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.