I could refute the concept of equality itself. I have never observed two identical things (in the real world) that couldn't be demonstrated to have difference.

Are you refering to the possible differences between the imprint on the object and the actual fingerprint?

I would want to leave room for doubt on most things actually. That's a philosophical inclination of mine.

And in my books that is something to be proud of.

Yes a fingerprint on an object is GENERALLY regarded as reliable proof that someone touched an object.

Yes, but I didn't ask you what the general attitude towards this proof is.

The "general regard" for a proof includes people who do not possess the required scientific knowledge to understand the irrefutable certainty of the proof. It also includes people who have other reasons to not accept the proof as irrefutable.

So that's why I asked YOU.

And in doing so I am assuming that you possess the required knowledge and that your mind does not have an agenda in this matter. Therefore, I think we should fore-go a biological discussion on fingerprints.

So, forgetting about the general regard, is the fingerprint merely "convincing" or is it "proof"?

It depends on the level of certainty I was after.

The certainty of proof is always 100% regardless of what you are after.

So, back to our question, regardless of what you are using this proof for (court case etc.), is your fingerprint proof that your finger touched the subject?

Is this fact refutable? Is it possible that this truth will ever be false?

Thank you for introducing a very interesting subject.

I want you to know that I do not argue or debate from a certain side or angle, I enjoy mutual conversations with an open mind, and I appreciate the knowledge and mental breakthroughs that can be gained. Now, on with your statement:

May I suggest that the difference between "proof" and something that is "convincing", is that proof has to be irrefutable and always true, whereas a "convincing" argument may well be refutable and false.

Furthermore, a "convincing" idea is heavily dependant on the subject that is "convinced" and the degree of how convincing it is will vary from subject to subject.

Having said that, I would like to pose the following question to you:

Is your fingerprint "proof" that your finger touched the subject where your fingerprint was found?

Please note that I have not added any more variables or dependant storylines to this question. This not a question of whether your were in the room where someone was killed, or whether you willingly touched the subject or not. Just the question.

Like I said, the "right thing" is merely what you have concluded to be the "right choice" at the time. No act is "right" by default however good we may think it is.

The trait of judging acts as "right" or "wrong" from an ethical perspective is only to be found in humans, and humans are only a minuscule fraction of the universe. Which is why, to presume that the "laws of he universe" abide by our interpretations of "right" and "wrong" is a very narrow anthropocentric approach.

To say that 1+1 equals 11 is only wrong with regards to the fact that the person has not followed mathematical rules. But outside those rules, the answer 11 is still a valid response.

The rest of your paragraph sounds like a chapter out of The Secret...

I think you missed the point of what he was saying there Jake.

The "right thing" to do can sometimes be the "better choice" out of two worsts, but on it's own, the act itself, can still be an unethical thing to do.

Let me give you an example.

If we had to sacrifice one man's life in order to save 100 others, then some would argue that killing the one man, under these circumstances, is the "right thing to do", because it saves 100 other lives.

But on its own, the killing of a man is still an unethical and "wrong" act.

No it's not clear what the best answer is which is why the report does not call for and end to meat consumption, it actually does not make any recommendations. You said it yourself, there are pluses and minuses. Which basically indicates that the answer is somewhere in the middle.

But in this one issue we have been debating, the report makes it very clear that although the tonnes of protein the animals consumed was 77 million, the 58 million tonnes of proteins contained in the animal products had higher nutritive values than those in the feed provided to animals.

Now let's do some maths...

If the 77 million tonnes consumed by the animals were of the same food group (i.e. corn) and that group contained half the amino acids needed for humans, then you would need another 77 million tonnes of a different feed that would make up for the other half of amino acids needed. That is 154 tonnes of various feed in total, in order to produce 77 million tones of full-amino protein for humans. That's double the feed, for effectively only 32% more complete protein than what the animals produced on half the amount of vegan protein. But if you gave that 154 tonnes of feed to the animals, you would have 116 tonnes of fully nutritional protein instead of just 77 tonnes. And that's being generous, cause if the second food group does not make up for the entire second half of amino acids needed, then you would need a third...

But let's look at the other option.

If the 77 million tonnes of protein given to the animals were a composition of, lets say, soya and corn, then by the fact that one has to be complemented by the other, humans would only make up 38.5 tonnes of full-amino protein out of it. Which is 20 tonnes less than what the animals produced.

And the number gets a lot lower if the feed was made up of three different vegan proteins. Cause we would have to consume from all three in order to make up for all the amino acids.

So, effectively, if we all turned vegan, because of the fact that vegan protein has to be combined in different sources to make up for the full amino acids, we would need far larger quantities of vegan alternatives to be produced and transported etc etc. According to the maths, in the best case scenario, we would need double the amount of the feed we give to animals in order to get the high quality protein we are currently getting from them. And that's only if corn and soya can provide us with all the amino acids, which I doubt they do...

There is your answer.

I read that document with a lot of interest :o)

The quote that you provided here, actually continues to say the following:

"This simple comparison obscures the fact that proteins contained in animal products have higher nutritive values than those in the feed provided to animals. Moreover, it does not capture the fact that livestock and their feed also make a contribution to food security objectives by providing a buffer in national and international food supplies that can be drawn upon in case of food shortages."

So there you have it. The amount of protein we feed them might be 77 million tonnes, but that 77 million is only complementary protein. In other words you have to combine it with other proteins to make up the full amino acids. Whereas the 58 million tonnes of protein that those animals produce, is full of amino acids and does not require further proteins to complement...

You've just proved my point, thank you :o)

That's not true. You can feed a bunch of cows with grass alone. You don't need to give them the same wide range of foods that humans require. Some farmers have fields with trees on them and grass underneath. The cows can live on the grass, which is essentially free to the farmer who is more interested in what the trees produce.

If you piled up the grass the cows need to live on, it wouldn't be any near the size of the field we would need for the amount of beans that would equal the amount of protein the cow would give us. So there you have it.

"1) Combining multiple plant foods gives you the full range of amino acids. You should be eating a variety of plant foods anyway."

If we had to produce enough vegan protein alternatives for all people to be able to combine sources in order to get the full range of amino acids every day, the environment would come to a stand still. How environmentally friendly do you think it will be if we had to produce entire crops of beans, and entire crops of nuts, transport all these things with trucks that produce CO2, process them in bigger factories that would yield higher pollution levels, use stronger pesticides to ensure the success of the crop, which in turn will damage the environment and other animals heavily. The mistake you are making is that you are assuming that producing these vegan alternatives (to multiple quantities in order to make up the full amino acids) is less harmful than having a bunch of cows in a farm.

100 grams of lean beef or chicken gives me approximately 30 grams of protein and all the amino acids I need. In order to get that from beans (5g per 100g), I would have to eat 600 grams of beans. On top of that, I would need to eat another complimentary protein to make up for the amino acids. So in terms of quantity, we would need to produce 6 times (in this example) the amount of beans. That is 6 times the size of the land used. 6 times the amount of pesticides. 6 times the amount of petrol needed for transport. 6 times the amount of tins needed to package the beans. 6 times the amount of rubbish in my bin going to wastelands. 6 times the amount of pollution and toxics in the rivers. And that's just for the beans! Think about the multiples of the other protein source as well...

"2) Dairy products contain complete proteins."

Sure they do. But with our large populations you would still need animal factories that produce milk. The quantities we need make it almost impossible to be entirely "free range". You would still have animals trapped in a box and made to produce more milk than they normally would.

Either way, you cannot avoid using animals. Because going all vegan and combining protein sources would be financially impossible and environmentally disastrous.

Edit: Wrong debate.

Nothing to see here people move along now!

Quite the contrary. I have made my position very clear and separated myself from the "don't give a shit" extreme camp.

I just wanted to point out that you seem to have lumped YOURSELF in the other side of the extreme represented by believeyoume, when in fact, your view is probably 99% similar to mine.

We both agree that meat eating is OK but only as long as the animals live and die in a very humane way.

But the debate is asking whether meat eating is generally immoral now that we can live as vegans. That's why I'm saying "No, I disagree".

You started it by saying "i don't believe in using animals". That statement, whether you see it or not, is very broad and it implies that you disagree with the use of animals period. Regardless of whether there are options or not. That statement implies that if you lived back in that time, you would be campaigning for the using of horses for transport, which is silly. That's why I called it an ignorant statement, it was too bold and too broad.

I really don't understand why you are on this side of the debate.

The debate is asking "is it our moral obligation to stop eating meat now that we can have vegan alternatives".

It's not asking "do you agree with factory farm living conditions".

By your admission, if the meat comes from your local farmer where the animals are treated well and killed humanely then that is acceptable. So your answer to the question of the debate should be NO.

Those principles are there for you to use when dealing with your fellow human beings, because they are the only living things that recognize them and use them just like you.

Animals don't understand morality. But if you want to use that morality to make their lives a little better then by all means, treat them well, and find painless ways to kill them for food. That way, they are still being treated just like they would be treated in the wild (eaten for food) but in a non-torturous way.

You still don't understand the difference between campaigning for better conditions for animals, and campaigning to stop people from eating meat altogether.

You've made this conclusion in your head that just because some places don't treat animals very well then we should all stop eating meet. Is that cause you think the protest is going to trigger new measures in animal welfare? Or do you have a problem with people eating animals regardless of the animals' living conditions?

That's the difference between you and the user "believeyoume". She has a problem with the killing of animals period. For her it doesn't matter how well we treat them, cause she has a fundamental belief that we shouldn't use animals at all, period. You however, seem to be jumping from camp to camp. Every now and again you make a claim as to why we shouldn't kill sentient life for whatever reason. And then you change it by saying "killing them humanely would be fine, but we don't kill them humanely" which is a VERY DIFFERENT approach...

So where exactly is it that you stand on this?

"Because I don't believe in using animals."

Wow that's a very general dismissal of a practice. Are you sure about that? We wouldn't have come so far as a society if we hadn't used anything and everything at our disposal.

If people hadn't used horses and made carriages, we would have never communicated with people that lived far away. If we hadn't used pigeons to deliver mail, you would have to walk for a year to deliver your news to your relatives. If we hadn't used sheep wool to protect ourselves from cold winters, we might not be here today. Your dismissal of those practices is so so ignorant.

"Hens do not lay eggs for human consumption. They lay them to create offspring.

Bees do not produce honey for human consumption. They produce it for food. And they sometimes die (via stinging) to protect it."

Why do hens produce so many eggs, if not for the fact that nature has already taken into account that a lot of them will be eaten or not survive. Why do fish produce millions of eggs when they lay them in rivers? Cause they know that 90% of them will not survive the environment, which includes them being eaten by other animals.

Oh and, should we stop bears from eating honey? After all, the bees don't produce it for consumption, right?

And what makes you think that apples are there for your consumption? As far as we KNOW, the apple is created to protect the seeds inside.

You seem to be so touchy about using animals and yet happily oblivious as to how many humans YOU are using RIGHT NOW. Do you know how many people are "used" everyday to make sure you have electricity, to make sure you have a good show on TV, to make sure you have streets to drive on, to make sure YOUR RUBBISH is collected, to make sure your vegan food is within easy reach for you so you can be all smug and profess to be a "better person"?

Have you any idea how spoiled you sound when you say things like "Animals, human and non-human, do not exist to serve others." We are all "used" in some way or another. Being a postman and delivering letters might be something that the person aspired to do, but they are still paid and "used" to deliver the service even on the days they don't feel like being a postman. Which is why I think your being so young and having no great experience as a working person has a lot to do with your "opinions". When your turn comes to be "used", then come and talk to me again.

Let me remind you that someone else is putting the labor, blood, sweat and tears, in order to produce the products of your vegan diet. YOU are USING those people to produce your food. But you are happily ignoring that, because it's not IN YOUR INTEREST to acknowledge it and PUT AN END TO IT. Right? Instead, you are trying to fulfill your smug desire to be a person of higher morals by concentrating on animal rights. Because, THAT you can live with.

Have no predators to fear? Check.

Who said we don't have predators? We have predators. A human's predator is another human. They may not haunt you for food but loads of them will be more than happy to kill you for many other reasons.

In the wild you can also be eaten by all sorts of other predators.

You see, when you look at it from the other side, our animal predators have no problem at all eating us...

Your response to this so far has been "yes but animals don't understand that it is wrong". In other words, animals don't have the mental capacity to see death from the same "morally unacceptable" perspective you see it from. And yet you are still trying to project your hung ups about death onto them.

You don't think we are part of the food chain?

May I remind you that in the last few weeks, Australia has been preparing the ground to allow crocodile hunting again because the crocodiles, having no predators to fear, have grown in high numbers and have become a danger to all other animals and humans alike.

Well it's a good thing that animals don't have the mental capacity to understand that then. Cause if you take out the "life of suffering", and instead, you create them, subject them to a happy life, then kill them humanely, then there should be no problem.

Your problem is that you are projecting your human cognitive abilities onto an animal that simply doesn't have those abilities. It's like feeling sorry for bears who live in caves.

Why should intelligence be linked to not eating meat?

The fact that we still eat meat even though we have a higher intelligence shows you that it makes sense to do so, no?

And did you say healthy, cost effective alternatives with less work required and less environmental impact? Is that REALLY true? How many people have the health, the money and the time and work required to grow their own fruit and veg? Their own "variety" of veg to make up for the protein. I mean c'mon! Let's cut the crap here. If everybody had to grow or kill their own food how many people would be vegans exclusively? If you had to choose between digging the land, planting the seeds, watering it for months, using chemicals to make sure it's a successful batch, then harvesting it months later for you to have a plate of beans for dinner... How many would give up and just kill a chicken instead?

The vegans are as hypocritical about food as meat eaters, cause at the end of the day, its always somebody else that has to do the work and provide you with your "morally acceptable" alternatives. You have a problem with the "usage" of animals, but you don't have a problem with the "usage" of other humans to prepare your food. Talk about acceptable morals!

OK so let me get this clear in my head.

You would rather blind people not benefit from the help of a dog that is otherwise well fed, and loved, and trained to do something very useful...

Yeah... Fuck those blind people. Set the dogs free!

You would rather have no pre-testing of drugs on animals whatsoever, and instead inject them to human patients and pray that nothing goes wrong... All those doctors that have used mice to gather data on new drugs are basically idiots.

Yeah... Fuck those cancer patients. Set the mice free!

Also, all those poor third world country farmers should stop using horses and cows to help in agriculture. Their families should stop using the wool off the sheep to clothe themselves. They should also stop milking the cows for milk for their children. We can send them powdered milk and synthetic clothes right?

Yeah... fuck those farmers... and their children. Set the horses and the cows free!

At this point I think it has become evident that we have some HUGE differences in opinion, to the point that I don't think it serves anything to continue the debate. But I am more than thankful to have engaged in it because I truly needed some insight into the mindset behind this debate's slogan. Please don't take this post as an attack towards you. As a human being I love you as much as I love all my neighbors and having different opinions has never made me perceive people with an un-friendly eye. Some of your opinions on other debates have expressed my ideas as well.

LOL

Well what else do you think racism stands for, if not for the belief that one race carries with it an inherent superiority?

You really think that by saying that you are a "specie-ist" you are saying something other than that your species is superior to another species?

And also, having read your response about humans having abolished slavery and persecution of homosexuality etc.... can I just point out that all those issues pertain to how we conduct our affairs within our species, none of them have anything to do with other species, they were a "family" problem. It's not the same thing...

No, a retarded person will never be the same thing as an animal. The genetic standpoint will always be present, and a human is a human regardless.

You called it "speciesism", which is a pretty neat and diplomatic way of admitting that not all life is equal.