You know, I was kind of waiting for that one. Yes, things like cloned sheep and cattle, and vat grown meat would certainly count as being designed to be eaten by other organisms. But that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms, because GM animals actually have a designer - humans. A pedantic distinction, but one that brings up the whole ID vs. evolution argument. And if we start that one I doubt I'll get any work done ever again.

Then again, it's pretty funny to watch how pissed off people get about that one. :deadhorse
There is absolutely no reason to go into any intelligent design notions to deal with that. Predation and symbiosis are both perfectly valid models for the way that organisms affect the evolution of other organisms. The way we do both in our farm animals is unusual in nature, but IIRC it isn't unique. Ants do "cultivate" fungus, so we would expect some evoutionary pressure on those fungi, the same way we exert pressure on our critters.

We're just better at it. And our behaviors are more learned than hard wired. But we are still just animals affecting the reproductive success of other plants and animals.

There is absolutely no reason to go into any intelligent design notions to deal with that. Predation and symbiosis are both perfectly valid models for the way that organisms affect the evolution of other organisms. The way we do both in our farm animals is unusual in nature, but IIRC it isn't unique. Ants do "cultivate" fungus, so we would expect some evoutionary pressure on those fungi, the same way we exert pressure on our critters.

We're just better at it. And our behaviors are more learned than hard wired. But we are still just animals affecting the reproductive success of other plants and animals.

Hmm.. point taken. Ants do cultivate fungus, and raise other creatures for food purposes, thereby affecting their reproductive success and ultimately their evolution, but does that really count as designing in the same way GM foods are literally designed at the genetic level by splicing in other genes, sometimes from other creatures? Eh, I suppose it's all a matter of degrees really. Like you said, we're just better at it. Screw it, I'm ordering an andouille-crawfish pizza, thereby killing at least two lifeforms and relying on the forced labor of a third. HA!

*keels over from heart attack brought on by excess cholesterol*

Macho, I can't find these rules:


Anywhere else on the forums. Maybe I didn't look hard enough. Does that mean that they only apply to threads that I make?

P.S. I DID however find the disclaimer for the PT forum:



I mean, was I really that out of line?No, you were not. But the website being passed by as informative was. It falls on the same category as news articles deriding MMA as "human cockfight" and "bloodsport", or POVs stating that weightlifting is detrimental to martial arts conditioning.

That is, the aforementioned website is sensationalist and choked-full of "appeal to emotion" fallacies.

The entire website is sensationalist. It banks on sensationalism and scare tactics. A prime example is the link it calls "what when wrong"?

http://www.notmilk.com/wwr.html

That page is a collection of annectodes, each one followed by the following sentence: it was
too late to ask "What went wrong?". This is simply a shameless scare tactic that has no place in objective discussions.

If a point of view or theory is solid, it does not need such snake oil marketing tactics to present itself as solid. The website claims to provide links to counter-arguments, and yet, they are buried in a list that cannot be easely discerned, all of it surrounded by what clearly are links and articles pushing a pro-vegan agenda (which by itself it's nothing wrong.)

They may as well add "what would Jesus do?" with every paragraph. As it is, that website and the format and medium they have chosen to present their message fall in the same category creationist lunatics belong to.

The rules I mentioned are simply the steps done, in general, for discussions and POVs that attempt to be scientific and objective when presenting a fact, theory or claim (in the later case, the claim that one must stop drinking milk because of dioxin contamination, or more specifically, to present milk as poison.)

The authors of such an atrocity of a website have chosen to use the link of dioxin and milk as their trojan horse to legitimace, and impose, their vegan point of views and beliefs. That makes them no difference from religious nutcases who bombard others with scare tactics to elicit a conversion.

What is it, then, more legitimate? To push an agenda to stop the consumption of milk in particular, and animal products in general, or to tackle the spread of dioxin into the food chain?

This does not apply to you, as a poster, or to threads made by you that do not fall into that type of crap tactics. It applies to any claim on health-related issues that are either sensationalist and subjective, or that are framed in a medium which is sensationalist and subjective.

When a claim is presented as such, it falls into the realm of the dishonest. I've removed quite a few of such threads before, and this process will continue uninterrupted.

Other threads that I've removed, and which I will continue to remove are one-line posts that say "hey, look at this link" without presenting, at a minimum, a summary of what the link is supposed to present to us, as well as blatant spams and marketing ploys.

As I said, if you want to discuss the pros and cons of drinking milk and the risk of dioxin contamination, you are free to do so.

But don't even think for a second that you can cherry pick links from google and present them in the PT forums as facts, valid points or spreading of knowledge by just posting links saying "see, check it out" without addressing counter-arguments.

If you, or anyone else, chooses to create a discussion that follow such fallacious modus operandi, that discussion belongs to trollshido, or at best, to the skepticism forum.

i am lactose intolerant (farts)

Milk and milk based products make me feel like crap

although I love cheese especially bree

Anywho I supstitute this for milk

http://countysunshine.ca/merchandise/ricedream.gif

Great with shakes and is way better tasting than that soy crap... blech!!!

Oh, and anyone who trivializes and hijacks the holocaust, regardless of his agenda, and anyone or any website that condones, promotes, accepts or swallows that kind of ****, has no place in any serious discussion. Period.


http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o197/Luis_Espinal/stuff%20and%20crap/wtf-is-this-not-milk-****-cmon.jpg

No, you were not. But the website being passed by as informative was. It falls on the same category as news articles deriding MMA as "human cockfight" and "bloodsport", or POVs stating that weightlifting is detrimental to martial arts conditioning.

That is, the aforementioned website is sensationalist and choked-full of "appeal to emotion" fallacies.

The entire website is sensationalist. It banks on sensationalism and scare tactics. A prime example is the link it calls "what when wrong"?

http://www.notmilk.com/wwr.html

That page is a collection of annectodes, each one followed by the following sentence: it was
too late to ask "What went wrong?". This is simply a shameless scare tactic that has no place in objective discussions.

If a point of view or theory is solid, it does not need such snake oil marketing tactics to present itself as solid. The website claims to provide links to counter-arguments, and yet, they are buried in a list that cannot be easely discerned, all of it surrounded by what clearly are links and articles pushing a pro-vegan agenda (which by itself it's nothing wrong.)

They may as well add "what would Jesus do?" with every paragraph. As it is, that website and the format and medium they have chosen to present their message fall in the same category creationist lunatics belong to.

The rules I mentioned are simply the steps done, in general, for discussions and POVs that attempt to be scientific and objective when presenting a fact, theory or claim (in the later case, the claim that one must stop drinking milk because of dioxin contamination, or more specifically, to present milk as poison.)

The authors of such an atrocity of a website have chosen to use the link of dioxin and milk as their trojan horse to legitimace, and impose, their vegan point of views and beliefs. That makes them no difference from religious nutcases who bombard others with scare tactics to elicit a conversion.

What is it, then, more legitimate? To push an agenda to stop the consumption of milk in particular, and animal products in general, or to tackle the spread of dioxin into the food chain?

This does not apply to you, as a poster, or to threads made by you that do not fall into that type of crap tactics. It applies to any claim on health-related issues that are either sensationalist and subjective, or that are framed in a medium which is sensationalist and subjective.

When a claim is presented as such, it falls into the realm of the dishonest. I've removed quite a few of such threads before, and this process will continue uninterrupted.

Other threads that I've removed, and which I will continue to remove are one-line posts that say "hey, look at this link" without presenting, at a minimum, a summary of what the link is supposed to present to us, as well as blatant spams and marketing ploys.

As I said, if you want to discuss the pros and cons of drinking milk and the risk of dioxin contamination, you are free to do so.

But don't even think for a second that you can cherry pick links from google and present them in the PT forums as facts, valid points or spreading of knowledge by just posting links saying "see, check it out" without addressing counter-arguments.

If you, or anyone else, chooses to create a discussion that follow such fallacious modus operandi, that discussion belongs to trollshido, or at best, to the skepticism forum.

OK, so by your reasoning, I can only post internet information to the PT forum if I:

Summarize the website
Post a counter argument
Only chose web sites that have not been "cherry picked" from Google or other search engines?

Am I catching your drift?

Wow, just wow.

Wait, let's go back to the corn. Why can't corn grow without "manual intervention?" Is that true? I don't see how it could be.

Around here, kids get paid to walk the bean fields and cut out "volunteer corn" that pops up every year because the bean fields were corn fields the year before. If you don't cut it, it appears to grow, mature and reproduce just like any other corn. What am I missing here?

I'm being serious man. Am I right or not? Help me understand so I can do it right from now on. I don't want to have to go through this **** again. AND I WANT MY KARMA BACK!!!!

Wait, let's go back to the corn. Why can't corn grow without "manual intervention?" Is that true? I don't see how it could be.

Around here, kids get paid to walk the bean fields and cut out "volunteer corn" that pops up every year because the bean fields were corn fields the year before. If you don't cut it, it appears to grow, mature and reproduce just like any other corn. What am I missing here?

Actually yeah, I was kinda curious about that, too.

... and is that your girlfriend Macho? Nice.

I drink rice milk myself, soy gives me the tummy aches. Of course that's my preference for breakfast cereal (the true purpose of milk) it doesn't keep me from banging down a tall frosty glass of Coffee milk when I'm at the Olneyville New York System (Rhode Island pwns the other 49 states) or enjoying a finally chilled cup of egg nog like a gentleman. I'm not too psyched on drinking whole milk everyday, but I also only eat meat once or twice a week. I like to keep my diet light, that's just what works for me, that's how i roll. Besides, everyone knows that drinking milk is part of the Reptoid conspiracy to control the world. Get with it.

Unlike the teosinte grasses from where it evolved from, corn has no way to disperse its seeds. The seeds are (unnaturally) clustered together in a cob. These kernels do not easily fall off the cob, even after the cob dries out and falls to the ground. Furthermore, animals attempting to eat them will crush most of them.

If there are no animals capable of dispersing the seeds, the seeds will germinate together where the cob fell. First generations would survive only to choke themselves in a crowd (not counting that they become extremelly vulnerable to catastrophes or plagues.)

No plant like that can survive in the wild. That's why corn, as a species, requires manual intervention for it to continue.

... and is that your girlfriend Macho? Nice.Nah. That's just one of my fitness infatuations. I'm lucky my g/f is also a fitness fanatic, otherwise, I'd be in the dog house for having these avatars :tongue3:

The Omnivores Dilemma (http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore.php)

Go to your library, and get this book now. You'll understand corn a little better.

AND I WANT MY KARMA BACK!!!!

dude, you need to earn your rep back, plus, theres are rule about bitching about rep.


Reputation System ("Varrots"): The Reputation system is meant to be used as a guide for members to determine who is contributing to the website. Members may award/subtract a pre-set number of points per forum post based on their percieved merit of said post. Points are also awarded at the discretion of the Staff for exemplary contributions such as writing Articles/Reviews, creating Highlight videos, and going out of your way to track down and expose frauds. DO NOT WASTE SPACE BITCHING ABOUT REP. If you have a complaint, handle it by PM, email, or by suicide. Additionally, rep points are called "Varrots" because that's what the mythical creature the "Jackalope" eats. Do a search for more information on this topic, we're not going to waste more bandwidth to explain it to you. Negative varrots are called "poison varrots".