Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Was the phrase 'No it's not' always true?For that, we need context, of course.
What was the question? Absolute statement- 'Eating meat is required for a good diet.'
Is the absolute statement always not true? Yes.
Unless you would like to continue to purposely ignore the clear logic for the sake of being a troll.
You should be enjoying your retirement.
Additionally, explain what you mean by 'semantics', because it's not even applicable. It's just something you say when you are wrong.
If it were a pure semantic issue, then you are wrong anyway.
I am going to let you off the hook, maybe? Goodnight.
Don't be such an absolutist.
It's only the internet.
Goodnight.
I may hypocritically return sometimes. I believe a precedent has been set.
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
"good" is relative. and that statement maybe true {'Eating meat is required for a good diet'}, however, a "best" diet may require no meat at all {Not Eating meat maybe required for a best diet}. What is best? I didn't define it. What is "good"? That wasn't well definded, therefore, we are talking about dots and lines, just perspectives.
Yes. None of which is what was discussed.
The statement could only be true if it were addressed to a specific person or group for whom it were true. It wasn't though.
In any case you quoted me, not the statement.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Yes. None of which is what was discussed.The statement could only be true if it were addressed to a specific person or group for whom it were true. It wasn't though.
In any case you quoted me, not the statement.
Well, someone mentioned semantics, and I piggy-backed on it (without mentioning the word semantics) and stated that "good" and "best" is relative, so there is no absolute in relative terms unless it's well defined. if the words aren't well definded we will argue on semantics (all night) b/c no one penned down the meaning of "good" or "best".
I disagree about pinpointing a group,
we can state that "PETA thinks that not eating meat is good".
That maybe a correct statement when quoting words from PETA (Peta MAY think this way, that statement bout their thinking is true, if verifiable).
We still haven't defined a "good" diet, it's still relative, what's "good" or what's "better" or "best"?
Even if that claim is valid (not eating meat is good), we still may or maynot care about who stated it. So what if it came from PETA or another organization. If it was from the USDA we would have to wonder. Houston, we have a problem.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
That is true semantics, because a good diet clearly meant a healthy diet.I'm sure he's trying to suggest something with the bold words, but I just can't work it out!
this is still nonsense b/c we still don't know what's healthy? Eating peas is unhealthy for some, but that person isn't eating meat.
Let's say they never touch or smell meat. So, they are eating healthy right?
Some ppl have dangerous allergies to certain fruits and veggies. That's under the bracket of "not eating meat=healthy diet", but when they are in the hospital, fighting for their life, how is that healthy.
We haven't defined healthy! Good=healthy, but then, why is it that someone can NOT eat meat, but end up in the hospital, which is the exact opposite of healthy.
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
this is still nonesense b/c we still don't know what's healthy? Eating peas is unhealthy for some, but that person isn't eating meat.Some ppl have dangerous allergies to certain fruits and veggies. That's under the bracket of "not eating meat=healthy diet", but when they are in the hospital, fighting for their life, how is that healthy.
We haven't defined healthy! Good=healthy, but then, why is it that someone can NOT eat meat, but end up in the hospital, which is the exact opposite of healthy.
Yes, can we stop now?
I clearly disagreed with the statement, so you making it even less true doesn't help anyone's cause.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Yes, can we stop now?I clearly disagreed with the statement, so you making it even less true doesn't help anyone's cause.
What cause? I don't know what you are fighting for. And I asked that question, what are "we" fighting for? ("we" is only a friendly term).
Do you have the sense that someone you love is stuck in the body of an animal? (that's not a funny statement, some buddhists think this way). I'm interested in experiencing any negativity b/c of this statement, it's really just a question, not to excite any emotions or ill-will.
Originally posted by debbiejo
You can choose or not. Why do you condemn others that feel that vegetarianism is more in the health circle then your dead animal lustiness.
I think you are misinterpreting my posts. I was making a point that I am very happy that I have been blessed enough to be able to make choices like that. "I don't take my privileged* life for granted" was my point.
I do not condemn anyone on their diet choice (Though I get upset at obese Americans...still I do not condemn them...I don't CONDONE their actions but I have no power to condemn anyone.)...that is not my place.
What I said was that it is my religious belief that it is an insult to God to not eat meat...not an insult to me.
*Note: "privileged" is a relative term.
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
What cause? I don't know what you are fighting for. And I asked that question, what are "we" fighting for? ("we" is only a friendly term).Do you have the sense that someone you love is stuck in the body of an animal? (that's not a funny statement, some buddhists think this way). I'm interested in experiencing any negativity b/c of this statement, it's really just a question, not to excite any emotions or ill-will.
Why...did...you just say all that?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think you are misinterpreting my posts. I was making a point that I am very happy that I have been blessed enough to be able to make choices like that. "I don't take my privileged* life for granted" was my point.I do not condemn anyone on their diet choice (Though I get upset at obese Americans...still I do not condemn them...I don't CONDONE their actions but I have no power to condemn anyone.)...that is not my place.
What I said was that it is my religious belief that it is an insult to God to not eat meat...not an insult to me.
*Note: "privileged" is a relative term.
You think it's an insult to your faith to NOT eat meat? how is that?
Originally posted by Bardock42
What colour were the evil energies?
you can tell when someone's spirit is not totally human (interfacing with something that isn't fully human) because they attack like an animal. animals love to attack b/c they are wild and can't reason, they will attack very easily and can't preceive. if you are reasoning with someone and they attack you spiritually, or any other way, that isn't human, that's animal.
we were talking logic and then i was attacked spiritually, meaning, someone on here is not fully human on the inside, i don't know what to call it, but it's weird.
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
You think it's an insult to your faith to NOT eat meat? how is that?
Pretty much any Christian would believe that if they hold the bible to be the word of God. But this is not a religious discussion and I was using my personal religious beliefs to make a point that they cannot be used to make a point.
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
you can tell when someone's spirit is not totally human (interfacing with something that isn't fully human) because they attack like an animal. animals love to attack b/c they are wild and can't reason, they will attack very easily and can't preceive. if you are reasoning with someone and they attack you spiritually, or any other way, that isn't human, that's animal.we were talking logic and then i was attacked spiritually, meaning, someone on here is not fully human on the inside, i don't know what to call it, but it's weird.
Help me to understand which animals are capable of attacking a human spiritually.
If you do that, not only will I avoid those animals which can attack me spiritualy, I will also avoid those humans the exhibit charactistics of those animals.