you think dogs cannot contemplate being free, that was not only daft but utterly stupid

and what do you base that upon....dogs lack the intellectual ability to "contemplate" anything beyond their next meal crap piss or hump, let alone a concept as advanced as freedom as opposed to "slavery" or whatever you are once again descending into anthropomorphism....how childish.

So basically you had no answer to my points, you introduce something to try and look intelligent and still come off looking dumb

Score

you scored damn all dumbo....you obviously DO NOT know the difference...talk about waffle...you just cant admit when you are beaten can you

wild and domesticated IS NOT the same idiot....

tame and imprinted IS NOT THE SAME

go ask a damn animal behaviourist....get bloody educated if you want to debate...
I have never seen anything so childish in my life....

I'm outta here

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:55 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:do you really want me to go and trawl back through it...or are you gonna admit you screwed it?

Lets get one thing straight, you jumped in claiming my view that it is not selfish to keep pets, you then transgressed because you were getting fucking battered, you then bring in something you think you know, when you o not know psychology and then claim you do know when as seen all you did with your pet was tame him.

now you are talking rubbish ...YOU do not see the difference even between domesticated and wild ://?roflmao?/:

You are a blood thirsty moran who claims to love animals by advocating butchering them, clearly I would love to see how you would feel being hunted yourself by a pack of wolves an then tell me the thrill you receive when shitting your pants

and you are a feckin idiot with the intellectual age of a 11 year old....

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:55 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:

and what do you base that upon....dogs lack the intellectual ability to "contemplate" anything beyond their next meal crap piss or hump, let alone a concept as advanced as freedom as opposed to "slavery" or whatever you are once again descending into anthropomorphism....how childish
Bullshit

you scored damn all dumbo....you obviously DO NOT know the difference...talk about waffle...you just cant admit when you are beaten can you
yes I do as seen dumbo

wild and domesticated IS NOT the same idiot....
never said it was but you can tame some wild animals, how o you think wild horse are tamed?
take your time

tame and imprinted IS NOT THE SAME
never said that it was but as seen you tamed an animal, it was not imprinted, infact you are so dumb you do not see the difference

go ask a damn animal behaviourist....get bloody educated if you want to debate...
I have never seen anything so childish in my life....
Yes do put to them what you said and watch them laugh at you showing that you actually tamed the animal, because even tamed animals still bite dummy

I'm outta here[/quote]

laters loser

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:55 pm

moreover you are one sick puppy...

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:57 pm

didge you remind me fo te subject of this....

never argue with an idiot
he will drag you down to his level
and beat you with experience.....

my old...YOU ARE that idiot.....

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:58 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:moreover you are one sick puppy...

Really, is that why when you lose a debate you transgress onto other points in the desperation you can win at something?
I m not here to win but debate points, you transgressed onto something you are clueless on

Grow up loser, you hate me besting you hence why you get all worked up

i advocate treating mortally wounded animals the same as humans, you advocate blowing their brains out, so who is more compassionate?

get a grip

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:01 am

victorisnotamused wrote:didge you remind me fo te subject of this....

never argue with an idiot
he will drag you down to his level
and beat you with experience.....

my old...YOU ARE that idiot.....

Really such an idiot I keep making you look the dummy, go be a man feeling tough with a gun in your hand feeling empowered ending the life of something because you need to feel strong.

Th reality is you jumped in here and got burnt, keeping pets is selfish, you transgressed, on this because you had no response, so go and play with some decapitated animal heads as I am sure it gives you sexual pleasure

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:03 am

To show Victor is cluless:

Wow so in other words you tamed him, nope I IMPRINTED HIM...different......which is obvious to see, and again proves you do not understand the difference

In psychology and ethology, imprinting is any kind of phase-sensitive learning (learning occurring at a particular age or a particular life stage) that is rapid and apparently independent of the consequences of behavior. It was first used to describe situations in which an animal or person learns the characteristics of some stimulus, which is therefore said to be "imprinted" onto the subject. Imprinting is hypothesized to have a critical period.

Thus Victor trained and tamed him, the animal would learn on its own without assistance, that would be imprinted, showing Victor is clueless, you do not train imprinted

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:08 am

In psychology and ethology, imprinting is any kind of phase-sensitive learning (learning occurring at a particular age or a particular life stage) that is rapid and apparently independent of the consequences of behavior. It was first used to describe situations in which an animal or person learns the characteristics of some stimulus, which is therefore said to be "imprinted" onto the subject. Imprinting is hypothesized to have a critical period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_%28psychology%29

Don't bloody plagarise, someone else wrote that, you didn't, it was their work, not yours.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:10 am

Sassy wrote:In psychology and ethology, imprinting is any kind of phase-sensitive learning (learning occurring at a particular age or a particular life stage) that is rapid and apparently independent of the consequences of behavior. It was first used to describe situations in which an animal or person learns the characteristics of some stimulus, which is therefore said to be "imprinted" onto the subject. Imprinting is hypothesized to have a critical period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_%28psychology%29

Don't bloody plagarise, someone else wrote that, you didn't, it was their work, not yours.

Look back dummy I already posted the link using the same words

I shall await your apology.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t5472p50-vegetarian-diets-produce-fewer-greenhouse-gases-and-increase-longevity-say-new-studies

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:12 am

Come on sassy, I have not all day for you to see why you just looked very stupid again

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:14 am

Come on sassy, who now thinks she is a moderator again.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:16 am

In psychology and ethology, imprinting is any kind of phase-sensitive learning (learning occurring at a particular age or a particular life stage) that is rapid and apparently independent of the consequences of behavior. It was first used to describe situations in which an animal or person learns the characteristics of some stimulus, which is therefore said to be "imprinted" onto the subject. Imprinting is hypothesized to have a critical period.

Where does the above paragraph appear in

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t5472p50-vegetarian-diets-produce-fewer-greenhouse-gases-and-increase-longevity-say-new-studies

It doesn't, it appears in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_%28psychology%29

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:18 am

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:BUT...that is NOT what you said at the beginning....you made the bald statement that its selfish...thus implying disapproval....that cannot be argued...Its there in black and white...
you have now changed your argument....
Oh my epic fail, it is selfish that is a statement, but again I do not deny people having pets, the point being animals have been taken from their natural environment to satisfy a human need and clearly you only see thus things in black and white, hence why you fail to understand constructive criticism

WHAT????
you are nuts......and think you know more than you do....[/color]
[color=#ff0000]I didnt ask for the mechanism of imprinting, not that the waffle you just posted even comes close to it....I asked for the differnces between a domesticated and an imprinted animal DOH....dummy.....
In psychology and ethology, imprinting is any kind of phase-sensitive learning (learning occurring at a particular age or a particular life stage) that is rapid and apparently independent of the consequences of behavior. It was first used to describe situations in which an animal or person learns the characteristics of some stimulus, which is therefore said to be "imprinted" onto the subject. Imprinting is hypothesized to have a critical period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)

So try again

Come on sassy, I shall await your apology

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:18 am

Didge wrote:To show Victor is cluless:

Wow so in other words you tamed him, nope I IMPRINTED HIM...different......which is obvious to see, and again proves you do not understand the difference

In psychology and ethology, imprinting is any kind of phase-sensitive learning (learning occurring at a particular age or a particular life stage) that is rapid and apparently independent of the consequences of behavior. It was first used to describe situations in which an animal or person learns the characteristics of some stimulus, which is therefore said to be "imprinted" onto the subject. Imprinting is hypothesized to have a critical period.

Thus Victor trained and tamed him, the animal would learn on its own without assistance, that would be imprinted, showing Victor is clueless, you do not train imprinted

whioch is why you are nothing but a highly educated idiot...

you see didge...in animal behaviourists terms "imprinted" has a slightly different..though not unrelated meaning to that used in pure psychology

it has a "critical phase" ie you cannot imprint beyond a certain point
it is indeed independant of "consequence"
it is indeed "rapid"

however it is DIFFERENT to taming

take parrots....

if I take a young parrot...hand feed it and handle it a lot...it becomes IMPRINTED to ME (often with the slightly hilarious result that it regards me as its "mate")

now I can take an adult parent reared bird and by handleing it...showing it i'm not affraid of its bite and treating it kindly, it will eventually (over a quite prolonged period ..i.e not rapid so NOT imprinting) learn to "tolerate and even welcome my presence...especially if that means food...however it is NOT bonded to me....it is merely tame...ie not agressive to me and tolerant of my presence....

an IMPRINTED bird i could take outside and allow it to free fly...and it would come back to me ..this has been done quite often ...not by me but many others do it regualrly...
a tame (wild) bird is unlikely to do so...it is NOT bonded to you the same....

go read and learn didge and stop being so bloody arrogant and stubborn...
you really do NOT know everything about everything....

your ego is gigantic....your knowlege base ...not so....

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:21 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:To show Victor is cluless:

Wow so in other words you tamed him, nope I IMPRINTED HIM...different......which is obvious to see, and again proves you do not understand the difference

In psychology and ethology, imprinting is any kind of phase-sensitive learning (learning occurring at a particular age or a particular life stage) that is rapid and apparently independent of the consequences of behavior. It was first used to describe situations in which an animal or person learns the characteristics of some stimulus, which is therefore said to be "imprinted" onto the subject. Imprinting is hypothesized to have a critical period.

Thus Victor trained and tamed him, the animal would learn on its own without assistance, that would be imprinted, showing Victor is clueless, you do not train imprinted

whioch is why you are nothing but a highly educated idiot...

you see didge...in animal behaviourists terms "imprinted" has a slightly different..though not unrelated meaning to that used in pure psychology
it has a "critical phase" ie you cannot imprint beyond a certain point
it is indeed independant of "consequence"
it is indeed "rapid"
however it is DIFFERENT to taming
take parrots....
if I take a young parrot...hand feed it and handle it a lot...it becomes IMPRINTED to ME (often with the slightly hilarious result that it regards me as its "mate")
now I can take an adult parent reared bird and by handleing it...showing it i'm not affraid of its bite and treating it kindly, it will eventually (over a quite prolonged period ..i.e not rapid so NOT imprinting) learn to "tolerate and even welcome my presence...especially if that means food...however it is NOT bonded to me....it is merely tame...ie not agressive to me and tolerant of my presence....

an IMPRINTED bird i could take outside and allow it to free fly...and it would come back to me ..this has been done quite often ...not by me but many others do it regualrly...
a tame (wild) bird is unlikely to do so...it is NOT bonded to you the same....

go read and learn didge and stop being so bloody arrogant and stubborn...
you really do NOT know everything about everything....

your ego is gigantic....your knowlege base ...not so....

hilarious, the parrot is still tamed, you are not showing stimulus but training, you can train a wild falcon to fly back and do as you train it to do as you do a parrot, with stimulus it learns on its own, you are training dummy, again you fail to understand it has to be independent of the consequences of behaviour.

You are getting schooled once again as seen most imprinting is learnt from within animals themselves, through parents ect, are you now claiming to be the surrogate mother?

behave, you are talking shit

Try again

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:28 am

Basically Victor I know you are talking bullshit because the animal would have to be the first thing it sees to view you as the imprinter, basically from birth, not as just young, hence why I know you have trained and not imprinted, it would see you as the parent

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:34 am

eddie wrote:
eddie wrote:Vic, I get your points about a dog having a wonderful life etc with humans - yours sound very loved as are my mums (they got her through my dad's death, let me tell you)

But ultimately, stripping it all back, we tamed dogs and cats and stuck fish in a glass box all for our own pleasure - that is not to say they dont have great lives - but ultimately that is what a pet is: a tamed and kept animal.

Apart from rescuing animals, surely anything you buy ie a pet, is a selfish purchase?
A purchase bought for oneself that is not bought for survival purposes (ie food)

eddie this is all modern "angst"

a few concepts

if we take that line of reasoning then alost EVERYTHING we buy or aquire is "selfish" (and by the definition of selfish ...bad)
so all that jewelry you have is selfish
beyond a couple of plain workaday sets all the clothers you own are selfish
so is your car
so is your home....you can just as well survive in a cave..or a simple wattle and daub hut...
and so on....

but

why is it selfish?

for the moment we (us humans ) own the planet and everything in or on it....

how or why do we own it....simple.....

WE CAN..IF WE WISHED...DESTROY IT

the true owner of ANYTHING is the one who has the power, not to create it, but to destroy it...and this is not MY thinking...it is a well held theme in philosophy

now that said....

we are the apex life form (at the moment) and thus owe a responsibility NOT to destroy, so that philosophy is ONLY useful in determining "ownership"

but non the less...whether as guardians or owners we have "rights" over all other life on here...

and that includes the right to "gently" enslave, if you wish to look at it like that...

Its really a load of old cobblers dreamed up by wasters with nothing better to do than invent false philosophies with which to sow discontent and doubt within society....

I say it isnt selfish at all...unless its exploititative (can you exploit a goldfish???)

and even if it is....do I give a monkeys...?

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:34 am

Why I understand better than you Victor:

Researchers building on Lorenz’s work have identified other such unique windows of opportunity for both animals and people to acquire knowledge. For birds like ducks, geese and turkeys, that hatch and begin walking around, the need to follow something for their own safety is vital to their early survival, so imprinting happens in the first few hours and days.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/my-life-as-a-turkey/whos-your-mama-the-science-of-imprinting/7367/

by eddie Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:36 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
eddie wrote:

Apart from rescuing animals, surely anything you buy ie a pet, is a selfish purchase?
A purchase bought for oneself that is not bought for survival purposes (ie food)

eddie this is all modern "angst"

a few concepts

if we take that line of reasoning then alost EVERYTHING we buy or aquire is "selfish" (and by the definition of selfish ...bad)
so all that jewelry you have is selfish
beyond a couple of plain workaday sets all the clothers you own are selfish
so is your car
so is your home....you can just as well survive in a cave..or a simple wattle and daub hut...
and so on....

but

why is it selfish?

for the moment we (us humans ) own the planet and everything in or on it....

how or why do we own it....simple.....

WE CAN..IF WE WISHED...DESTROY IT

the true owner of ANYTHING is the one who has the power, not to create it, but to destroy it...and this is not MY thinking...it is a well held theme in philosophy

now that said....

we are the apex life form (at the moment) and thus owe a responsibility NOT to destroy, so that philosophy is ONLY useful in determining "ownership"

but non the less...whether as guardians or owners we have "rights" over all other life on here...

and that includes the right to "gently" enslave, if you wish to look at it like that...

Its really a load of old cobblers dreamed up by wasters with nothing better to do than invent false philosophies with which to sow discontent and doubt within society....

I say it isnt selfish at all...unless its exploititative (can you exploit a goldfish???)

and even if it is....do I give a monkeys...?

Oh I absolutely agree! 100%!!
I don't need half of anything I've got. It's all based upon my greed (want) to acquire and have and make me feel better.
Pure selfishness. Greed.

I think everything in a humans nature starts with greed. Feeding the self.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:36 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
eddie wrote:

Apart from rescuing animals, surely anything you buy ie a pet, is a selfish purchase?
A purchase bought for oneself that is not bought for survival purposes (ie food)

eddie this is all modern "angst"
a few concepts
if we take that line of reasoning then alost EVERYTHING we buy or aquire is "selfish" (and by the definition of selfish ...bad)so all that jewelry you have is selfish
beyond a couple of plain workaday sets all the clothers you own are selfish
so is your car
so is your home....you can just as well survive in a cave..or a simple wattle and daub hut...
and so on....but
why is it selfish?
for the moment we (us humans ) own the planet and everything in or on it....
how or why do we own it....simple.....
WE CAN..IF WE WISHED...DESTROY IT
the true owner of ANYTHING is the one who has the power, not to create it, but to destroy it...and this is not MY thinking...it is a well held theme in philosophy
now that said....
we are the apex life form (at the moment) and thus owe a responsibility NOT to destroy, so that philosophy is ONLY useful in determining "ownership"
but non the less...whether as guardians or owners we have "rights" over all other life on here...
and that includes the right to "gently" enslave, if you wish to look at it like that...
Its really a load of old cobblers dreamed up by wasters with nothing better to do than invent false philosophies with which to sow discontent and doubt within society....
I say it isnt selfish at all...unless its exploititative (can you exploit a goldfish???)
and even if it is....do I give a monkeys...?

Victors moral argument:

AROGANCE

[Moral arrogance involves holding that your moral decision or judgment is the only correct
decision or judgment on a controversial issue when there are conflicting moral decisions or
judgments that are also morally acceptable

Conclusion

Selfish

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:39 am

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

whioch is why you are nothing but a highly educated idiot...

you see didge...in animal behaviourists terms "imprinted" has a slightly different..though not unrelated meaning to that used in pure psychology
it has a "critical phase" ie you cannot imprint beyond a certain point
it is indeed independant of "consequence"
it is indeed "rapid"
however it is DIFFERENT to taming
take parrots....
if I take a young parrot...hand feed it and handle it a lot...it becomes IMPRINTED to ME (often with the slightly hilarious result that it regards me as its "mate")
now I can take an adult parent reared bird and by handleing it...showing it i'm not affraid of its bite and treating it kindly, it will eventually (over a quite prolonged period ..i.e not rapid so NOT imprinting) learn to "tolerate and even welcome my presence...especially if that means food...however it is NOT bonded to me....it is merely tame...ie not agressive to me and tolerant of my presence....

an IMPRINTED bird i could take outside and allow it to free fly...and it would come back to me ..this has been done quite often ...not by me but many others do it regualrly...
a tame (wild) bird is unlikely to do so...it is NOT bonded to you the same....

go read and learn didge and stop being so bloody arrogant and stubborn...
you really do NOT know everything about everything....

your ego is gigantic....your knowlege base ...not so....

hilarious, the parrot is still tamed, you are not showing stimulus but training, you can train a wild falcon to fly back and do as you train it to do as you do a parrot, with stimulus it learns on its own, you are training dummy, again you fail to understand it has to be independent of the consequences of behaviour.

You are getting schooled once again as seen most imprinting is learnt from within animals themselves, through parents ect, are you now claiming to be the surrogate mother?

behave, you are talking shit

Try again

you talk more crap than my toilet didge.....
not one word of the above iis correct...you know nothing about animal behaviour and just keep on proving it....

the wild falcon that is "trained" is neither wild not tamed...
it will be a youngster imprinted to a handler.and THEN TRAINED to hunt...idiot....

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:40 am

Saw from this down:

AROGANCE

Moral arrogance involves holding that your moral decision or judgment is the only correct
decision or judgment on a controversial issue when there are conflicting moral decisions or
judgments that are also morally acceptable

Conclusion

Selfish

And thought bloody hell, soneone has didge spot on. Night Night.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:41 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

hilarious, the parrot is still tamed, you are not showing stimulus but training, you can train a wild falcon to fly back and do as you train it to do as you do a parrot, with stimulus it learns on its own, you are training dummy, again you fail to understand it has to be independent of the consequences of behaviour.

You are getting schooled once again as seen most imprinting is learnt from within animals themselves, through parents ect, are you now claiming to be the surrogate mother?

behave, you are talking shit

Try again

you talk more crap than my toilet didge.....
not one word of the above iis correct...you know nothing about animal behaviour and just keep on proving it....

the wild falcon that is "trained" is neither wild not tamed...
it will be a youngster imprinted to a handler.and THEN TRAINED to hunt...idiot....

Thus trained and tamed, not imprinted

Really read again

Researchers building on Lorenz’s work have identified other such unique windows of opportunity for both animals and people to acquire knowledge. For birds like ducks, geese and turkeys, that hatch and begin walking around, the need to follow something for their own safety is vital to their early survival, so imprinting happens in the first few hours and days.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:43 am

Didge wrote:Why I understand better than you Victor:

Researchers building on Lorenz’s work have identified other such unique windows of opportunity for both animals and people to acquire knowledge. For birds like ducks, geese and turkeys, that hatch and begin walking around, the need to follow something for their own safety is vital to their early survival, so imprinting happens in the first few hours and days.

and ? what part of "for birds like ducks geese and turkeys that hatch and begin walking around".......do you not get??

It may have escaped your notice but ducks geese and turkeys are not parrots....

turkey

so no you clearly DONT understand better....

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/my-life-as-a-turkey/whos-your-mama-the-science-of-imprinting/7367/

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:43 am

Sassy wrote:Saw from this down:

AROGANCE

Moral arrogance involves holding that your moral decision or judgment is the only correct
decision or judgment on a controversial issue when there are conflicting moral decisions or
judgments that are also morally acceptable

Conclusion

Selfish

And thought bloody hell, soneone has didge spot on. Night Night.

yeah still waiting for you to show you were wrong, hey ho, it proves your arogance as I did prove your arrogance in trying to poorly excuse Quill..

Sassy = Arrogance

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:44 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:Why I understand better than you Victor:

Researchers building on Lorenz’s work have identified other such unique windows of opportunity for both animals and people to acquire knowledge. For birds like ducks, geese and turkeys, that hatch and begin walking around, the need to follow something for their own safety is vital to their early survival, so imprinting happens in the first few hours and days.
and ? what part of "for birds like ducks geese and turkeys that hatch and begin walking around".......do you not get??

It may have escaped your notice but ducks geese and turkeys are not parrots....

turkey

so no you clearly DONT understand better....

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/my-life-as-a-turkey/whos-your-mama-the-science-of-imprinting/7367/

Really, as seen I do, as seen you trained, not imprinted, all the above are also wild birds

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:46 am

anyway I gotta get some sleep....

I got sunday dinner to catch tomorrow morning. Razz

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:46 am

has been fun, night then Victor

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:47 am

oh and you ARE wrong didge...just for once admit it...

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:50 am

victorisnotamused wrote:oh and you ARE wrong didge...just for once admit it...

If you stated you raised within the first few days I would admit I was wrong, you never did, o me you trained, anyway it was so far removed from the original point which you claimed I was wrong over people having pets is selfish.

Sorry you digressed Victor, onto something you thought I did not know but do, I will happily concede if you raised them from birth and thus prove they were imprinted

by nicko Sat Jun 28, 2014 6:38 am

Didge will never admit he is wrong his arrogance is astounding.For a good overview of this arrogant man I would ask all posters on this forum to google DIDGESLAP,it will explain everything!!

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 6:49 am

nicko wrote:Didge will never admit he is wrong his arrogance is astounding.For a good overview of this arrogant man I would ask all posters on this forum to google DIDGESLAP,it will explain everything!!

Morning dummy, you mean how you made a false accusation about me and could not even apologise for wrongly claiming something I never said?

In your own time, I am still awaiting your apology, so you also think Eddie is wrong and you want to Eddieslap her because you are a feeble man, or is it your are as per usual acting like a two year old, and somebody needs to get you out of your high chair and take off your bib and burp you?

by eddie Sat Jun 28, 2014 7:43 am

I did google it. WTF???

didgslap, didgeslap, didge slap One who is obsessed with themselves to the point of causing emotional distress to those around them. This individual is recognised before verbal communication is started by the rediculous beard worn by this individual and incoherent noises produced between sentences. Once conversation has started this person will be quick to inform you that they know everything about anything in the world, giving non factual examples to prove their point. If challenged, ths person will stop at nothing to proven correct in only in his own mind. Person knows anything about everything without realy knowing anythng at all. (just dont tell him that)
where the hell is the didgslap?
no example available, would have to experience first hand (with any luck you wont ever). if experiences you'll know what we are talking about.
by meno fish February 01, 2008

?????

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 7:52 am

eddie wrote:I did google it. WTF???

didgslap, didgeslap, didge slap One who is obsessed with themselves to the point of causing emotional distress to those around them. This individual is recognised before verbal communication is started by the rediculous beard worn by this individual and incoherent noises produced between sentences. Once conversation has started this person will be quick to inform you that they know everything about anything in the world, giving non factual examples to prove their point. If challenged, ths person will stop at nothing to proven correct in only in his own mind. Person knows anything about everything without realy knowing anythng at all. (just dont tell him that)
where the hell is the didgslap?
no example available, would have to experience first hand (with any luck you wont ever). if experiences you'll know what we are talking about.
by meno fish February 01, 2008

?????

I find it funny Eddie and morning by the way, was no doubt created by someone with a silly grudge, but have never had a beard, so would be interested to know who this was originally about.
This is Nicko's joker card he always plays when h has nothing to add to debates

by eddie Sat Jun 28, 2014 7:58 am

Morning didge.

I never knew you could put that into an urban dictionary site?
Oh well, flattery and all that.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:01 am

eddie wrote:Morning didge.

I never knew you could put that into an urban dictionary site?
Oh well, flattery and all that.

Indeed, seems you can add what you like to be honest, stilli it does make me chuckle everytime he posts it, must be about 500 times now.

by Lone Wolf Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:21 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
yeah right...one can almost see the money trail behind this....

YESTERDAY, I checked out the Loma Linda University School of Public Health via Google and Wikipedia:

Situated in California, it is a private university specialising in nutrition, sciences, biomedical studies, environmental studies, biometrics (=>genetic population statistics) ~ which in turn is owned by the Seventh Day Adventist churches in the USA... Which is also renown as

* ..one of the world's leading proponents of the benefits of a vegetarian lifestyle;

* ..and the owners of the Sanitarium Food Companies - purveyors of fine breakfast foods across the civilised world.

::=|Q::

by Lone Wolf Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:06 pm

Joy Division wrote:
You know,sometimes it's a bit hard to believe anything nowadays, there seems to be changing evidence from scientist so often....

Now there are some doctors claiming smoking can be very beneficial for health ..this is just like going back to old days before the consequences of smoking were understood...

INTERESTING history snippet behind those fake "doctors" claiming that tobacco is good for people :

Background Story - back in the 1970s, the big American and British tobacco companies set up their own advertising company in the USA called "The Tobacco Institute" and an Australian offshoot called the "Tobacco Institute of Australia" ~ where the sole purpose was to produce, collect, formulate and divest anti-health propaganda, disguised as 'scientific research' claiming that smoking didn't cause health problems.

Even going so far as to repeat the century old fraudulent claims that cigarette smoking could be beneficial for asthmatics and people suffering such illnesses as bronchitis, croup, whooping cough, even pneumonia !

Over here between the mid 1970s and mid 1980s there was a frequent letter writer to newspapers across the country, who consistently claimed that he was a GP from northern suburbs of Sydney, and kept pushing that there is no scientific proof for tobacco's ill health effects, and suggested there were "conspiracies" against the tobacco companies to hide just what great and wonderful items their coffin-nails are !!

Eventually, a couple of reporters from one of the Sydney newspapers went out to check out this "doctor" who claimed to know better than everyone else ~ and found an employee of the Tobacco Institute whose doctorate was in reality a PhD in Economics ! ::d&f::

This fake doctors letters dried up over the following months, to be replaced by direct "press releases", advertising and false "research" claims under the 'Tobacco Institutes' title a couple of months later. The tobacco industry kept this sham "Tobacco Institute" going for another couple of decades, until it eventually faded away in the late '90s/early noughties; to in turn be replaced by the individual Big Tobacco corporations now again pushing their own propaganda under their proper company names..

Current Day - these days we now see these same Tobacco firms pushing the same old fraudulent stories over and over again in Europe, Britain and parts of S.E. Asia...

Apparently China is their next target after they finish up their latest onslaughts ~ as around 40% of today's world consumption of tobacco is in that country !

Add this to the fact that most tobacco advertising since the late 1970s has been aimed at the 14-18 year-old demographic, and this shows the true nature of the Tobacco Industry..

AND it's no accident or coincidence that the Big Tobacco Corp'ns are some of the leading lights pushing the Atlantic and Pacific "Free Trade" agreements, to try and make it easier for big business to screw over entire countries !!! bom

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:03 pm

If you stop eating meat, your food-related carbon footprint could plummet to less than half of what it was. That is a much bigger drop than many previous estimates, and it comes from a study of people's real diets.

As much as a quarter of our greenhouse gas emissions come from food production. But it's not clear how much would really be saved if people swapped their beef steaks for tofu burgers. On some estimates, going vegetarian could cut out 25 per cent of your diet-related emissions. But it all depends on what you eat instead of the meat. With some substitutions, emissions could even rise.

So Peter Scarborough and his colleagues at the University of Oxford took data on the real diets of more than 50,000 people in the UK, and calculated their diet-related carbon footprints.

"This is the first paper to confirm and quantify the difference," says Scarborough.

Stop those emissions

They found that the benefits could be huge. If those eating more than 100 grams of meat a day – a fairly small rump steak – went vegan, their food-related carbon footprint would shrink by 60 per cent, saving the equivalent of 1.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.

Perhaps more realistically, if someone eating more than 100 grams of meat a day simply cut down to less than 50 grams a day, their food-related emissions would fall by a third. That would save almost a tonne of CO2 each year, about as much as an economy return flight between London and New York.

Pescatarians, who eat fish but not other meat, are almost as carbon-friendly as vegetarians, creating only about 2.5 per cent more food-related emissions. But vegans can feel the most superior, pumping out 25 per cent less emissions than vegetarians, who still eat eggs and dairy.

"In general there is a clear and strong trend with reduced greenhouse gas emissions in diets that contain less meat," says Scarborough.

Where to cut?

There are other ways of reducing emissions, such as driving and flying less, but changing food habits will be easier for many, says Scarborough. "I think it is easier to change your diet than to change your travel behaviour, but others may not agree."

"This research presents a strong case for the greenhouse gas benefits of a low-meat diet," says Christopher Jones of the University of California, Berkeley.

In 2011, Jones compared all the ways US households can cut their emissions. Although food was not the biggest source of emissions, it was where people could make the biggest and most cost-effective savings, by wasting less food and eating less meat. Jones calculated that saving each tonne of CO2 emissions would also save the household $600 to $700 (Environmental Science & Technology, DOI: 10.1021/es102221h).

"Americans waste about a third of the food they buy, and eat about 30 per cent more calories than recommended, on average," says Jones. "Reducing food purchases and physical consumption would have even greater greenhouse gas benefits than reducing meat consumption in the American case."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25795-going-vegetarian-halves-co2-emissions-from-your-food.html#.U68RApRdXfI

by Lone Wolf Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:03 pm

Didge wrote:...................................

Whether you disagree or agree is irrelevant (not being rude either), what is relevant is whether they are stating more to the point that such a diet is better all round and the evidence does point that way Bee.

To me that is the key though is physical exercise, but I am of the opinion of actually enjoying life to the full and have no real special diet and love my food, I as stated exercise and keep in shape

THE WAY that I prefer to look at this 'health and fitness' part of an individual's "life balance", goes something like this :

* "health" and"fitness" are not the same thing, and the two terms shouldn't be confused, and aren't interchangeable;

* IF one were to have a healthy diet/nutrition, but not enough exercise, they might be a 'healthier' slob - but not in peak, or even 'average', fitness;

* IF one were to have adequate levels of physical activity and smart/clever exercise over 6 days out of every 7, but didn't look after their dietary needs - they may well be relatively "fit", but their body will still be full of crap if they are living on poor choices and bad habits, especially if with excessive junkfood and takeaways;

* AND then there's the recuperation/relaxation/adequate sleep/de-stressing side of the equation ~ that "third side of the health & fitness triangle", so often overlooked by many who only concentrate on one or two sides of that mix..

MY OWN personal preference is to attempt to roughly aim for a mix of paying attention and regard to 40% nutrition: 40% physical activity and exercise: 20% 'recuperation' (i.e. rest&relaxation..), within one's planning for that lifestyle balance. pirat

by Sponsored content