Liberacion-Igualdad

Absolutely amazing! Miss, you are looking terribly HOT! I'd say it's the crappy weather you have up-there. It helps people do crazy stuff, like the stuff Candy did! Not being able to do much since going out is akin to commiting suicide (by freezing your ass off) can make you focus - really focus! (OK, I don't really know the specifics about your weather, but anything below 20°C or less than 12 hours of sun is a crappy weather anyways! )

I disagree. Think of it this way. Science is a method to acquire knowledge. There is no dogma written in stone. Science does NOT propose a moral theory for humans to behave. Therefore, science itself is amoral. You talk about the 'scientific community'; well, that community is composed of individual humans. These individuals are the ones who are moral agents, and their ACTIONS the ones open to moral scrutiny. As you say, 'everything we DO' has an aspect of morality. Do = action. What they use in that action is not the immoral thing. A car is not immoral because a car-driver runs over a dog and kills him. It's the driver the immoral actor. Since scientists don't base their morality on science, but on something else, THAT something else is the one that should be revised. A better analogy (based on yours) is TRADE. Trade is a way in which individuals interact with each other. There is nothing moral or immoral about it. It simply is. So we agree, slave trade is immoral, but not because trade in itself is immoral, but because ENSLAVING is immoral. It is a completely different thing. If I may quote you: "If you cannot grasp this concept, you need to try harder." Again, the fact that "the body of science as a whole accepts, condones or uses animals in its experiments" is not something derived from science. Actually, what else one would expect from a SOCIETY that accepts, condones and uses other animals for anything, from using them as 'pets' to exploiting/murdering them for their bodily secretions and corpses? And this is no attempt to justify anything. As a Vegan I'm just as opposed to scientific experimentation on other animals as I'm opposed to their use for any other human purpose - from horse riding, to animal agriculture, to the enslavement of other animals for entertainment (in zoos or circuses), etc.

+380 since last time I posted here. 44,515

Ok, I'm eating right now, so I'm not watching any of these vids, but just by reading your posts I've had a good laugh already - like Zack's "Sick! and by sick i mean awesome, i'll watch it twice." Thanks!

DaN, I’ll try to dispel some things I think might have been misunderstood. Fair enough. But what you wrote before was, basically, that there was an irony in vegans who ‘so closely follow science’ because some humans use other animals for scientific experiments. As I explained, there is no irony, since science is basically a method of acquiring knowledge (that’s been proven to work quite well), and morality is not something we get FROM science, but something we, as moral agents, add to the mix in order to put limits to the means with which we want to acquire knowledge. There’s nothing in science that reads ‘humans are superior to other animals therefore we are justified in using them to further our knowledge of the world’. Therefore, I maintain that experiments using other animals are a mistake in our ethics, not in science itself. I think the crucial difference between this and most religions is that the ‘wrong things’ about the latter ARE, in fact, inherent to them. They are either said by their religious leaders or written in their holy books. And religious morality is DERIVED from these sources. Therefore these ‘wrong things’ are inseparable to the whole. I don’t hate religions. I simply recognize, on the one hand, that there is no evidence to support their supernatural and dubious claims, and on the other, that I don’t think they are necessary parts in a healthy society – actually, they are usually quite harmful. I actually wrote this in my other post. And to be honest, I haven’t read the whole of the ‘holy books’ of most religions, but what can I say? I don’t really like sci-fi that much. It makes me feel like I’m wasting my time. Well, perhaps if I actually made any of those sweeping judgments then you’d have a point. In any case, yes, I think science is great (I mean, we are communicating with each other and I don’t even know who you are or where you are – impossible without science), science does deal with reality, and IT IS amoral. If you disagree with any of those statements, then perhaps an argument would be interesting, instead of just telling me that “I can’t say it”. On the other hand, I haven’t said that religions are 100% stupid, wrong about everything, and immoral. As I have already written, there are stupid things attached to most religions, they make false claims, and promote things I consider immoral. No sweeping judgments here. However, I also wrote that you CAN find good things about religions. Perhaps you didn’t read that part of my post. Here it is again: Some say that there are some ‘good things’ about religion. Well, there might be. There might be ‘good things’ about everything. Think about it. Think about the most hideous ideology you can remember, and I bet you can find good things about it. But that doesn’t make them all desirable, nor does it make the ‘bad things’ about them go away. That’s my point. If there are religions that have no discriminatory nature, no hierarchical view when it comes to either men/women, humans/other animals, heterosexuals/homosexuals, etc., then I’d have no problem with it, in terms of ethics. I don’t know any, however. Yet, there is still the question of whether their claims are true or false. To be clear, I’m not implying that we erase everything about religions. There are some things that we might want to maintain in terms of literary value, the history of some ancient human groups, or even in terms of philosophy. But that’s not the same as saying that religious institutions should be preserved. I think your points about the teachings of Siddhartha are valid. My knowledge about it is not so vast but enough to recognize that there are, indeed, some wise and useful things in there. But I don’t need to be buddhist or otherwise worship Siddhartha, nor do I need to believe spirits, souls, and gods in order to appreciate it. In short, there is no need for religion to appreciate good things about certain philosophy. The problem with this quote is that you either imply that saying that religion is rubbish is akin to saying that no religious individual can be ‘good’; and/or that because some religious people are ‘good’ and ‘contribute to society’, then religion is not rubbish. In any case, there is absolutely no logical connection between both statements. Religious individuals can be ‘good’ and still believe in rubbish. And anyone can point that out, even if they ‘contribute very little to society’. Samuel.

I disagree with some things you wrote, DaN. (1) I think we agree that (the) one thing religion has in common with science is that both came from the drive we have not to be satisfied with “I don’t know”. We want answers. But, from then on, science and religion take completely separate paths. Science seeks to put together explanations that can give us answers, thru gathering data, evidence, testing claims and hypothesis, making predictions, experimenting, and so on. It is a dynamic process that’s always dependant on evidence. What does religion do? Well, it invents an answer. It requires no evidence to support it and it’s usually un-testable. What is more, it isn’t meant to be dynamic. It is an absolute answer! After all, how can it not be? An omniscient, almighty being cannot be wrong, can it? So I disagree with your claim that both are based on ‘as much information as they could get’. Religious claims come from a LACK of information, and then, whatever idea that came to the mind of its authority figures becomes ‘truth’. “I don’t know” asked someone, “then call it God” replied the authority. Problem solved. (2) You say that science “does not yet have the tools to answer questions people have about god - so why feel like they have a right to say, "no god isnt real". This is above sciences station I'm afraid.” As far as I know, science doesn’t claim that ‘god isn’t real’. What science claims is that there is no evidence of gods… or fairies, or flying unicorns, or leprechauns. Sure enough, you can’t ‘prove’ that none of these exist, but I think we can make a good guess about a hypothesis (god/gods) that’s been around for thousands of years and that’s still lacking the tiniest piece of evidence to support it. I don’t know why questions about ‘god’ (and you can add ‘souls’, ‘spirits’, etc. to that) should be out of the scope of science. There either is/are god/s or there is/are not. What’s not scientific about that question? A universe without a god wouldn’t be the same as a universe with a god, and that’s a very scientific question to elucidate. Of course, if gods don’t exist, then science can’t answer questions about them, since science gives answers about things that exist. But if gods exist, then I see no reason why science would have no say about it; perhaps you are right, and science ‘does not yet have the tools’, but I have no idea why religion should have more to say about it than science. We agree that science doesn’t explain everything, but what makes us think that the things science can’t explain can be explained by the whims of some religious individuals? Should we rely on personal experiences, authority claims and/or tradition? Or do they have some ‘special tools’ I don’t know of? I'm honestly interested in knowing your thoughts about this. Also, we should consider the possibility that science DOES have all the tools to answer the question of god, and it might be giving us the answer right now, by showing us the complete lack of evidence of it. That’s exactly what you would expect from something that doesn’t exist, right? No evidence of its existence. (3) You say that we can find no moral teachings in a science book and I agree. Of course there aren’t, since science explains things about our natural world and provides knowledge, but doesn’t tell you what to do with that knowledge or how to behave towards other individuals. However, there is no need to call in religion to do that. We can do very well with empathy and logic – through philosophic/ethical reasoning. Related to this, you wrote: That’s like blaming Einstein for the atomic bomb. We can do unethical things in the name of knowledge or in the name of anything else, but that doesn’t make science immoral. Science is amoral. Individual moral agents are the ones to blame, therefore I see no irony in ethical vegans being science-oriented. I think that our search for answers and knowledge cannot overrun the interests of sentient beings, and that’s the end of it. No incompatibility with science. (4) Finally, you wrote that like a christian will “run to their book and see what it says about condoms, and decide based on that”, a scientist does the same “when confronted by a belief like past lives”. I think this is an inaccurate description of how science works. As Carl Sagan said, ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’, and it is not the skeptic the one who has the burden of proof when someone makes wild claims like the ones regarding ‘the after-life’, or ‘prior-lives’ for that matter. Nonetheless, some scientists might choose to give consideration to such a claim, but they won’t go to read a book to see if the wild claim is true or not. There is no such thing as the ‘science holy book’. They will go out looking for evidence supporting this claim. They will make hypothesis, test them, and see if the results match with the hypothesis. Quite the opposite of your characterization of it. As it’s been said, science is based on the fact that we don’t know everything and from that fact it strives to find explanations and answers. Unlike religions, it doesn’t come up with answers out of nowhere and proclaim them as absolute truth. With respect, Samuel. PS: Weren’t his followers the ones who wrote down the teachings of Siddharta Gautama? PPS: I also thought that you might have been sarcastic about the "respectable breeders". Someone who profits from using other animals as commodities (in this case as 'companion animals') is not someone vegans should support, and this breeder most certainly isn't a 'respectable' individual, at least in respect to his/her relationship with other animals. And this regardless of whether there are homeless domesticated animals out there or not.

The thing that bothers me the most about religions is their anthropocentrism/speciesism. As far as I know, this is common to all religions – I don’t know any exception. From the ‘god created man [sic] in his image and animals [sic] for man to use’ type, to those who believe in reincarnation and always have the bipedal hominids on top of their ‘reincarnation ladder’, the common ground is that humans are always at the ‘highest’ of some kind of self-created pyramid. And the extent to which some of these religious proposes some kind of ‘humane’ treatment of other animals (whatever that is) is always a matter of our charity or convenience, not of their rights. “Let’s not be cruel to the beasts. That doesn’t speak well of us” or “if you are cruel to ‘animals’ you might be cruel to humans” or “let’s not be cruel to ‘animals’, or we might just end up being one of them in our next life… and we don’t want that!” As a vegan, I think this is extremely dangerous, and it’s the reason why I think religions aren’t just some pile of nice, yet false, stories about our past. When not the primary motor, religions have always been there to catalyze and justify injustice imposed on other animals, women, children, humans of other ethnicities or sexual orientation, etc. Some say that there are some ‘good things’ about religion. Well, there might be. There might be ‘good things’ about everything. Think about it. Think about the most hideous ideology you can remember, and I bet you can find good things about it. But that doesn’t make them all desirable, nor does it make the ‘bad things’ about them go away. Now, many of these ‘good things’ most humans mention, aren’t really that good. Let’s take the ‘thou shall not kill’ bit, of the judeo-christian tradition. I’ve heard many vegetarians and vegans trying to use this to make christians reconsider their relationship to other animals. But this thing wasn’t meant to encompass other animals. It wasn’t even meant to be about all humans. It was only for jews in regards to other jews. “Jews shall not kill jews”. After all, are we to believe that god simply had a bad day when he told ‘his people’ to go and kill entire populations of non-jews? Or when ‘he’ commanded the murder of other animals for ‘his’ pleasure? *Just as a reminder, an omniscient god cannot change its mind! * So besides the question of whether what religions say is true or not, we should also ask ourselves whether religions or other supernatural beliefs are desirable elements in a healthy society, based on their history and foundations, and not on nit-picking the parts we like about them the most.

My first thought: "Let's hope so." My second thought: "Hope (like faith) is a dangerous thing."

+150 40,200 (Oh, so nice to have round numbers to deal with...so easy... )

Me oh my! Yes we have a lot in common. Perhaps we are twins, separated at birth blah blah... What happened to your shoulder? Dislocation? What instrument do you play? We could start the 'skinny-atheist-f*cked-up-shoulder-vegan band'. Whatcha think? Not too catchy? Ok, I think I should go and read your intro instead of asking here. And thanks for the welcome everybody.

+30 Running Total = 37,395

Thursday +100 Friday +60 Yesterday +160 Running Total = 36,815

5 sets of 30 reps +150 Running total: 35,510 Oh, and mikkei, thanks for making the maths easier!

Hey Glen! I'm so glad you've had a turnaround in your life that's leading you to such positive changes! On the budget thing, I suggest you to go to farmer's market in order to get fresh and cheap fruits and vegetables of the season. There's no better option for that. Here in Chile we have this kind of stores called "Tostadurías" (I can't find a name for it in English) where you can find all kinds of dried fruits, seeds, legumes, grains and flours at the best price. I've found that buying any of these products at supermarkets it's the WORST choice of all, at least in terms of budget. Do you get bananas where you live? That's a cheap and calorie-dense food you might want to consider adding to your diet. Now, in order for you to get specific feedback on your diet, you need to tell us what your goals are! I suppose you want to bulk, so I think that you need to add more calories to your diet. With just 2,200 calories a day you won't bulk much. But, again, we need to know your goals in order to give specific advice. I think that your diet, at least in terms of nutrition, is quite good. I would add more fruits and perhaps some more seeds here and there. You might want to add a glass of fruit-juice or even a smoothie along some of your meals. Keep it up! Samuel.

Amazing thread. May I? What do you think about working out while being sick (I mean with a cold, flu or something alike)? Is it better not to exercise and focus on getting better, or is it ok if you feel 'good enough' to go lift some weights? Also, stupid question no.2, it has happened to me a couple of times that, after having had a regular work-out in the morning, I feel like doing some more exercises (for other body parts) at night. Is it better to avoid doing these and just rest, or should I take advantage of this extra-energy?

Did 33 + 18 reps. a couple of days ago, and 31 + 23 + 16 to warm-up, and 10 miserable reps at the end of chest work-out today. +131 Running Total: 33,710

Yesterday 30 + 20 Today 30 + 20 + (10kgs. weighed) 12 + 10 + 8 =130 Running Total: 29,354 [Note: I fixed the running total... I added the latest JW's +50 to nugat's running total.]

Hey there, shawn! Welcome to the boards. Lengthy post writer, like me! To your questions: It is an absolute must for the 'dairy' and 'egg' industry to get rid of all that isn't economically beneficial for the business, like "spent" hens and cows, who are, basically, just another human commodity. These hens and cows are either killed by the same individuals that held them captive for all of their lives, or sold for slaughter. I suppose that whether there is torture or not during their lives may vary, although their killing doesn't vary at all. Now, those industrial 'free-range' or 'cage-free' "products", most certainly involve both, physical and psychological torture. Also, in the case of 'dairy' operations, cows must be constantly raped ("artificially inseminated") since they don't "give" milk without having given birth. Their daughters are going to be their mothers' replacement, and the males are either killed right after birth, or sent to 'veal' production and killed after a few months of torture. When it comes to eggs operations, all male chicks are discarded after birth (since they are of no 'value' for the industry) and may be crushed, suffocated or simply die of starvation on the garbage can they are dumped. You can find more information on these websites: www.peacefulprairie.org www.humanemyth.com Also, these pamphlets by Peaceful Prairie are really good: http://www.peacefulprairie.org/outreach/CageFree.pdf http://www.peacefulprairie.org/outreach/Don'tKillMe.pdf http://www.peacefulprairie.org/outreach/Don'tKillMyBaby.pdf You can find more of them in the "PPS Literature" link that's on the main webpage. That was funny. Whenever I'm on that mood, I change the cheese and mayo for some avocado and go to sleep. I can't really say anything about how to transition as I think that may vary from individual to individual. Some do it overnight, others do it gradually. Since you are on this with your girlfriend, I think it might be easier. Try different things; whenever you are in the mood to, experiment on the kitchen; make it fun and go for it! If you have any further questions or need support for your transition, don't hesitate to post! You surely are on the right track. All the best, Samuel.

Hey MsSalahuddin! Welcome aboard. Congrats on going vegan and giving up that addictive cheesy crap! Bah! For those of you on the western hemisphere, maybe! It's getting cold down here!

Hey Oggy! I want to clarify something first. My argument was that, on an ethical ground, saying that it's not wrong for humans to eat other animals 'because other animals do it' is not a valid justification (for the reasons I explained in my previous post.) Of course, the oppossite argument would be equally invalid (that because it is morally unjustifiable for humans to use, exploit and kill other animals to eat, then it is also unjustifiable for all other animals to do so). You say that it's the fact that 'we' don't kill the animals we eat what's wrong. I disagree. I think that killing other animals is wrong regardless of who does the killing, since it is an infringement of that animal's interest in continuing to live. Of course, I'm leaving kill-or-die situations aside, when moral judgments are really hard to make. I totally agree with you, though, that most of us wouldn't kill another animal to eat with our very hands. But that's besides the point. One of the most important things to bear in mind is that we, as human animals, do not need to eat other animals to live a healthy life. We eat them because we like the taste, or because we are used to do it, not because we need to. Obligate carnivores, on the other hand, unlike humans, DO need to eat other animals in order to be healthy (unless, of course, proper supplementation is given to them.) This is the case for cats. I know there are vegan "pet" foods (fortified with all the nutrients that are essential for them, just like 'regular pet-food') for both, dogs and cats, and that dogs thrive on this diet while some cats may develop certain problems. I think these problems can be sorted out in time. Now, I don't mean to say that all vegans feeding flesh to the cats that live with them are acting immorally. For one, if there is no vegan "pet" food available in their area (like here in Chile) I see no other option. If you can't afford it, the same is true. If the cat developed problems while on a vegan diet, idem. Also, I can understand why many won't even try to feed the cats that live with them a vegan diet out of concern for their health. What can I say? It is a hard subject still. It is all messed-up since we began to 'domesticate' other animals, and I guess we'll have to deal with this for as long as we keep breeding them. What about a 'freegan' approach to feed cats? Anyways, my former post didn't have much to do with domesticated animals, but that's my opinion on it. Kind regards, Samuel.

1 set - 30 reps 2 sets - 12 reps (weighed - 10 kgs) 2 sets - 8 reps (weighed - 10 kgs) 1 set - 10 reps (no added weight) 1 set - 20 reps 100 reps total. Running total: 27,670

I would add to that Law, that once members have read this they MUST, under pain of the same severe nipple whipping, get down and do 20+ pushups at once and then post. And out of pure fear for this newly proposed law, I made 1 set of 34 reps. Running total: 27,570

Hey Mik, welcome to the forum. I'm pretty much a newbie here too. I would say that's just because of a very poor knowledge of basic biology and/or what 'vegetarian' means. A few centuries ago, though, it was believed that fishes weren't animals. Hell, even up to know some humans say, not just that fishes don't feel pain, but that they aren't animals! (and never forget that humans ain't animals either... ) How come you don't know any other vegans in real life? Where do you live? I live in Chile... yes, Chile, South America, and I know lots of vegans. Well... I'm an animal rights activist, so that might explain why. Aaaanyways. Welcome again! All the best, Samuel.

Yeah! Here's an article I read about it: Soyfoods and Cognitive Function A study conducted in Hawaii called the Honolulu Heart Study came up with a surprising finding. The study looked at Japanese men residing in Hawaii and aimed to compare diet to risk of dementia. The researchers found that those men who ate tofu most frequently during their mid-40's to mid-60's showed the most signs of mental deterioration in their 70's to early 90's. 11 In this study of over 3000 men, intake of 26 foods, including tofu, was recorded between 1965 and 1967 and again in 1971 to 1974. Cognitive test performance was assessed between 1991 and 1993 and the researchers also looked at brain shrinkage through autopsy data of the men who died during the study. Tofu consumption of just two to four servings per week was associated with poorer test performance and more brain loss. Not only that, but the wives of men who ate tofu also showed more signs of dementia. The study raised lots of questions. For one thing, how could this be when it is known that dementia rates are lower in Asian countries than in western countries and when Japanese lifestyle has actually been associated with better cognition in old age? Many have used this as an argument to show that the Hawaii study results must be wrong. But comparing rates of dementia across cultures doesn't really tell us much in this regard because there are too many differences between the lifestyle in Japan and the lifestyle in Europe and North America. And criteria for diagnosing dementia vary across cultures. To get the real story, we would need to compare frequent tofu consumers in Japan to people in Japan who don't eat tofu. And that study hasn't been done yet. Furthermore, there is a possible biological explanation for the findings. Soybeans contain isoflavones, which are weak estrogens. They fall into the category of estrogen-like compounds known as SERMS--selective estrogen receptor modulators. 12 This means that they have estrogenic effects in some tissues and anti-estrogenic effects in others. Estrogen may have a positive effect on brain tissue but the researchers of the Hawaii study suggested that isoflavones may have antiestrogenic effects on the brain. Of course, we can't know this from the Hawaii study. This was an epidemiological study, so it doesn't show cause and effect. It merely shows that two things occur together. Since the researchers measured intake of only 27 foods and were not able to control for every single lifestyle factor, it is possible that tofu consumption is a marker for some other factor that affects cognitive function. This would make tofu an innocent bystander. Results of other studies suggest this is true. Results of three clinical studies, only one of which has thus far been published in full manuscript form, suggest soy and isoflavones have beneficial effects on cognition.In the published study, young adult men and women who consumed a high soy diet for 10 weeks experienced significant improvements in short-term and long-term memory and in mental flexibility. 13 The other two studies which have been presented at scientific meetings, found that isoflavone supplements, when taken by postmenopausal women, improve cognitive function.Even with these findings, we really have very little information on how soyfoods consumption might affect cognitive function. It's important to note though that studies of Seventh-day Adventists, many of whom have consumed soyfoods all of their lives, suggest that this group experiences less dementia in old age than the general population. 14 This may reflect an overall healthier lifestyle or higher education (which is linked to better cognitive function in old age). We simply don't know. We do know that there are ways to protect cognitive function as we age. Eating a diet high in antioxidants (which means a plant-based diet), engaging in regular exercise, and stimulating the brain through learning and problem-solving activities, all seem to be associated with better cognitive aging. 15-19 Conclusion. One study has suggested a link between tofu consumption and poorer cognitive function in old age, but this is an epidemiological study. Therefore it doesn't show cause and effect. It did not look at diet extensively enough to draw firm conclusions. And there are no other studies to support it and three clinical studies suggest soy and isoflavones have beneficial effects on cognition.At this point, there is no reason to believe that eating soyfoods is harmful to brain aging. http://www.veganoutreach.org/health/soysafe.html I maintain my position about the stupidity of the argument, though. Tofu = Veganism? Brain shrinking caused by veganism is the reason why one goes vegan?

Oh, silly things are just so freaking common! The most stupid one, by far, was one I read in another forum. "People are even saying that a vegan diet causes your brain to shrink! (...) One person even said that the only reason vegetarians and vegans are so is because their brain has shrunk and they can't see how good meat is..." I mean, how stupid is this? Let's leave the 'vegan diets shrink your brain' bit behind for a minute, and let's focus on the last part of the "argument". So, vegans decide to become vegans because their brains has shrunk...which, to begin with, is caused by a vegan diet. Hmm...circular non-reasoning, anyone? There are many other gems out there, but I will post them later.