you are right about testing different plants with varying frequency vibrations...some plants don't need light at all, so they may not need much energy in the form of sound...or they may be extracting sound energy instead of light energy, or may mfg energy some other way (by feeding off of another tree or shrub, playing host on a tree branch, maybe feeding off of the fungus/parasites/molds...not that well read in the natural sciences)..
__________________
Last edited by Czarina_Czarina on Oct 12th, 2007 at 08:12 PM
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
I'm a vegetarian, but not for humanitarian reasons. It's more health-related than anything.
Besides, life begets life, and death must occur for life to continue. In that sense, vegetarians aren't any more "humane" than everyone else. They're just eating something that can't run away or scream.
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
im a bit disappointed by the general response here.
first of all, i do not think "sussation of suffering" is paramount. i think "existance" is , because sussation of suffering "caters" to the basic "existance" without which it is useless. i do think death is worse than suffering.
the second thing has to do with "evolution/bioogy". ive already admitted that we were biologicallyy meant to be omnivores and if the animal kingdom is anything to go by, then humans were meant to eat other animal and/or hunt. but what im saying is that THROUGH this evolution, we have evolved a higher brain and conciousness which is very different from the instinct driven brain and survival necessities of other animals. we can SEE that biology is a ***** and it tells you to kill other animals but that doesnt make the act RIGHT! i mean sure a lion kills deers etc, but we know that the dear has a conciousness and its terrible to have that just DISAPPEAR, and we know that we wwith a higher brain CAN stop ourselves from doing it and with a higher brain we can also grow crops etc which will rid us of our basic biological NECESSITY for hunting and surviving so why dont we do it???? is it then simpluy because of tradition, our sadistic personal satistfaction psychologically and taste wise?
take this as an example, put YOURSELVES in place of the animals and see how it would be to be rounded up, continuously fed so that one day soon, you and those around you would be slaughtered to fead other thinking fealing beings? similarly put yourself in another animal's place being hunted{by EITHER an animal or man}, and see how you would feal.
we can not stop animal from hunting each other but we surely can stop ourselves from hunting animals/eating them. i do not make the same argument for plants because 1. without consuming them, all animals and humans would die{harsh and unfair, but its an ultimatum which doesnt exist for killing animals} 2. they have not shown to posess a higher brain etc, and biologically theres almost no case for a conciousness.
as far as guns go, they should be banned and even the law enforcement agencies should have non lethal type weapons. it isnt a vice to be gunbhobic, guns cause more deaths than almost any other single unnatural cause of death and cause a lot of unnecessary suffering. plus they are dangerous and tools of death. nuthing to like about em. and hunting is completely and utterly wrong when done for pleasure.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
The problem, leonheart, is that not everyone sees your morals as absolute or even particularly reasonable.
"first of all, i do not think "sussation of suffering" is paramount. i think "existance" is , because sussation of suffering "caters" to the basic "existance" without which it is useless. i do think death is worse than suffering."
This is totally subjective though. A very good case can be made for suffering being worse from point of intensity on. Personally I even think that most people do believe that or can be convinced. Take something easy like getting pinched. It hurts quite a bit for a second but it is over afterwards. Now imagine that you get pinched very strongly once every two second forever (just try it four-five times)...to me such a fate seems much worse than death, assuming we define death as absolute non-existance. Wouldn't you agree?
"but what im saying is that THROUGH this evolution, we have evolved a higher brain and conciousness which is very different from the instinct driven brain and survival necessities of other animals. we can SEE that biology is a ***** and it tells you to kill other animals but that doesnt make the act RIGHT!"
This argumentation is also rather peculiar. If you go by it, you'd also have to accept that very many people that also have a conscience and consciousness, disagree with your particular evaluation and find eating and killing animals right. It seems at least balanced, I wouldn't say that that argument supports your idea at all, really.
"take this as an example, put YOURSELVES in place of the animals and see how it would be to be rounded up, continuously fed so that one day soon, you and those around you would be slaughtered to fead other thinking fealing beings? similarly put yourself in another animal's place being hunted{by EITHER an animal or man}, and see how you would feal. "
Well, for those who enjoy meat, let them imagine how it would be to never again eat a juicy steak....have a perfectly fried schnitzel...have a delicious chili con carne ... and then let them weigh it up against the suffering of those animals (funnily enough, you do use suffering in your argumentation instead of death in there) and the real likelihood of them ever having to feel it against it.
I personally did that and meat won. I am not a very compassionate person though.
"we can not stop animal from hunting each other but we surely can stop ourselves from hunting animals/eating them."
We could. Yes. Many of us feel that we shouldn't though.
As for guns. There are pros and cons, no doubt. To me the fundamental point is though that we should not stop people from being able to protect themselves. I guess it is as always a security vs. freedom issue. And to me freedom wins.
But it doesnt. If it was good you us, then it should be really good in the natural..that's what I am saying. If we have to DO something to it, then it must be something else, and not good for us..........
If you can figure out a way for me to eat a delicious burger without killing a cow I'm all ears. Until then, yum yum, dead animal carcase is delicious.
Well, my opinion is that people eat to survive. And it is what you eat that contributes to that. True? Wouldn't it be true that you need certain nutrients to evolve? If so, then what are you getting from raw meat. And if I may, why do we have to cook it and season it to make it taste good enough for us to eat? If it is indeed so beneficial, then why not eat it raw.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 12th, 2007 08:09 PM
