I'm about to head off to get coffee and attend this conference and give my own talk, and then zoom, right after the talk I have to head off to the airport and fly back home. I'll be back this evening, but until then, you'll all have to entertain yourselves in the comments…which you all seem very good at, anyway.
Just to get you started: Pat Condell.
Maybe one of the fundagelical creobots haunting Pharyngula right now will find something to rave about in that.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I'll be in Portland, Oregon this weekend for the Northwest Freethought Conference, which I'm sad to say, is completely sold out. You procrastinated, didn't you? You dawdled over making the decision, and now it's too late — you're going to have to stay home and weep sadly over lost opportunities,…
Part of the reason for this post is just to say that I've finally been able to put up the Richard Dawkins' talk at the terry.ubc.ca site. This is essentially his "God Delusion" speech, and it happens to be available at a relatively high resolution (two files totalling about 350Mb) - if you have an…
So here I am, stuck at the airport with no internet connection. Don't ask me why. I am showing a signal, but this has been the Trip from Hell, so I'm not surprised. It should have been easy. One hour flight time, nice hotel on the waterfront, all day meeting with interesting people discussing…
I got back into town at about 1:00 pm on Monday from a weekend at my other house. I ate lunch from leftovers in the fridge from at least 1.5 weeks ago (ack), and proceeded to waste much of the rest of the afternoon. While I did call some landscapers for help with our blank-slate back yard, and go…
Entertainment? The Governor of Florida went and got himself a beard to increase his chances of being selected as VP.
William Lane Craig summarises current theistic philosophy, and boy is it in trouble:
This must be that sophisticated philosophy of religion that the "New Atheists" do not grapple with.
Religion is human rights abuse...LOL, i love this guy's speeches.
Ok, so since this is an open thread, I'm going to ask about something I thought of the other day...There's a chronic, nearly insoluble, shortage of blood and blood products. Any incentive that will encourage people to give more will probably encourage the wrong people to give more (i.e. high risk for disease or with known blood born disease). Artificial alternatives have thus far been disappointing. So, there need to be other methods. One idea that occurred to me was to basically bone marrow transplant healthy large mammals with human hematopoietic stem cells or make transgenic animals with human blood (platelets, plasma, erythrocytes and leukocytes). Assume for the purposes of the exercise that there is no chimerism or that the transgenic animal is without genetic "leaks". How many of you are entirely squicked by the idea? Especially if the next step is that the blood is collected when the animal is slaughtered and the rest of the critter ends up on the dinner table? (People who are vegetarians on principle should not answer because you're already squicked by meat in general and I'm wondering about the implications of the human blood component.)
*salutes Pat*
Sir, if only you were Prime Minister.
Pat is one of the reasons why I decided to take to blogging, because he's a smart dude and he's funny as hell.
I gotta say, this is not one of my favorites of his (I prefer "Hook, Line and Rapture") but every piece is funny and well thought out.
My only complaint is that he's not more prolific.
Dianne, that's a splendid idea!
Please everyone crash the petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bbc_springer/index.html and post comments opposing the petition's premise.
Thankfully the religiots here in the UK aren't as plentiful as they are Stateside, but they need a healthy dose of STFU from time to time.
Maybe we could encourage these folks to do something a little more, er, um, useful... like the folks in this article.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200807/NAT20…
It's titled "Group Asks for Divine Intervention to Ease Oil Prices"
Is that true, or is that a just motivational "fib" told by the Red Cross to encourage people to donate? How many people have died in the USA due to unavailablity of blood in any recent year?
Pat sure tells it like it is! I'm impressed. I googled and found
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Condell .
Dianne,
I'm not bothered by the idea in principle. However, transmitting diseases between species is a major concern.
A better solution would be for more people to donate (i give every other month). The Red Cross could also change it's rules so thousands of healthy people who spent some time in Europe in the early 90s could give blood.
The Christian Voice petition, there's no option to say I hope they squeeze you until the pips squeek so any signature will just be one more for them - I'm pretty sure they'll delete/disregard any hostile comments.
MAJeff #1:
Man, I'm disappointed. I thought he was actually growing a beard. I long for the days of Garfield and Hayes.
Dianne, I have no ethical problems with that idea.
Diane:
Soylent pink is MANBEARPIG!
Really, I would be more worried about zoonoses that I would be squicked by the general idea.
To a Young Poet who Killed Himself
by: Joyce Kilmer
When you had played with life a space
And made it drink and lust and sing,
You flung it back into God's face
And thought you did a noble thing.
"Lo, I have lived and loved," you said,
"And sung to fools too dull to hear me.
Now for a cool and grassy bed
With violets in blossom near me.
" Well, rest is good for weary feet,
Although they ran for no great prize;
And violets are very sweet,
Although their roots are in your eyes.
But hark to what the earthworms say
Who share with you your muddy haven:
"The fight was on -- you ran away.
You are a coward and a craven."
The rug is ruined where you bled;
It was a dirty way to die!
To put a bullet through your head
And make a silly woman cry!
You could not vex the merry stars
Nor make them heed you, dead or living.
Not all your puny anger mars
God's irresistible forgiving.
Yes, God forgives and men forget,
And you're forgiven and forgotten.
You may be gaily sinning yet
And quick and fresh instead of rotten.
And when you think of love and fame
And all that might have come to pass,
Then don't you feel a little shame?
And don't you think you were an ass?"
Dianne - assuming those various safety concerns are taken into account, that sounds like an excellent idea. I suspect that they would be "milked" for blood pretty frequently, not just at slaughter time, so there would be some animal welfare issues to do with cows wandering around with portacaths stuck in their necks...
As for Pat Condell? Rock on...
Okay, it's the 4th of July. The Discovery Institute has a goofy article claiming that Jefferson believed in ID. Duh! So did everyone before Darwin. I just blogged about it, and (in my humble opinion) did a pretty good job of demolishing their article. Discovery Institute: Usurping the Fourth of July. Can't let the Discoveroids take over the 4th.
Oh, and I'm one of those folks who would be very happy to give blood, except I'm a British expat and apparently I have mad cow disease.
Moo er, boo, obviously.
A little question for the biblical scholars here:
I seem to recall the suggestion that the injunction against eating pork may well be grounded in the fact that pigs pretty much have to be fattened on grain, and as such they're competitors for our food. That is in an impoverished society - as that of a caste of manual labourers, the Hebrews - pork is much too energy inefficient a foodstuff.
Now for the question(s): Are there any viable hypotheses for some of the other silly commandments? For instance, I could imagine that the problem with seafood is one of allergies/intolerances. I, myself, can't seem to keep down mussels and some kinds of fish. Has there been any studies into a genetic disposition for seafood allergies in Jews?
Similarly, might the problem with mixing fibers in cloth be one of efficiency or hygiene? Is mixed fiber less durable or harder to keep clean?
Do not cook the kid in its mother's milk: does that perhaps have something to do with milk being a good medium for bacterial growth? (Is milk a good medium for Salmonella?)
Any takers?
I was cruising Pharyngula's archives last night when I found PZ's piece on Neil deGrasse Tyson's commentary on ID. I blogged about it, and the creationist goofiness that followed is delightfully, hilariously incomprehensible. Check it out. Any insight into this particular species of loon would be appreciated.
The world's best political cartoonist, IMO. One of his finest.
Just thought it might be appreciated round these pharyngulists....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cartoon/2008/jul/01/iraq.oil.business.e…
You 'Muricans have a great 4th July, now
DaveH x
Re: blood. I'm an HIV- gay man. I'm barred from giving blood because I've had sex with a man once since 1978.
I hate needles, so they wouldn't get it out of me anyway, but c'mon!
Oh, and I became a blood donor about six years ago. They won't tap you more than four times a year here in Denmark, though.
And I've been quarantined for the past year-and-a-half because I'm pumped full of antidepressants.
(.)(.)
Jesse Helms has died. Another hateful racist gone.
That's just Parsons trying to sell his book. Again.
Goddamit! I came hear to hear lunatics spouting off about how we're all going to go to haitch ee double hockey sticks, and all youse guys do is ramble on about some artificial Frankensteinian blood supply.
Jesus saves at Wal-Mart.
BTW, everyone should go to pat's youtube video and vote down that arsewipe HuntingConde1l. He's the worst sort of troll, hateful little pious bitch.
Dianne,
It's an interesting proposition, one that I would welcome if it could be pulled off (that being the real stumbling block, in all likelihood.) Still, it address a couple of points that I'm the perfect example of.
First, the problem of human donors. I'd very willingly give blood if I could, but can't for several reasons, only one of which isn't really logical. The illogical reason has to do with with the now extremely stringent limits on travel for donors (I'm theoretically blocked because I've traveled overseas recently, even though that was to Europe.) The best one is what's in my bloodstream most of the time, but that leads me to my second point.
I'm a rheumatoid arthritic (since I was a teen) and even now have a genetically modified (chimeric; human/mouse) monoclonal antibody in my blood, serving as my principle treatment. It serves to target the immune suppressant that keeps me able to do things like, well...walk. Naturally enough, that makes my own blood unusable for anyone else (the immune suppressant especially is very persistent and hard to get rid of.) And I'd be a perfect donor otherwise. I can't help but think that there are a fair number of people like me in the developed world who are out of the blood system because of things like this.
But of course, this also means that I don't have any problem with the ideas you've laid out. I wouldn't hesitate to use blood derived from such a source, as long as I though the animals humanely used in the process. That really wouldn't be that hard, no more than doing so in the food chain is hard (though our current system does a bad job of it, at least at the industrial end of the scale.) I also don't think it would be either necessary (or even desirable) to kill the animals for harvest. Rather, they'd be treated like human donors with permanent catheters installed and just bled on a schedule that won't harm them. Not only is it more humane, but also probably more economical, as I'd bet making one of these bovines would be a hefty investment and you'd get a much better return by preserving the animal rather than sacrificing it.
By the way, I am not a vegetarian, though I do eat organic meat because of the more humane nature of the animal husbandry practices involved in raising it.
I've been trying to win the first ever Conservapedia Challenge, but Mr. Schlafly still hasn't acknowledged my second response. The first he claimed didn't do a thorough job, so I went back and explored more.
Initial: http://nolatitude.blogspot.com/2008/07/conservapedia-stubborn-idiocy-in…
Followup: http://nolatitude.blogspot.com/2008/07/conservapedia-demanding-wrong-da…
Does anyone know how big the Conservapedia prize is? It's bronze, like all other science-y medals, yes?
Dianne: I'm not squicked and I am a vegetarian (but I don't come from an animal rights perspective, so YMMV). That being said, there are more immediate things that can be done to increase the donor pool. For example, I can't donate blood, not because I take worrisome medication or carry any diseases but because I'm a bisexual male. The FDA specifically excludes any male who has had a sexual encounter with another male after 1977.
About the blood idea, I wouldn't have any problems with harvesting blood from animals, but why only take the blood when we kill them for meat? Throughout their lives surely we could take safe small amounts of blood? I am not anywhere near knowledgeable on the Medical front or biochemical front, so if I am wrong then I appolagise.
Also theoretically the animals wouldnt even have to be kept in huge Battery farms, they could live free range and be brought in for a "milking" of blood every month or so,right? that might even appease some of the hardcore Vege's who I am sure will be against it.
I hate it when people mention high risk categories for blood as apparantly I am one, being someone in an homosexual relationship means I obviously sleep around with as many men unprotected as possible and therefor I am high risk! It is unfairly discriminatory as I know a lot more women who have slept with many many more men than I have.
I suppose it's a good job they have this policy though, as the blood goes straight from my arm into a patient without any tests other than the ridiculous questionnaire they make you fill out right? Oh wait... they screen it don't they? My argument fails. :p
Every time there is a blood drive, I stop by to see if they have changed their silly rules, and every time I'm told that nope, they haven't. I lived in Italy between 1980-1988, so they don't want my blood. I am healthy and I am not afraid of needles. I'd easily give 4 or more times a year. I get frustrated every single time.
And I've got a huge crush on Pat Codnell. That kind of brain is so sexy.
Yet more proof that the world is coming to an end soon.
The movie version of Beer For My Horses starring Ted Nugent.
More proof.
Live in fear!
A day in the life of DaveScot
0700: Reveille. HOO-RAH! Semper Fi! This is my rifle! Time to slap on my boots, make the bed for bed inspection (make sure the quarter bounces this time), then head to the canteen for some slop.. oh wait, I'm not in the Corps anymore. Guess I'll start some coffee and get ready for work.. oh wait, I don't even have a JOB anymore.. guess I'll fire up the old ham radio..
0715: Ham radio time.. first broadcast of the morning: "I is DaveScot. I has a ham radio. It were designed by me, just like life am designed by some unnamed, unknowable being with godlike powers that for definite sure am existing but we can't know whether it am existing or not because me am agnostic. End transmission" Note to self: why do I always talk like Bizarro on my ham radio?
0730: Call from WAD. Says to stop referring to Uncommon Descent as "MY blog." Says I am just one of the many assorted "friends" and that UD is his playground and that I only serve at his discretion and whim. I call him a nerd and tell him to shove it in his big fat sweater or I'll break his glasses. HAHA I am so funny. ROTFLMAO. Note to self: Is it disturbing for a 50+ year old overweight man on the internet to use acronyms meant for teenage girls? ZOMG!
0800: Fire up Internet Explorer and check out the activity on UD. Let's see:
GilDodgeon's new post: "Did you know that I play classical piano? Well I do. Play classical piano, that is. But I'm also a computer programmer. Funny, isn't it, right brain, left brain, all that.. But music is really a passion of mine. And I was talking to David Berlinski the other day and he plays piano and speaks French, just like me. And wears a leather jacket just like me. That's another interesting contradiction in my personality, that I like motorcycles but play piano and speak French. Wow, I'm interesting. BTW evolution is crap. "
Denyse's new post: "Lame joke. Lame attempt to coin a phrase. Weak attempt at metaphor. Long quotation from someone else. Painfully bad pun. 10 links to more of the same on my blog. 10 links to buy my book. PS I am competing w DaveScot to see who can suck the life out of a room faster."
WAD's new post: "Evolution is the root of abortion, genocide, homosexuality, and war. And it's rubbish anyway because of the Cambrian explosion. Big word or foreign phrase incorrectly used in an attempt to appear well-read"
And the comments:
Bornagain77: "Hi, I'm crazy."
Coherent argument against ID, BAN.
Pointing out that the "problems" ID people see in evolution are really just products of their own ignorance, DOUBLE BAN
0900: Boy, banning those homos gets me worked up. They're all such homos, just like that dude in the Corps that used to give me BJs. He was a real homo.
the injunction against eating pork may well be grounded in ...
Trichinosis.
viable hypotheses for some of the other silly commandments
There's this crazy thing called "google" that can be useful in answering such questions. e.g.,
"Is that true, or is that a just motivational "fib" told by the Red Cross to encourage people to donate? How many people have died in the USA due to unavailablity of blood in any recent year?"
If the US is anything like the UK, it is unlikely that there is ever a total shortage of blood for use in an emergency. What happens is that when stocks reach a certain level elective operations that will need blood get cancelled.
Jesse Helms has died.
I'm trying to resist the urge to applaud.
Yes, Jesse Helms has tarnished the birthdate of our great nation by making today all about him.
What a selfish, selfish man.
(still in snark mood, of course)
Is that true, or is that a just motivational "fib" told by the Red Cross to encourage people to donate?
And why would that want to encourage that if the blood weren't necessary? And since blood is a finite resource, what would make you think that there aren't genuine shortages? Honestly, you've asked an incredibly stupid question, one that you could have answered with your own effort:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FSL/is_3_72/ai_65539092
@truth machine,
Why resist the urge to applaud? The Earth is much better for that piece of shit being dead.
Hell, the first person to let me know Reagan died got a free six-pack.
A tribute to Jesse Helms in song.
@ Dianne,No 4:
Apart from the ethical and religious uproar(not that I care)that something like this would cause,there are too many difficulties with immune response and bug transfer to even consider it.
And as an Emergency Physician Im with Reg Selkirk on this,how many people have actually dies from blood shortage,the Red Cross etc appeals you hear are mainly in times of shortage,like school holidays or some sort of disaster,where you are in danger of running your reserves down.
Reginald Selkirk (#2):
Wow. William Lane Craig never struck me as a shining intellect, but if he thinks the idiotic claims of the cdesign proponentsists hold any water, he's either a moron or a conniving liar. Hooray for sophistimacated theology!
"Is that true, or is that a just motivational "fib" told by the Red Cross to encourage people to donate?"
Most blood shortages could be avoided by only giving transfusions when absolutely necessary (blood transfusions are not very good for you, even if the donor is very healthy) and by reusing the patient's own blood (using techniques developed to perform surgeries on blood-paranoid Jehovah's Whitnesses, oddly enough)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/ns-cbt042308.php
"Jesse Helms has died."
Someone tell MC Hawking!
http://www.mchawking.com/mp3_files/JesseHelms.mp3
OH FUCK IT GETS WORSE:
THE FUCKWITTERY, IT BURNS.
Bit of a straggler but let me tell you I was out for my morning run earlier and 4 horrible youths on bicycles had the nerve to dispute right of way on a pedestrian crossing. "Stupid old fart" they bellowed as they rode off. As they did so one of them turned and gave me a look. If he did. Thirty years ago I could sprint but the best I can manage now is a lumbering canter. Wake up GOD! Where's the bloody bears when you need them? Bears? I'd have given them bears, eyehenas, wolverine, okapis, they'd have had the bloddy lot. I might have even have felt bad about it afterwards, too but we'll never know because the bloody bears never showed up did they.
Funny (I'm not complaining) how this begain as a pat Condell / Anti-Religion thread and is now a blood drive...
Jesse ol' boy, you be sure to come back and tell us all about it, ya hear?
Just dropped by to say happy 4th of July to everybody!
I'm all for that one. That's the reason I can't give blood anymore. Every time there's a blood drive in my area I go just to see if this rule is still in effect. Then, when I'm told that it is, I say "That's too bad, me being O- and all."
Jesse Helms has died.
The world is a slightly better place today.
You're not kidding. A formulation of the cosmological argument worse than Kalaam? That's the kind of stupidity that takes skill.
It was an excellent speech for the first 4:30 minutes, until he came up with this :
"In a couple of generations, some parts of Europe will have no choice than to democratically allow sharia law"
Well, I'd like to see which projections he bases himself for this, which parts of Europe is he talking about, democratically elect sharia law, I think he is just spinning something out of the blue. With 2 to 3% of the European Union's population, projected to maximum double within a generation, and showing the same genrational trends in decreasing religiosity as with other religions, what is he talking about ? Why does he need to do that ?
So he starts his speech with "Islam is not the problem, religion is the problem", does a marvelous job for 4:30 minutes to attack them all by simply stating what is real and to speak out for secularism, but then in the end, has to exagerate the threat of Islam, and I think it just weakens his whole argument.
I've managed to outwit the Red Cross so far. Every time I donate (which I do regularly), they ask whether I've had sex with a gay male, or with a prostitute, etc. But they never ask about farm animals. Take that!
"Religion will simply die a natural death." Pat Condell.
Wishful thinking, but unrealistic as long as their are humans to perpetuate nonsense.
They say you should only speak good of the dead. Jesse Helms is dead. Good.
/Bette Davis
Enormous ignorance on blood donation in this thread. Does anyone die in the U.S. because of lack of blood, probably not. But blood donation also includes platelets, which do not store well, and are needed weekly for chemotherapy patients. Your local blood center is probably struggling to meet the need there.
As for travel in Europe, read the current guidelines -- I find it hard to believe everyone spent > 3 months in western Europe from 1980-1996 (how did you get you visa extended?) or > 5 yrs.
If you are an HIV risk, your dispensation is kindly granted.
Admit it, most people too lazy to donate, but should they get cancer, they will happy to suck down the donations of others. We are the ultimate consumer society.
For the record, I give platelets every 14 days. It hurts, it is boring, and it makes me feel like crap for several hours. My arm veins are so scarred you can hear a pop when the needle goes in. But this is my choice. For a 3 yr old leukemia patient, who has an excellent chance of survival, my choice is their hope.
Oh oh!
Holbach: "Wishful thinking, but unrealistic as long as their are humans to perpetuate nonsense."
Given your track record, I sure hope you don't take that thought to it's logical conclusion.
Down with religion! Death to the humans!
Bishop Pontoppodan @ 17 What insane drivel, and by the same poet who puked, "But only god can make a tree"
That Pat, makes me proud to be a Brit, fair brings a tear to me eye, an' no mistake, guv'nor.
\/ Peace
On the video, I think Condell's wrong about most religious leaders being unbelievers - people are very good at believing what it's convenient to believe, so they can serve their own interests and feel virtuous (see the AGW denialists for another example). That makes getting rid of religion tougher. I also think he greatly overestimates the threat that European countries will democratically institute Sharia - the alarming demographic projections he relies on assume that women in immigrant communities will go on having lots of children, which is historically unjustified. However, I'm entirely in agreement that we should push for complete secularism, getting religion of all kinds out of law, out of politics, out of education; and being entirely unbending in opposition to religious intolerance of criticism and ridicule - whether it is Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Hindu (there have been prominent examples of all of these in the UK in recent years), or Judaist - see Henry Gee's recent attempts at moral blackmail on this very blog.
On Dianne's proposal@2 - as a non-tetropodophage I think this would be far better justified (if safe) than raising animals to eat. My father, unusually, became a type 1 diabetic in his late 40s, and for most of the remaining 35 years of his life was completely dependant on porcine insulin, as millions of others were, so really this raises no new moral problems. (Insulin from transgenic bacteria is now used - my father had some problems when switched to this, because he didn't get the warning signs of hypoglaecemia he was used to, but in general it's almost certainly better, as the bacteria produce human insulin.)
Damn, I've heard about some insanely stupid US rules and regulations, but that blood thing just blew my mind.
I have to ask... If you pass all their inane little rules, they don't test your blood?
I mean, how much trouble could it be to take a pint (or however much they normally take) and use a bit of that to test for whatever blood-borne diseases they're worried about? Just leave the stuff in storage 'till the results come back.
If you can't be bothered to do that, then you don't get to complain about shortage of blood.
(Obviously, with all this 'you' stuff, I don't mean anyone personally)
Jesse Helms's kicking it has just made my day so much better. I actually feel like celebrating this 4th!!
btb @ 62 I inferred no such scenario, and the conclusive thought was yours alone. If humans somehow became extinct through natural disasters of any kind, or did so by way of nuclear holocaust, would religion survive? Would animals pick up the vacuum left by humans and reestablish religion? Unequivocally no on both accounts. Simple, eh?
Unanimous support for Diane's proposal we create animals for blood products.
We already doing that. They are of the species Homo sapiens. Very little cost involved for this purpose, with excellent results.
Perhaps what is missing is that we need to treat people like cattle.
@12 & 20:
I have the same problem about not being allowed to donate blood thanks to living in Britain in the early to mid 80's, despite the fact that I was a vegetarian even then and so never ate the darned cows!! It seems so unfair somehow.
(Sorry, Dianne, I know you didn't want veggies responding!)
Donated blood is tested for HIV,hepatitis, and liver enzymes, at at minimum.
There is no test for "Mad Cow Disease". Not sure how you would create a test for a disease with an unconfirmed cause (as far as I know).
R.C. in #69:
Either you don't have kids or I'm doing it wrong. My little bundles of preciousness are bloody expensive. :-)
I wrote:
...very little cost involved for this purpose
It costs relatively little to give blood. In fact nothing but some time.
So I may assume you have protected something so valuable with a regular donation of blood or platelets?
@ No 71 in response to No 66 :
Hard to test for something you dont know is a threat yet,and keep in mind that the tests for HIV ( 1: 1000000) and Hepatitis C ( 1: 50000)are not 100% reliabe either.
As to Pat Condell's latest video,I disagree with Neg regarding the overstating of the danger from Islam and the establishing of Sharia law,im not in the UK,but it would seem from all that I read and watch,that there are already pockets where Sharia law is practised in the UK now,and thats only going to get worse,while at the same time politicians and guys like this Archbishop dude are promoting "religious tolerance" for Islamists.I remember well the discussion over the female medical student or Intern that refused to expose her arms to wash her hands in theatre for religious reasons and almost got away with it.And im 100% with Condell,we have to call bullshit bullshit,and tell these people exactly where to stick their Sharia law and their Islamic rules,if they are attempting to apply them in free secular societies.
everybody watch this video please:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzen8gCwpZA
Make her a star. Thank you. Have a nice day.
You have confused reliability with accuracy, but still, what is your point? Blood screening is not perfect? Of course not. But the benefits far out way the risks.
Regarding platelet donation: I have donated both blood and platelets, and it seems to me that platelet donation feels a little bit worse - even though in theory they are removing "less stuff". Why is this, R.C.? I am just curious.
All the "Diane..." comments make me feel like I'm watching Twin Peaks.
Speaking for myself, when the cooled blood is returned, it seems to really affect my joints and sinus cavities, like I have decompressed too quickly after scuba diving.
I am not dehydrated too much, but I still get light headed riding my bike home. Not sure what causes that.
Thanks for the platelet donation. I know is is more of a physical sacrifice than whole blood, but think of it this way: someone lived through one more round of chemotherapy.
Interesting then that the Red Cross is vigorously promoting Double Red donation, in which two units of red cells are donated, but the plasma, including platelets, is returned to the donor.
@74
However, when does it become a numbers game? If the shortage of blood has become a big problem, would a less-than-100% accurate test (done 2 or 3 times on a batch) not be preferable? There would be the slight chance of a dirty batch of blood versus the certainty of a shortage.
"Hard to test for something you dont know is a threat yet"
While true, it seems like a bit of a useless argument. No offense intended here, but if we're going to worry about something "we don't know is a threat yet", why do we even bother with donated blood?
Frankly, if I'm bleeding out on some surgery table, I'd rather risk "that something we don't know about yet, but it may be dangerous" than that whole bleeding to death mess.
"Diane, I'm holding in my hands a box of chocolate octopi..."
(Sorry, couldn't resist!)
The MadPanda, FCD
Chestnut wins hot dog contest after eat-off It sounds like brutal competition. Imagine stuffing yourself with 59 hot dogs in ten minutes, ending up tied, then having to face a five dog eat-off.
The DVD version of Expelled is now listed on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Expelled-No-Intelligence-Allowed/dp/B001BYLFFS/re… . Comments are enabled, so if you've seen it feel free to express your opinion. Only two comments so far.
Wow, so he did. I saw the headline earlier in the day, "Bozo is dead," but didn't bother to read the whole thing.
Poor me, this thread on blood donations is going to trigger some vasovagal syncope, I'm such a whimp.
Actually, it's not true, it doesn't work that way, so back to the programme :
Clinteas,
What do you mean exactly with "pockets" ?
I think there is a big stretch between saying that there are a few groups of nutcase fundies who practice it privately, and say that Europeans will democratically allow sharia law.
Does that mean that they will vote for politicians that pass laws that allow it ? With which majority ? The few % muslim fundies in the population ?
The evidence is fairly good for prions.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/bse/
There is a test that can be done on brain tissue, but since the animal has to be dead this is of limited use in humans.
Just recently, the USDA prevented a beef company from using its own privately built lab to test all its carcasses for BSE. I'm very confused how the USDA can do that.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-madcow19-2008jun19,0,3257268…
Any Oregonians here? You might be interested in Bill Diss, a Portland high school teacher.
http://bouphonia.blogspot.com/2008/07/life-of-sex.html
The gateway to lust? Seriously?
Happy 4th from Canada.
No 84,
thanks for the link !
Tagged(madness,lies,deception,utter insanity,tedious),commented and reviewed.....
In Canadian news, Dr. Henry Morgantaler, was awarded the Order of Canada* on Tuesday. Dr. Morgantaler is a safe abortion advocate who performed abortions illegally for twenty years until his arrests and subsequent trials and appeals got the Supreme Court of Canada to rule that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code was unconstitutional, essentially legalising abortion in Canada.
As expected, the fundies, conservatives, Catholic Professional Pedophiles--er--priests, and other nitwits various and sundry are up in arms about it.
*The Order of Canada is supposedly our highest civilian honour, designed to recognise those who enrich our lives through service to the community and the nation. Naturally then, we gave one to Céline Dion, even though anyone with functioning ears recognises "My Heart Will Go On" for what it is: a homing beacon for an invasion force from whatever planet of screeching stick-beasts she comes from.
There is no test for "Mad Cow Disease". Not sure how you would create a test for a disease with an unconfirmed cause (as far as I know). - R.C. Moore
It's pretty well established by animal experiments that it is caused by prions - proteins folded in a particular way that can "convert" other molecules of protein with the same sequence of amino acids into further prions. There is no blood test for people (not many prions get into the blood), but I believe there are experimental ones for cattle. Despite the effect of restricting blood donation, I think the USA and other countries are right to be very cautious - several cases of vCJD (the human form) apparently due to blood transfusion have recently occurred in the UK.
Superb. Everything I always wanted to say but couldn't quite put it all together.
Because the USDA understands statistics. Repeatedly running a test does not increase it's reliability. The beef company was engaging in what as known as "marketing" -- where they imply that their product is better because it has "more" of something, in this case BSE testing.
The vitamin industry has thrived on this principle.
I don't doubt the concern of vCJD, and believe that at this point we err on the side of caution, but the skeptic in me has to ask: is the evidence that blood transfusions causes vCJD better than the evidence that childhood immunizations cause autism?
Hey Nick (and others),
My knowledge of prions is limited, but is there any indication that prion-like behaviour in early organic molecules could have played a role in abiogenesis? Even if not, is the self-replicating/converting behaviour of prions evidence that non-living organic molecules can reproduce, in a way akin to what we suspect happened 4.4 or so bya?
I've thought of using prions as an example, along with protobionts such as liposomes and microspheres, of potential intermediates between 'non-life' and 'life' when explaining to creationists and non-biologists why abiogenesis doesn't require a deity.
@ R.C Moore No 94:
WTF has the lack of evidence for CJD transmission via blood transfusions to do with autism?? And there is no credible evidence whatsoever that immunizations cause autism,there is a lobby that wants to promote the idea,mainly parents of autistic children that feel they have to blame someone,but there is no scientific evidence for this at all.
Hey guys,
Anybody has any info from a "prestigious" scientific institution about making a case for consuming less (or no) meat? I have an argument with my doctor friend, and he won't take anything less than a "proper" study or information, haha. I my main point is that resources for raising farm animals are very wasteful, and he comes up with that we need meat because of some aminoacids you can't get anywhere else.
Any more info or discussion if you disagree, on that from you guys would be appreciated.
R.C. Moore@94
Yes. Not cast-iron, but pretty good. The following is from a BBC news report from 2006:
"The patient, whose details are not being revealed, developed the brain disease eight years after receiving the blood from a donor who later got vCJD.
The patient, who is being cared for by specialist doctors, is one of a group of under 30 people known to have received blood from infected donors.
Infection experts said the case was "further evidence" the incurable brain disease could be passed via blood.
The first case of vCJD transmission by blood transfusion was announced by then Health Secretary John Reid in December 2003.
But the latest case illustrates that the prions that cause vCJD can be incubated for many years before symptoms become apparent."
For more technical stuff see:
http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/TMER/TMER.htm
My point exactly.
@93
Wait, what?
The USDA apparently uses that same test to screen for BSE. Except, they don't test every carcass.
I can't testify as to whether or not that company would indeed have tested every single carcass, but what's the problem with allowing them to test?
The test would already have proved to be both reliable and valid if the USDA was using it.
My knowledge of prions is limited, but is there any indication that prion-like behaviour in early organic molecules could have played a role in abiogenesis? Even if not, is the self-replicating/converting behaviour of prions evidence that non-living organic molecules can reproduce, in a way akin to what we suspect happened 4.4 or so bya? - Brownian
My knowledge is pretty limited too (and rusty) - I was worried about vCJD around the turn of the millennium and learned what I could, but I don't have any serious qualifications in biology. I'd be surprised if there was any role for prions in abiogenesis: what seems to happen is that a particular way of folding the protein is replicated, not the protein itself. Prions are thought to have some function, certainly in yeasts IIRC, possibly in animals, although animals bioengineered not to express the protein involved in BSE are apparently healthy.
#97:
This isn't the ultimate scientific study, but Jared Diamond (who is very very good at checking his facts and citing sources) in Guns, Germs, and Steel established very thouroughly that it takes, on average, 1000 pounds of plants/grains/etc to feed 100 pounds of animal.
As such, its an easy and obvious jump to say that there would be more food available for people if fewer people ate meat.
Strangely, this is also one of the best arguments I've heard for being a vegetarian (not to diminish the pain and suffering argument).
@102
Only if you ignore the fact that the grain used to feed these animals is not fit for human consumption
Ok, I would prefer you wikipedia some background on statistical testing, but here is short explanation: every test carries with it false positives and false negatives. Repeating the test only multiplies the uncertainty be multiplying the false positives and false negatives. This is different than confirmation of results, which is not what the beef company was going to do.
Why is this a problem? Why do we care if the beef company has false positives and throws out a carcass? Because the results would imply other beef companies have higher levels of BSE than they really do I guess. Which would cause fear. Please note the current riots against US beef in Korea. It has now spread to other issues.
Do not underestimate how private enterprise will lie to you to sell product, even something as serious as BSE.
Also, I forgot to add:
I can't offer any solid answers on the amino acids, not a nutrition expert; but I'd think that there are other sources (dairy, pills, milk, protien powder, soy- all usually the vegetarian alternatives)
The fact that never/rarely eating meat is proven to increase life expectancy is also an encouraging reason to be a vegetarian: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S
Ironically, I'm not a vegetarian... yet.
Not quite so out of the blue as you think - this from BBC News (via richarddawkins.net):-
Sharia law 'could have UK role'
by BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7488790.stm
At the moment there is only talk about incorporating sharia law into mediation, but the fact that minority religious law is being accommodated at all does not bode well for 'a couple of generations' time.
Andy
The v stands for variant and variantCJD is the human form of.....Mad cow disease. So the transfusion recipient got vCJD mad cow disease from a donor who later came down with mad cow disease.
The human mad cow epidemic that some predicted never happened. But OTOH, there have been sporadic cases for a while.
Must be hard on the UK vampire population.
Wonderful anecdote from the BBC. This is not helping skepticism. I wish for something that is outside the wide boundaries of coincidence. I am not lazy, and will research the issue myself, but if anyone has any better data, please post.
Jason,
I agree, it's my main point as well. I haven't sworn off meat, but I do try to not eat it. It doesn't take much effort from me though, I like it but I don't LOVE it. It's something I can do without easily.
Although about humane treatment, coming from a South American Spanish culture, I do despise the "art" of bullfighting. The argument from those bloodthirsty torturer supporters of it is not really an argument. They just say, "well, if you eat meat, then you're a hypocrite for criticizing us." I find it's frustratingly futile to even try to explain why that's wrong to someone so unbelievably thick in their skull that they make that argument. So another reason I don't eat meat is so that it's easier to call bullshit on that sort of, well, bullshit. So, out of spite. Yeah.
Of course also there is the "tradition" and "artform" arguments, but come on, even some of them know that's talking out of their ass, so they have to attack the critics as hypocrites.
HUZZAH! Today is my birthday! Happy 4th everyone. ;)
Please feel free to have a generous snort of something cheery, and twirl to your hearts content!
WHEEEEE!
@104
I would prefer you don't assume I know nothing anything about statistics. (Wikipedia? Seriously?)
Do me a favour, multiply .01 by .01. The odds of two false positives on a 99% test, would then be .1%.
This is, of course, assuming that the false positive has no systemic reason, but is completely random. In all honesty, I don't know if this is the case.
Regardless, how is "it would cause fear" an argument? If anything it's great marketing for them ("We look out for our consumers") and it would drive other companies to do the same.
You're telling me you don't trust a company to be completely honest with you (I'm with you on that one), but then you seem perfectly willing to throw in with a government organisation... (nevermind the lying, they test only a VERY small percentage of the carcasses. The odds of something slipping through there are much greater than a false negative slipping through in a 100% tested scenario)
I am still laughing over your "fact", evidenced by your quoted study. Especially:
Hey, all you people Darfur! We are doing you a favor keeping you away from all that animal protein!
Seriously, the study abstract does not reach your conclusion. And epidemiological studies of this nature are notoriously difficult to replicate.
I would still of course recommend a diet low in fat and processed carbohydrates.
Hey, happy birthday. Although the 4th is something I don't really celebrate nearly as much as Lou Dobbs would like me to, I do appreciate more personal celebrations.
I hope that's some of that high-grade irony I keep hearing about...
Yeah, there isn't a whole lot you can do right now about minimizing animal cruelty - anyone whose been to a factory farm knows what I'm talking about -.
But if it's any consolation, the moral zietgiest (as Dawkins describes it) seems to be moving in that direction, so a hundred years from now (assuming civilization makes it that far) people will possibly all be vegetarians, looking back on us as cruel and savage, the same way we look back at cannibals or slave owners (not that those arent still around today, but they're the ones bringing up the rear end of that moral zietgiest).
PS: #103 Bas- yes that is true, but the resources used could still have been used to create (non-animal) food for human consumption. I'm not saying that you would necesarily get the full 1000 pounds more food for humans, but I'd be confident to say that you'd get significantly more than you would from the animal you feed.
Only if you ignore the fact that the grain used to feed these animals is not fit for human consumption
Only if you ignore the fact that the same resources used growing the unfit-for-human-consumption grains and squandered on meat production could be used more effectively.
Just to add another little distraction to the open thread.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7490514.stm
Here's an example of utter, utter time wasting......what on earth does this medieval throwback think this will possibly achieve???
What nonsense. I repeat, the beef company is not doing a test to confirm BSE. These are independent cows, each (to use your number, with a 1% false positive rate). So of a million cows, I incorrectly classify 10,000 as having BSE.
So the headline is "Beef Company finds "10,000" cows have BSE". Or maybe no cows had BSE. WTF am I do with that information?
The public needs real risk factors. Not statistical nonsense.
Since it's the 4oJ, I pasted my post today from Cosmic Variance and added an extra paragraph at the end:
It is interesting and ironic that despite the interest of "neocons" in "spreading democracy," the hard-core libertarian/conservative/Objectivist types deride democracy as "mob rule." The Ayn-al retentive Neal Boortz and the like minded say, (now often not directly acknowledging her as inspiration), that "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." They also like to say, "The USA is a Republic, not a Democracy." The latter statement is false because "democracy" is not defined as "direct democracy" which is un-filtered by constitutions, legislatures etc., or both. Well, part of the reason we need a democracy is exactly about what the mob-rule haters reference: because of the power of property owners (and where does the "original justification" of that come from, and why not limited like that of government?), we need democracy so two sheep and a wolf can keep the wolf from eating the sheep on his own.
Yes, we are a Republic, and a Democracy too - a "representative democracy" which is a sub-class, not like "infrared." (Conservatives often have trouble with combined categories, multiple causation etc. That is from my experience, not a "prejudice.") I think the main appeal of the Republic over Democracy meme is the boost it gives the favored Party.
In any case, consider the irony of the Bush Admin/neocons wanting to spread democracy in the Middle East (really the near East) but being served results such as Hamas winning in Palestinian areas, Shiite religious parties in Iraq (now social freedoms are less than under Saddam, bad as he was.) Worse, Coalition forces are stretched so thin from Iraq that we can't keep the lid down in Afghanistan, and are thus less safe in the long term.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The few, the proud: those neither "godless" nor part of received faith, but making up what they want to about God as they go.
#112:
You're absolutely right, fact was the wrong word choice, I should have said 'reasonable evidence suggesting'
As for the 9th decade: fair point, but considering average life expectancy is around 72-78, 9 decades doesn't seem all that bad.
R.C. Moore #112:
My friend made the same kind of comment (though not in a sarcastic way), but can we realistically afford (concerning limited resources) to feed all people with the meat nutrients ideally that a super healthy human could use?
I think we've gone past the world of moderation, it's about surviving now for many peoples, being very healthy unfortunately is a luxury in this world of excess, methinks.
If I could get a plant to give me the nutritional density of animal food products, I would be more impressed. But at the moment, those little protein factories are pretty useful.
@115, 116
Assuming all agricultural ground is equal, you'd be right. However, that's not exactly true.
Some soil is richer in nutrients and such than others. It's like a womb. A healthy woman's womb is more likely to carry a healthy child to term than, say, an alcoholic crack-addict's womb is.
"Testing a complete-diet model for estimating the land resource requirements of food consumption and agricultural carrying capacity: The New York State example"
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems (2007), 22: 145-153 Cambridge University Press
doi:10.1017/S1742170507001767
Wait a minute. Now I want to know just what "not fit for human consumption" means, and if it means that it would make humans literally ill, how does feeding it to animals that are intended to be eaten by humans make sense?
Of course this society will have no domesticated animals like cows and sheep and chickens, as they were all left to starve when they no longer had commercial value.
@118:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLmzxmRcUTo
Pay particular attention to the AIDS/HIV test bit. Then relate that to the BSE test.
Also, If a positive BSE result is obtained, it's a small trouble to run the test again. If you've get a positive and a negative result on the 2 tests, run a 3rd one for sake of certainty.
Or don't and just bin the carcass. I'm aware of the scaremongering that goes on, but, personally, I'd feel better knowing that the company I buy my meat from destroys even the false positives.
#123:
Thats right, but some of that agricultural land is of a quality high enough for humans.
Moreover, the low quality grains, etc would feed dairy producing cows, egg laying chickens, or even a certain amount of meat...
Im not making the case for all out vegetarianism right now, just reducing meat consumption, and treating animals with some level of rights and respect: they can still be food, but factory farming is basically birthing an animal into an short, torturous existence of suffering (and likely disease) followed by a painful death, to feed a 350 lb American his fifth cheeseburger that day. I have a problem with that.
#126:
As you mentioned, those are domesticated animals.
Radically reducing their population (I dont see any need to eliminate them) would be an easy process of limiting breeding for a few generations, until the overall population is reduced.
"We're moving towards islamism, insha' by insha' Allah."
To be fair to Condell, the percentage of people with cultural heritage from islamic nations increases. But this is consistent with my dim memories on this as well; many are secular or moving towards it, and IIRC they or their descendants tend to adopt the demographic increases of the surroundings.
@127
Ok, fair enough, I attack with wikipedia, you defend with youtube. I will watch, but if it is not helpful, I want 22 minutes of my life back.
Won't help. You need to find an test independent of the first.
@125
Coarse, hard, gritty, indigestible. It doesn't make you literally feel ill. You're just not capable of getting any nutritional value from it.
A cow, on the other hand, has four stomachs and different energy requirements.
Doesn't have much to do with Pat Condell, but I love this new song that Roy Zimmerman put up on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un7D1MWFEN0
You concern for animal welfare is touching. Our meat is produced by the lowest income earners on our planet (not to be confused with the meat processing middle-men). They cannot pay for your plan. Are you volunteering to buy meat you do not eat for several years, to support the "easy process" of limited breeding during the phase out?
Ah,Conservapedia,the madness,the utter lunacy,the Americocentrism,its just a neverending source of joy :
Why the US is the greatest country on earth :
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27313
And in the same vein,Bill reilly has found out the US is not in decline,thank dog for that:
http://www.newsmax.com/bill_oreilly/us_not_in_decline/2008/07/03/109611…
Interesting how this conviction to live in the best country on earth,made up of the best people on earth,with the best political system and constitution on earth,is translated and found in religious beliefs too,all this omnipotent dog cares about is US american people and US american land,he probably speaks with a slight texan accent too.
Patricia @ 110 PATRICIA! I left you a greeting @ # 8 on the "Schlafly" site, this morning!
YES!!!
Eesh, it seems I'm posting at a rather fast pace. Please forgive me.
@123
I'm with you on that. I like meat, I like eating meat, but keeping 20 chickens on a square meter is something I don't agree with. Just because I like to eat meat doesn't mean I have to deny an animal a painless death for instance.
And I also agree with your statement of reducing meat consumption. It's just that some vegetarians here have taken it upon themselves to become utterly annoying (seriously, it's come to the point where I'd rather spend an hour debating the finer aspects of god with jehova's witnesses than talk to that type of vegetarian).
@131
Hehe, a fair point. I'd have posted the TEDtalks link, but I had this one bookmarked. I blame my own laziness.
As for the separate test, well, no. Again, apparently the USDA is using it, which means that it's an approved test, which means that it falls within proper statistical measures of reliability and validity.
Assuming that the false result was the result of random coincidence, the same test would suffice.
#134:
Well, call me old labour, but this is the part where I'd like the government to step in and affect the economy in a way that results in social justice. Theres also a supply and demand argument there, somewhere (less meat means more money/lb).
But that's all beside the point: are you saying that we should just keep doing what we're doing because change might not be easy? Should we just let deforrestation continue with no limit (except the natural limit, of course) because we dont want to put people in the forrestry industry out of a job? Should we hunt whales to extinction because whalers need money too? Should we just keep polluting because cutting back might slow down the economy, leaving less cheap plastic crap for sale at Wal-Mart?
If by "our" you mean "North America", this simply isn't true (as this former Texan whose family owned a beef ranch can tell you).
If by "our" you mean "humanity's", then that is still likely not true, as the capital cost for raising meat is generally much higher than for basic farming.
Just re-reading that post, it came off a little more preachy than I like.
At the end of the day, the case I'm making is that reducing meat consumption is helpful to the environment for a plethora of reasons (reducing methane in the air, more food for the planet, reducing animal cruelty). As much as I know some people love meat, it's not good for the planet to let it go on at this rate. I'm not trying to take meat away from people, but I am trying to get them to cut back, and head in that direction; either for the environment or for the animals (or both).
If you wanna go on eating 3 steaks a day to spite me, or just because you love meat, I cant do anything to stop you. Plus I'm on the internet, which makes me very easy to ignore.
Of course this society will have no domesticated animals like cows and sheep and chickens, as they were all left to starve when they no longer had commercial value.
- R.C. Moore
Don't be ridiculous. If meat-eating disappears, it will do so gradually, so domesticated animals will not be left to starve - they will just be bred at the rate necessary to satisfy effective demand at any time, as they are now. I'm not clear why the eventual non-existence of cows, sheep and chickens would be a problem (to who? The cows, sheep and chickens that are never born?); but in any case, it is likely small breeding stocks would be maintained for scientific and/or "heritage" purposes.
#63:
I've got that one covered, at least, with a little Yip Harburg:
Wonderful anecdote from the BBC. This is not helping skepticism. I wish for something that is outside the wide boundaries of coincidence. I am not lazy, and will research the issue myself, but if anyone has any better data, please post. - R.C. Moore
1) You will notice that a UK government minister officially announced the first case in Parliament. Has any such announcement been made in the vaccine/autism case?
2) At the end of my post, I gave a link to a site at the University of Edinburgh. That site in turn gives references to the scientific literature. FTFL.
Everyone watch this video please:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzen8gCwpZA
She was very kind, please watch the video. Make that kid a star, people!!
P.Z. Meyers, blog that video please.
Thanks everybody. Have a good day.
Only if you ignore the fact that the grain used to feed these animals is not fit for human consumption
[citation needed]
Or to put it more bluntly, CRAP.
Moore @122:
Have you seriously never heard of a soybean? I assume that you're talking about density of protein in the final food product here. If you're talking about resources consumed or land required then you're laughably wrong (though it wouldn't be the first time this thread).
Oh, and for Jason @102 discussing trophic inefficiency: the tenfold thing is a rule of thumb taught in biology classes, with a bit of variation across specific ecosystems. The actual number I've seen for U.S. cattle production is more like twelve or thirteen. Cattle can eat things which aren't fit for human consumption (like grass), but under the intensive agricultural regime we practice that doesn't happen very much. As long as you're feeding the cattle grain, they are consuming food that humans could.
When you eat protein, it's broken down to individual amino acids before absorption and delivery to cells, and the cells then put together amino acids in particular combinations to make the proteins they need. Ten of the 20 amino acids are "essential," meaning that human cells cannot make them by tweaking other amino acids. Essential amino acids must be eaten in the diet. No single plant product contains all 10 essential amino acids, not even soybeans, but they can all be obtained from some plant product. An easy way to get all 10 is to mix beans and corn (=maize).
I like nachos.
At the moment there is only talk about incorporating sharia law into mediation, but the fact that minority religious law is being accommodated at all does not bode well for 'a couple of generations' time.
Oh, bullshit. There have been "minority religious law" courts running in the United States, Canada, and (as far as I know), Europe for centuries now, handling generally separate issues to the civil, secular courts -- they generally do intra-community dispute resolution and voluntary family law cases (that is, that all parties have agreed to religious arbitration).
The religious courts in question are usually referred to in the singular as Beit (or Beis) Din. It's funny how nobody freaks out about the prospect of civil-rights-hating, misogynist, religious fundamentalist Jews (who indisputably exist) voting in their religious legislators and making us all keep kosher, though, isn't it?
Personally, I'm of the same opinion as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty: Either you have to allow all religiously-based arbitration(including that for religions you don't happen to like), or you allow none of it.
Funny how (at least here at home in Ontario) the well-regulated and strictly-limited system of Jewish and Catholic religious arbitration went on for decades and decades without attracting any notice, until the Muslims said they wanted equal treatment. (Incidentally, "Sharia" just means Islamic religious law and isn't necessarily synonymous with radical Islam.)
Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry, even if you talk about it in liberal language...
p.s. Cattle (and other ruminants) are the least efficient known converters of plants to animal protein. Sir Kenneth Blaxter's Energy Metabolism in Animals and Man (Cambridge, 1989) gives round numbers of energy-conversion efficiency (i.s. energy deposited as new growth over energy ingested, for typical diets) of only 50% for cattle and sheep, compared to 60% for horses, 65% for rabbits, 70% for dogs and pigs, and 75% for humans, chickens, and rats. Ectothermic animals like fishes can be even more efficient; citations available.
Moral of the story: If you're concerned about the wastefulness of meat production, but not interested in vegetarianism, avoid beef and mutton and concentrate instead on catfish and chicken. Or rat. Or that new Soylent Green stuff I've heard about.
Jesse Helms is dead
It's times like these that make me wish I believed in Hell and eternal torment.
@146
http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/GQ/GQ-22.html
http://www.ngfa.org/toxinsPDF-1.pdf
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/pests/pp1302w.htm
To all of you who have donated any blood product, I thank you, you DID get me through one more round of chemo. But since there is a short term shortage of packed cells and platelets, I will be at the bottom of any waiting list this summer. The available products will go to patients with emergent needs (rightly so) and I (and many others) will need to wait until either our blood counts come back up on their own or blood becomes available before we can receive our next treatment. If you can, please donate to ANY blood collection center.
Ok, I'll step down off my soap-box now.
Peace
Sven DiMilo #148,
Thanks, that's the sort of info I was trying to look into.
I'm one of those they won't take blood from - lived in England in the 70s/90s, lived in 3rd world countries, take a number of nasty drugs to stay alive. My son donates regularly, as does my partner, for which I am grateful, as my last hospital trip resulted in my needing a transfusion.
My haemotologist admitted that it's not AIDS or hep A/B/C he worries about anymore - it's 'blood-borne X that we haven't yet discovered'. He did point out that the danger of getting something in a transfusion was significantly less than of my dying from a dearth of red blood cells. Cost/benefit analysis, always.
Andy #106,
thx for the link.
This confirmed what I thought.
From going to this :
...to what Condell is talking about, democratically allowing sharia law, that victimizes and discriminates women, jews, and homosexuals...
Yes, I think he's just spinning things out of the blue, no country will allow that to happen in Europe.
This is again stupid scaremongering tactic, and it could backfire. Why can't he just stick to the evidence, to reality, doesn't he have enough with that to make his case against religion ? He does it brilliantly in the first part, why the need for such overstatement ?
wtf? I just saw a commercial for dianetics on Discovery channel.
@ Jazmin, #153.
OK, you've kicked me in the ass. I'd been a regular plasma and platelet donor for years, but fell off the wagon as of late. It's been over 56 days since my last whole blood donation, so I'll schedule an appointment right away.
Thank you, tm, OM (#39),
My apologies for wasting people's time, but it was still faster than trying to figure out how to formulate the question in a manner that the almighty Google could interpret.
Stepped out and missed quite a bit:
Like most Americans, you confuse the people who own farms and ranches with the overworked, underpaid immigrants who do the actual work that will suffer when meat goes away. Do you really think they will stay on the payroll?
I said nutritional density. Try feeding your children "soy milk" and see how well their brains develop, or their bones.
And for all of you who see a panacea in agriculture, come visit the toxic, polluted , poverty stricken part of North America known as the San Joaquin Valley, the "Bread Basket of the World". It all looks so easy in vegetable aisle at the grocery store doesn't it? Care to go on home water restrictions so the soy beans have enough? How about a bottle of selenium water to quench your thirst. (California is planning to get rid of its toxic agricultural water by pumping it into the California Aqueduct, which supplies water to Los Angles).
No thanks required, my pleasure. And good luck.
"The religious courts in question are usually referred to in the singular as Beit (or Beis) Din. It's funny how nobody freaks out about the prospect of civil-rights-hating, misogynist, religious fundamentalist Jews (who indisputably exist) voting in their religious legislators and making us all keep kosher, though, isn't it?"
Thats funny. If they so indisputably exist, then I'm sure you'll have no problem naming one that espouses those views.
If you think the ultra-Orthodox Jews actually care that much about you, to the extent they give a shit that you don't keep Kosher or that everyone should keep Kosher, you are seriously mistaken.
Basically your response is the typical knee-jerk reaction of somebody who, when they see something even mildly critical of Islam feels they must then make some criticism of Jews (no matter how off-base) in order to maintain "balance". Do I have that right?
Don't worry they won't bother you on the street. Tell them you're not Jewish and they'll thank you for your time and leave you alone. As a secular Jew, they will bug me. I will wrap Tefillin with them, say a few prayers and make them, and to a certain extent myself, happy.
On the other hand, Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for CAIR (an allegedly moderate Muslim organization) has publicly stated on numerous occasions that he wouldn't mind seeing the Constitution replaced by Sharia law with peaceful means.
I can't think of an Orthodox Jewish counterpart to Hooper. But clearly, you must know at least one.
With respect to Sharia law, Islamists use the most extreme interpretation possible. Hence while somebody who adheres to Sharia law, isn't necessarily a radical Islamist, all radical Islamists adhere to some extreme version of Sharia law; which has provisions for honor killings and the like.
"Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry, even if you talk about it in liberal language..."
Bullshit is Bullshit even if you talk about it in a liberal language.
A letter I wrote to the editors of The Columbus Dispatch:
There have been a few letters the past week defending this fruitbat. There was even one yesterday from Daubenmire himself, basically saying that the picture of the student with the cross burned into his arm is merely evidence, not proof. Oh yeah, we are also sooooo unfair to Freshwater. I have a PDF of the report filed by HR On Call, Inc. about this whole fiasco. Feel free to drop me a line if you want a copy.
Thanks, I read TFL, and am enlightened. No reason to suspect that vCJD could not be transmitted by blood transfusion, and these studies point to that.
Since the studies do not rule out that the blood donor recipients contracted vCJD by other means, or indicate that the vCJD rate among these recipients was any higher than non-blood donor recipients, I hope further studies are forthcoming. It would be nice to know.
So someone with vCJD should not give blood. But where is the evidence showing that travelers to Europe have an increase risk of having vCJD?
Oh, Jazmin, I feel I have to apologize to you (and to all who need blood products).
My wife works for the ARC as an apherisis phlebotomist. I, above most people, know how important donating is. Of course it has been way too long since my last donation. I will set up an apherisis appointment on Monday.
She has also been telling me about the issues with the regulations preventing donation. Some have been changed recently. You can now donate if you have had a tattoo recently, as long as it was done in a sanctioned parlor. Hopefully they will change some of their other outdated rules, allowing more people to save lives.
I've been away from my keyboard doing holiday weekend things, and am way behind on my Pharyngureading... but since this is an open thread, I thought I'd pass along a link to this bit from one of my other favorite blogs, Eric Alterman's Altercation, in which guest blogger Siva Vaidhyanathan ruminates on the meaning of the holiday. Some of y'all might be put off by his references to Hindu funeral rituals, but I was moved, and offer the link without further comment.
Concerning the idea a Muslim demographic takeover of parts or all of Europe, this makes an interesting counter-argument:
http://rfmcdpei.livejournal.com/408410.html
Holbach - Thanks for the wishes, I did see that! :)
Nick - Excellent prediction on the 'heritage breeds', that is happening in chickens, and cattle right now in America. On our farm we will be raising Jersey Giants this year. Tyson, KFC or any of the mega-corps won't touch them. If somthing isn't done they will be gone. Same thing with the Deleware chicken.
I begin selling eggs at the Farmers Market tomrrow, we'll see how it goes.
Since the studies do not rule out that the blood donor recipients contracted vCJD by other means, or indicate that the vCJD rate among these recipients was any higher than non-blood donor recipients, I hope further studies are forthcoming. - R.C. Moore
The total number of vCJD cases in the UK is now 163 (http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/figures.htm). 3 of these are from those known to have received blood from among the 18 others of those 163 who were blood donors and from whom blood products were used. According to http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/TMER/summary.htm, 66 people are known to have received "labile blood products" from those 18. 3/66 (4/66 if you count one person who died without vCJD symptoms but tested positive after death) (http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/TMER/fate.htm) is rather more than 163/~60,000,000.
As to the question about visitors to Europe, there's no positive evidence that I know of, but do you suppose some magic protected Americans while they were in UK (or the rest of europe, to much of which infected British beef was exported)? It appears now that vCJD is not easily acquired by eating beef, but this was far from obvious when the ban was imposed. Since it's possible a blood test will be developed within a few years, it would be a shame to lift the ban before that and risk letting vCJD into the American blood banks. If UK authorities had been a bit more risk-averse, many of those 163 people might have been spared a peculiarly horrible premature death.
The now dead and rotting Jesse Helms will be lionized in the "liberal mainstream press", but lets not let 'ole Jess's escape his less than admirable history. A classic redneck segregationist to the end, Helms fought aid and research for AIDS, hated any art made after 1850, and made sure it was all de-funded. If there were an ass-hole position to be taken on any issue, Jessie was on the front line. He held the copyright on jerk. This is one of the few times there were a real hell, but I understand he had a lingering, painful death, so that will have to do.
That is as good as I can do about not speaking ill of the dead when it comes to Senator Helms.
Bert Chadick @ 169 Poor Jesse Helms, and dying with all those prayers that won't help him a bit!
Troll @160:
There is no defined term of "nutritional density". It doesn't exist. Given that you're invoking an already nebulous concept, I'm really not sure why I'm even bothering here. Still, in as much as there is an accepted definition, a "nutritionally dense" food is one with relatively high levels of vitamins, minerals, etc. compared to its calorie count. Much as I hate to say it, that means broccoli FTW. As for soy milk, um... Most people in the world don't continue to feed children milk after weaning (and I've yet to encounter a vegan so far gone that they wouldn't breastfeed a child).
If your concern is the environmental damage caused by agriculture, you literally could not be more wrong. In this country, we feed farm animals on grain and soybeans (as well as a few unmentionables). 70% of U.S. grain production goes to feeding animals, not people. To feed people with animal products the way we do requires more intensive agriculture and more water.
Considering that all you seem to have done in this thread is argue without bothering to read people's posts first, I stand by my pronouncement of "troll".
AMERICA!!!! FUCK YEAH!!!!
"Try feeding your children "soy milk" and see how well their brains develop, or their bones."
My niece was raised on soy milk. She got 1600 on her SATs and graduated summa cum laude from Duke University.
The early Hebrews were literal hillbillies, constantly in conflict with the more urban coastal areas of the lands between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. Thus, it was vitally important to their group identity to keep the young'uns from taking off for the bright lights and never coming back. Had the village elders not pounded into children's heads the horrors of foreigners' foods, cooking methods, rituals, etc, generation after generation, there would have been one more obscure tribe assimilated into the general population, and rationalists would now be bitching about the absurd heritage of Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, and the Greco-Egyptian pantheons.
You might enjoy reading Marvin Harris's The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig: Riddles of Food and Culture, for a more detailed exposition.
Sven @148:
Soy actually is a complete protein (source). There aren't a lot of individual plants that have complete protein (I'm not aware of any others), but there you go. Still, best not to spread that around, seeing as I like being able to claim that I need to eat nachos to survive.
Why would anyone be raised on "soy milk"? I am assuming you are not talking about one of the commercial nutritional supplements designed for babies, that is soy plus a lot of other stuff to make it nutritional to babies.
BetentacledBrad:
Didn't mean to come off as a troll. Nobody in the previous discussions in the thread I have been engaging in have seemed to feel so, but I apologize anyway.
I made up "nutritional density". I admit it. How does this affect my point that we get a big nutritional bang for the buck from animal products? A bang that is difficult to imagine for an entire planet is all we consumed were plant products.
Really? Not even in North America? Where cow's milk is abundant? I must have missed that statistic.
I am very concerned about how we will continue to feed our planet without severe environmental damage caused by agriculture. Do you disagree that large scale agriculture, which is necessary to feed the masses, causes a lot of environmental damage?
Are you saying that if we gave the grain to people directly instead of livestock, the environmental damage goes away (or becomes less, and manageable)?
We may be in agreement, but I don't get what your saying. Ad hominem attacks are a poor form of communication.
Thanks Brad (175)...I'm WOTI again. Live & learn...
R.C. Moore: With regards to the rest of the world and adults drinking milk, don't forget that lactose tolerance in mainly Western adults is a relatively recent evolutionary step. Most of the rest of the world's adults are actually lactose intolerant.
Here's an interesting article on it:
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/june/lactose.htm
Hi! I know there are a few people here from the Santa Cruz area, so I thought I'd share this: Goodwill is getting ready to open a used bookstore on Soquel Ave. And I've been shelving the books-- there's a lovely copy of Dawkin's The God Delusion and a smallish but interesting science section. We don't have an exact opening day right now, but once it's ready, come and make the atheist and science books fly off the shelves. :)
Having to shelve books by frauds (psychic John Edwards has multiple books in the store) is kind of depressing. (Although in other ways, I am loving working in a bookstore)
To MAJeff @24
I'm really sory to hear that and I hope you find a nice boyfriend soon. Hell, I've had more sex with gay men than you, and I'm female :)
To Sili@#21 - No. I'm not a biblical scholar per se, but I am interested in food. One of the reasons a lot of peasants keep a pig is exactly that they *don't* compete. They get fed scraps, and they forage for food inedible to us, like acorns. Grain feeding animals is quite modern. Grass fed is better for you anyway. Even today in Australia, most beef is raised on pasture land too marginal to grow grain (which is the reason we have cattle stations bigger than some US states...)
Some people have suggested that trichinosis is maybe a reason for not eating pigs, but an anthropologist friend of mine said the laws were mostly about concepts of purity. Miscegenation being a Bad Thing. In some cases the laws were about avoiding the neighbours' pagan rituals - the kid in mother's milk probably comes from that.
Blake Stacey @#49, MartinM @#56,
it looks like Billy Craig has attempted a fusion of the cosmological argument and the transcendental argument, with predictably hilarious results.
I've recently had a long comment string on my blog about the transcendental argument for god, which prompted me to put up part 1 of the argument against it - anyone who wants to take a looksee, come on over - click on my name for the latest post.
Sili, Pierce is correct - there really is no "logical" or healthbased reason for most of the rules of kashrut - contrary to what some have said, trichinosis probably wasn't a consideration. The fact that pigs were imported animals who are used for no purpose other than food and were kept by other groups was likely more important...
most of the 600+ mitzvot are either about living in peace with your own people or keeping yourselves distinct from other groups.
Another food remark for Nick & RC Moore. While I completely appreciate the point about North America not being the world, not even if you add Europe & Australasia, quite a lot of Africans can digest milk. Also, India is far from small in population and they love their dairy products. Plain milk isn't common, mostly due to refrigeration issues, but yoghurt (curd), cheese (paneer), and milk based sweets are everyday items.
The Indian example is a good case for using animal products - a lot of Indians are vegetarian, but the cows provide essential proteins from their milk, as well as fuel (dung. Really, it works and doesn't smell that bad.). And the cows are not fed on prime grains, that's for sure! It's rice stalks and leaves, and grass, and whatever they can scavenge.
I have another poll for you. Dr. Henry Morgentaler has recently been named a companion of the Order of Canada, which is our highest civilian honor. It's awarded to people who work & sacrifice to make Canada a better place. The kicker is that he worked to make abortion legal and safe for women.
A bishop has returned his medal in protest. And anti-choice groups have the bright idea that they can get the medal rescinded. There's a poll, which was about even this morning, but it looks as if the Other Guys have been running it up. Please visit it if you're so inclined.
Should Dr. Henry Morgentaler be awarded the Order of Canada?
I've given some of the history here.
"Is that true, or is that a just motivational "fib" told by the Red Cross to encourage people to donate?"
No! Helms is really, really dead ;¬D
OASN, I see no mention of 'informed consent' for all your transgenic blood donors.
R.C. Moore #176:
As pointed out to you before, 70% of grain is used to feed animals. Admittedly, a large scale reduction in meat consumption would be politically difficult - but it would greatly reduce the environmental damage done by our agriculture industry. Combine that with soil conservation, and a shift away from extremely fossil-fuel intensive crops such as (most) corn, and strict limitations on ocean-harvested protein (the majority of which is also used to feed animals), and the environmental impact of our agriculture industry would be greatly reduced - perhaps to as little as 10% of its current level. If the rest of the world could also do the same, 9 billions could be fed for some time (at least centuries, perhaps indefinitely) . But by any reasonable definition, 'severe damage caused by agriculture' has already occurred. Current atmospheric levels of CO2 (which our fossil-fuel intensive agriculture is substantial contributor to) are sufficient to melt the Greenland Ice Sheet, unless they are greatly reduced in the next few centuries. In addition huge swaths of forest all over North America, South America, Europe, Indonesia, and other places have been destroyed for the sake of agriculture. Large areas have had topsoil depths greatly reduced, or, in some cases, completely washed away. Nitrates and pesticides have greatly altered many eco-systems. 'Dead zones' due to nitrates in river runoff extend for great distances from the mouths of many rivers (such as the Mississippi, the Yangtze, and the Nile) which drain large agriculture areas
I'm going to ride my bike downtown and watch some fireworks, but will be back, so please keep the discussion alive. With PZ on hiatus, it is the best we will get for now.
Is anyone else skeptical that soybeans can replace animal protein on a world wide basis? I am not against soy in anyway, but I live in the San Joaquin Valley, where mass farming has been an ecological disaster. Or should I start doubting the theory of evolution?
So far I sense a Pollyanna aspect in many of the responses. Nick, do you really have good evidence we can feed the world with a few farm animals?
Monado, the poll you have linked in #185 reports:
when I try to vote.
I can't stand Pat Condell.
He represents everything that an intelligent, rational and tolerant atheist movement should have nothing to do with - xenophobia, bigotry, irrationality, simple-mindedness and the loud mouthed anti-intellectual bleating of the shock jock.
Those we claim Condell is not a racist have either not listened to him properly, or not thought about what he says.
There is a line between criticising a religion (perfectly legitimate and a great idea) and vilifying a group of people in a simplistic and stereotypical way.
Condell actually talks about the demographic threat of Muslims. Guess what Pat? A religion is a belief system, not a race. Condell is clearly most concerned about a group of people from an ethnic group different to his own invading his white Britain. He also makes no effort at all to distinguish moderate and extreme Muslims. His stereotypes all Muslims with the statements of the most extreme.
In the above video he says,
"...has allowed Islam to push its way into a society where it really doesn't belong and threaten all our freedom..."
What extremist xenophobic tosh!
A democratic society has freedom of belief - in a secular society all beliefs systems have a right to be there, right or wrong.
There are Muslim extremists, and when they try to impose their belief systems on others they should be opposed, just as extremists of any belief systems should be. But I have worked with Muslims who are intelligent, socially progressive and (except for their irrational belief in God) in most ways rational.
They are welcome in our country, welcome to take part in our society, and yes, welcome to practice their religion. Their religion, like all religions, it of course a fairy tale, but in a way that is the point - freedom in a free society includes the right to be wrong.
There should be no place for the extreme anti-immigrant right in what should be an intelligent and rational atheist movement.
Maybe "growing meat" will become commercially viable...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4148164.stm
they seem to be having some trouble getting the texture right.
Re: Trichinosis
One is just as likely to get Trichinosis from eating rabbits (domestic or wild) as from eating pigs. Yet there is no prohibition from eating rabbits. Another nasty one found in rabbits is Tularemia.
In the case of Trichinosis it is easily prevented by simply cooking the meat adequately.
-DU-
First off, I was one of the folks who did actual work on my grandparents' beef ranch, which didn't employ immigrants (illegal or otherwise). So I do know a bit about the way a farm actually works in rural Texas.
Second, if your concern is for immigrant workers in the agricultural sector, I can guarantee that there are many crops that are far more labour-intensive than running cattle.
Eh? Of course there is a prohibition. The rabbit is given as a specific example of an animal that chews its cud but does not have split hooves, and is therefore not kosher.
Note: I know that rabbits do not chew cud. However, the compilers of Leviticus and Deuteronomy did not.
Amen.
(Hey. Why don't we have an atheist word for that?)
Re: RC Moore and the food debate:
1.) It takes 10 lbs of grain or other vegetable protein to produce 1 lbs of animal protein. Do the math. Also, in beef there are 12 amino acids. We only need 6 of them, so about half the protein in beef is mostly wasted on us (we burn the excess protein as calories, and there are much cheaper ways to obtain those).
2.) Grown people need surprisingly little protein to maintain health: 1 1/2 ounces. If you are exercising and trying to build muscle, add another 1/2 ounce.
3.) Soy is a complete protein (as is dairy) but most vegetarians obtain protein by mixing vegetable protein sources. There was some erroneous information in one or more of the books advocating a vegetarian diet published in the 70s (Diet for a Small Planet was one) that made many people think they had to mix the different vegetable sources all in one meal. You need only eat of each of 3 groups over the course of the day. One does not have to eat all soy (or any, really).
4.) Plants do not produce tons of manure that needs to be processed. Nor do they fart methane. Why does everyone forget about the after market costs and effects? And BTW, soy is a nitrogen fixer: it replaces nitrogen in the soil that other plants extract. This reduces the need for fertilizer. Crop rotation is a wonderful thing.
All this is easily verifiable. But right now it's getting late and I'm tired. Mr. Moore, please do a bit of research.
Billy Connolly giving Pat a run for his money with a rant on suicide bombers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdNqUW5wwTE
I'm sure he'd be locked up for offending the religious whackos if he comes to Canada...Brilliant!
Since this is an open thread...what does everyone think about the recent Supreme Court decision striking down the DC gun ban and confirming the individual right for citizens to arm themselves?
The meat eaten in the US is largely is fed off of federally subsidized midwestern corn. Reduced meat consumption would be good for the health of most Americans, good for the environment, would reduce government spending, and would reduce fossil fuel usage.
Meat is delicious, but should be eaten in moderation.
WRT soybeans and soy products, this article seems to suggest that the supposed benefits of soy as used in Western countries (in the form of soy 'milk' or veggie burgers and the like) is erroneously based on studies of Eastern diets where soy is more often present in fermented form (miso, and others). It also states that only 1.5% of the calories in the particular Eastern diets they studied came from soy.
Personally, I'm mostly disturbed that soy products (and high-fructose corn syrup, but that's another rant for when I have to eat in the US) have made their way pretty much unopposed into everyday foods.
@97 and anyone else who is interested...
The best book I can recommend is a meta study of literally thousands of studies over decades with hundreds of thousands of test subjects:
"The China Study" by T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M. Campbell II
As the subtitle states, it is the most comprehensive study of nutrition every conducted. And yes, the conclusion is that eating animal products is at the center of all the big medical problems in the US (cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc.).
The bibliography is comprehensive as well, so you can backtrack to check for yourself.
Owlmirror @ 94:
Note: I know that rabbits do not chew cud. However, the compilers of Leviticus and Deuteronomy did not.
But did they know that rabbits eat their poo? Far worse than chewing cud...
Ok, I have had statistics thrown at me, told to do my research, and it all good. But all of this conflicts with the reality I live. We don't grow soy in the San Joaquin Valley. Maybe it needs to be subsidized to be profitable.
We grow grain. Mostly to feed cows. 1.1 million dairy cows, and huge stockyards of range cattle. We have miles of chicken ranches, and quite a few sheep.
We are the largest producer of food in the world by far.
We stopped planting grain here for human consumption because Americans couldnt down that much carbohydrate. And soy could not be grown profitably for more the cost of the water and fertilizer to grow it, harvest it, and transport it (an increasingly expensive option).
I know soy fixes nitrogen, but crop rotation forces expensive farming operations to spend much of the year planting unprofitable crops. Again, maybe subsidies are the answer.
What makes money is cows and chickens. I will not quibble that soy is the "perfect food". But please answer the following:
1. How much water does soy take, and what do you do with the runoff?
2. How do you fertilize crops when all the animal waste is gone, and fossil fuel fertilizers are not a long term option.
3. If we had a world wide soy blight, what would be our fallback option is all the livestock is gone.
4. Do we keep dairy. If so, how do we afford it if the cows are not consumed?
5. Can children thrive on soy? Would we be able to produce the athletes we have today on vegetarian diets?
6. How expensive is soy when used as a total protein replacement in the culture. I find current vegetarian restaurants to be quite expensive?
And for #193
Currently works, or worked in some nostalgically remembered past?
Sounds right, but now that we have gotten rid of cigarettes, what have we got besides meat eating to keep our senior citizen population in check?
While I was off watching things explode, it appears that things have continued unabated. John @178 and Nick @179 did correctly pick out what I was going for with the business about most people not drinking milk past early childhood since worldwide about 70% of the population is lactose intolerant. Cath @184 did correctly observe that many people from Africa and southern Asia consume milk products, but there is actually one thing semi-missing: it is relatively uncommon to consume milk directly but not just because of lack of refrigeration. Converting milk into yogurt or cheese removes most of the lactose, but at that point it isn't being used equivalently to how Americans drink milk (which I assume is what Moore was going for with the bit about soy milk, although infant formula is yet another distinct substance, and there are soy-based infant formulas originally formulated for infants who are basically born lactose intolerant; yeesh...). Also, as Cath observed, the Indian model is really pretty good, since the cattle aren't consuming food which humans could instead (also, the whole trophic inefficiency thing isn't nearly as bad for milk as meat).
Moore seems to be hung up on some sort of straw-man veganism (though, in fairness, so are a lot of vegans) and to be missing some fairly important bits of biology. What I've been talking about is environmental vegetarianism, which doesn't totally rule out meat anyway (eventually those cows and hens stop making milk and eggs, at which point you might as well eat them). A quick rundown of the problems with animal agriculture in the U.S. is available here, for those who are interested.
Certainly, intensive farming has caused and will continue to cause environmental damage. The thing is, intensive animal agriculture (especially as practiced in the U.S.) is vastly more damaging for the amount of food produced (if you think having to live downstream from the avocado orchards of the San Joaquin Valley is awful, you really can't imagine a CAFO). The thing is, we're basically stuck with intensive agriculture (or we'll face social changes vastly greater than Tofu McNuggets, since moving to primarily non-intensive agriculture would require a lot more people to be farmers). What we can do is to try to minimize its impact. Even more so, however, we're pretty much stuck with our current planet. There simply isn't enough of it to support 6.5 billion people with current American eating habits. In terms of "bang for your buck", intensive animal agriculture is pathetic. Realistically, most people are going to simply have to consume a diet composed primarily of cereals and pulses.
All that being said, I'm tired. Last I checked, there were at least a few people finding the discussion edifying, but at this point I and others have brought up quite a bit of relevant data and I at least am getting a bit cranky. For anyone interested in learning, the information is out there. For a certain individual who seems to be far more concerned about appearing to win a petty argument over a question of fact, the information is still out there. It's your own damn fault if you won't read it.
I don't find platelet donation boring. I bring along a DVD of a movie that my wife isn't interested in seeing, and spend about two hours viewing it. (The BloodSource facility provides the DVD players.)
#84
I just threw up a little. Not only are they putting that crappy propaganda film on DVD, but they're charging $19 for it!
What a waste...
R. C. Moore,
In your post at #160 when you mentioned the poverty in the San Joaquin Valley, I was a little shocked. But I did a little research before responding and you are correct, the poverty is pretty bad. I lived in Lemoore for almost four years (1985-1989) and I must admit I didn't "see" the poverty. To me the farms looked neat and clean, the crime rate was low and I didn't meet a lot of poor people. In fact I very much enjoyed my stay out there. Maybe being in the Navy didn't allow me to see the whole picture.
Jesse Helms has died.
Wow, so he did. I saw the headline earlier in the day, "Bozo is dead," but didn't bother to read the whole thing.
I feel keenly the loss of Larry Harmon, who sold the franchise to a clown whose voice on childrens" 78 RPM recordings was provided by Pinto Colvig, more famous perhaps for the voice of Goofy. As the Firesign Theatre sez, "I think we're all Bozos on this bus."
Jesse Helms was the voice of racist homobigotry. If only all it took to erase from the world that for which he stood was to drive a stake through the place where his heart should have been, cut off his head, and stuff garlic in his piehole, many here would volunteer for the task. I will have to settle for waiting in line to water his grave with what I had to drink the night before.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Mr. Condell has no qualm with people from other countries. Like he, I welcome anyone willing to keep their society-damaging looniness inside their own head to join our secular society, no matter where they are from.
As I understand it, Protestantism was started on the idea that each one could have a direct relation to and understanding of god, in other words there was no need for a priestly intermediary.
Somehow that seems to have changed long ago and Protestants now look to their clergy for the answers, just judging by the mega-churches and the tele-evangelists.
Why they think that anyone of those clowns should know more than they do is beyond me. Or why they should think that the pulpit pounders have some kind of inside information to give them is also beyond me.
As an aside, why did god kill 29 evangelicals in a tragic bus accident in El Salvador?
"Rescue crews recovered 29 bodies Friday from a raging, rain-fed river that swept a bus carrying members of an evangelical church off a bridge in El Salvador's capital."
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/07/04/salvador.bus.crash.ap/…
I imagine that these people must have spent a lot of time praying to their god like they are supposed to, so why did their god play this dirty trick on them? Maybe it just wasn't paying attention at the time.
Now probably the grieved family members are praying once again, for what? who knows?
Melior,
You say, "Mr. Condell has no qualm with people from other countries."
If you say this, you have simply not listened to what Condell says. This, for example, comes from his "The Trouble with Islam"
""You know what's good for community relations? People who come to this country and adapt happily to our way of life, or if they find it's not quite to their taste they piss off and live somewhere else. That's really good for community relations. If you don't like how we do things in Britain, get out. You weren't invited here and you're not wanted here."
Are you seriously telling me this is NOT racism?
Pat Condell is from the anti-immigrant xenophobic right.
By the way, I actually think it is great to have a militant atheist movement, and I have no trouble with criticising Islam, or condemning the actions of extremists.
But we must do it in a rational way.
In condemning exremists on one side we do not want to pander to extremists on the other.
Owlmirror @ #194
Yes. You are correct and I am mistaken. I should have checked first. It appears that Trichinosis is mainly from garbage fed pork and wild game. Bears and wild boars are opportunistic and will eat carrion so are the greater risk. Yet dear, elk, goat, and sheep are also in the wild game group and also carriers of Trichinosis. Goats, sheep, and deer are allowed in Leviticus (and several other wild (game) animals besides).
My main point is, regardless of whatever reasons people have thought up to support the myths, the dietary prohibitions in Leviticus are hardly a matter of biological hygiene.
-DU-
#210:
Thou shalt not question the lord's ways, even if they make no freakin' sense whatsoever. It's even more unfathomable if at least one person survives; that technically qualifies the occurrence as a miracle™ - and convinces that person (and other believers) that god was watching over them.
How the cognitive dissonance doesn't make their brains shake so much that their hair falls out is beyond me.
Bas: "Only if you ignore the fact that the grain used to feed these animals is not fit for human consumption"
Right, because nothing else could be grown in the fields where feed is grown. LOL.
Moore: "Would we be able to produce the athletes we have today on vegetarian diets?"
Best. Argument. Ever.
Ramases #190 and #211,
Believe me, being a recent immigrant myself to the U.S., I am no anti-immigrant bigot. Being a Latin American by birth and raising, I even sympathize with illegal Mexicans here in Southern California, but illegality and compassion are probably another thread altogether. I think Mexican immigration to the U.S. is good for a comparison to what's happening in Europe though.
Mexicans are almost all catholic. I was raised as one too (catholic, not Mexican). I don't see ANY Mexicans (and being in LA I know a lot) trying to impose laws based on catholic "teaching," most of them don't even care what others believe. Most came from poor beginnings, and are just trying to work and make a good life for their family. That's their primary goal. Others' religion doesn't bother them at all. What bothers the real right-wing bigots (besides race of course) and Lou Dobbs are unimportant things like they display their flags in their festivals and the fact that they even have festivals and parties.
Another thing is that even if you attack catholicism, they don't care. You won't see Mexicans criticizing any movies on the street, you won't see them protesting books or (gasp!) cartoons. Yeah! Not even the moderates! All the catholic bigotry here comes from within, like from the catholic League and the higher-up clergy.
See where I'm driving at? The "moderate muslim" problem is something you "moderate muslim" proponents should address before you go just accusing anyone of bigotry. By what standards were those millions protesting the cartoons and the ones who happily allowed and condoned it moderate? Any "moderate," by 21st Century free society standards, would not only NOT protest for such a laughable reason, but encourage free speech. And if so-called "extremists" are making an abomination out of your religion, where are those millions of muslims going public about it? Are they afraid of that handful of extremists?
There actually are a handful of extremist violent christian nutjobs that do kill people. Do you see the "moderate" christian world at large being afraid of criticizing them instead of the "offender" every time some chirstian-related murder or violent act is perpetrated? Maybe some, but you won't hear an uproarious outrage from the "moderate" christian community against the offenders, condoning the violence, such that even governments and media companies pronounce themselves condemning the wrong party.
And by the way, just to be perfectly clear. That above was NOT any kind of apology for christianity. They are still doing a lot of harm, but that's got not much to do with the Islam religion problem in Europe.
The trouble that secularism has in confronting Islam is that since Muslims are not completely controlled by Satan, they still reject the practice of sodomy. As a result, their numbers are growing while the secular natives of Europe bugger away.
It is not merely numbers, but enthusiasm as well. Secularists never think beyond the immediate moment. With the absense of children, they have no posterity. That is why all they are concerned about is getting welfare goodies. The only people who care about preserving secularism are foam-at-the-mouth fanatics with more testosterone than brains like Pat Condell and Pol Pot. The rest just want sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll while the governemnt supplies them with food, housing, and health care.
@ Grease Brain,No 218 :
You win the thread for biggest pile of insane poop uttered within a single post,no contenders.
The Indian example is a good case for using animal products - a lot of Indians are vegetarian, but the cows provide essential proteins from their milk, as well as fuel (dung. Really, it works and doesn't smell that bad.) - Cath the Canberra Cook
Cath, you're right about most Indians and a lot of Africans being able to digest milk - the point about east Asia being that children don't need milk after weaning to be healthy. You're also right about the importance of dung (although there are health problems with the smoke when its used as fuel), and there's also animal labour. I'm certainly not advocating an end to livestock farming, but it (and especially ruminant farming) is currently absorbing far too much in the way of resources, and producing far too much pollution. In India, there are for religious reasons - the original "sacred cow", far too many cattle (about 500 million), many in very poor health. Far fewer healthy beasts would be better all round - including for the cattle!
I am not against soy in anyway, but I live in the San Joaquin Valley, where mass farming has been an ecological disaster. - R.C. Moore
You're showing a really bizarre ability not to get the point. Large proportions of the world's grain and soya is fed to cattle. You would need much less industrialised, highly fossil-fuel dependent arable farming to feed the world if we ate less meat and dairy. As I say above, some livestock farming will remain essential, and as Cath says, in India milk is indeed an important source of protein, but no-one needs to eat meat and/or dairy (or indeed food in general) on the scale many Americans, Europeans, and the rich elsewhere in the world do. Indeed, there's considerable evidence it is unhealthy to do so, not least from the Japanese, who eat comparatively little meat, almost no dairy, and have the greatest life expectancy of any sizeable country. Too much saturated fat is a killer.
Actually andyo, I agree with you on one point. Moderate Muslims should be more active in condemning the actions of extremists. This not only goes for issues such as the cartoons or Salmone Rushdie, but to the even more serious issue of female genital mutilation. Moderate Muslims are quick to say these are not Islamic practices, but in that case why are they not more proactive in campaigning against them?
To be fair some of them do - the organisations most active in campaigning against these barbaric practices do contain a fair number of Muslim activists.
I have been active in human rights issues for some time, and have found, to my surprise, that there are people from all belief systems involved in campaigning against injustices and human rights abuses.
But not enough I think, and I do think Moderate Muslims should be more active in condemning extremism and have told them so.
There is a difference, however, in condemning the actions of extremists and branding everyone with the same brush or using condemnation of a religion as an excuse for xenophobia.
Moderate Muslims should be more proactive in condemning extremism.
And we in the atheist movement should condemn Pat Condell, who is an ignorant bigot intent on hijacking what should be a tolerant rational movement for his own xenophobic agenda.
R.C. Moore,
You also have this weird fixation on soya. I guess you've been told "vegetarians live on soya", and imagine them all chowing down day after day on soya burgers, soya milk and other ways of trying to make vegetarian food as much like meat and dairy as possible. It's just not so. If soy doesn't grow well in the San Joaquin Valley and wheat does, grow wheat! There's plenty of demand for it - haven't you noticed prices have doubled over the past year? Of course there are problems with industrialised agriculture that will remain even if livestock farming is cut back, but offhand I can't think of one that would not be greatly reduced.
I'm not sure which planet you're from, Pole Greaser, but you seem not to have understood Earth.
Try to imagine it from the point of view of someone who is inclined to think in the long term and therefore is a secularist and also - omigawd! - a European. Europe is not an homogenous mass nor is it a moral vacuum. A visit here, perhaps?
By different routes and on different timescales we have arrived at something approaching a consensus on what constitutes a good society and we did that democratically. To describe it in any detail would mean a post far to long but it can be summed up very roughly - a good quality of life for as many as possible, the gaps down which the less advantaged can simply disappear as few as possible. We don't always get it right: we do keep trying.
I've enjoyed my share of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll. I've paid for my food and housing. I've paid for my healthcare. Sometime, when I wasn't making much use if the NHS, I've been paying for other people's health care. Why? Because there is absolutely no advantage to me in someone down the street dying for want of the most basic medical intervention. It's as simple as that.
There will always be some who want to cling to old ideas and old ways. Secularism says let them get on with it if it keeps them happy. There will be others who want to use superstition and fear to control the behaviour of others. Secularism says fight the buggers because - long term thinking again - people struggled to give us the right to use our own brains, make our own decisions. We will not give those benefits away for short-term convenience.
And just to confuse you further - I know quite a few gay Muslims. They tend to have the same problems with their families and with wider society that gay atheists do but we're working on it.
Ramases,No 221 babbled :
//Moderate Muslims should be more proactive in condemning extremism.//
Like moderate Christians should be more proactive in condemning fundamentalism.And here's news for ya mate,they arent proactive,so that makes them part of the problem,and does not exclude them from criticism or ridicule,because those "moderates" are the enablers of extremism in the first place.
//And we in the atheist movement should condemn Pat Condell, who is an ignorant bigot intent on hijacking what should be a tolerant rational movement for his own xenophobic agenda.//
We in the driving a car movement should slap some sense into you for making such a stupid statement.You might want to look up the definition of those long funny looking words youre not familiar with,like xenophobia,before you use them here.And to give just one example,I hope you have your appendix taken out by a female muslim doctor who based on religious tolerance laws doesnt have to wash her hands before your surgery !
but now that we have gotten rid of cigarettes, what have we got besides meat eating to keep our senior citizen population in check? R.C.Moore
This is a wind-up, right? You've been stringing us all along, haven't you, coming out with more and more ridiculous arguments to see how long we'll continue taking you seriously? Congratulations, it was cleverly done - starting out with what could just be ordinary ignorance of a subject you've never looked into, and progressing by stages to completely wacko!
Too much saturated fat is a killer.
It's not JUST the fat that's an issue, it's whats in it, too.
about 20 years ago, I worked at a research institute in Long Beach (CA) where we studied tissue samples from dead and stranded marine mammals along the coast.
We found extremely high levels of PCB's and DDE (DDT metabolite) in almost all of the samples, most notably in Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Point being... we always found the highest levels in the blubber and other fatty tissues. In fact, we always found the highest level of just about any toxic compound one can imagine in the fatty tissues.
That's just my own personal experience, there is a ton of evidence that lipid soluble toxins accumulate in fatty tissue in mammals.
Ever since, I'm careful to remove as much fat as possible from any meat I eat.
also, while I'm not a vegetarian (I really don't think I could give up fish, or the occasional steak), bioaccumulation of toxins is at least tangentially another argument in favor of it. If you eat lower down the food chain, you're eating less concentrated toxins (of the kind that actually can bioaccumulate, anyway).
Nick,
I had this queasy feeling about this chap when I was still at work 15 hours ago,around posts 70-90,that this guy is just stringing us along,a kind of literate troll that will see how far he can push it.Not much substance and lots of commonplace fallacies in the end.
Clinteas,
quite predictable, from someone who claims that the Earth is not rotating...nor is it going around the sun.
When it's at this stage, I don't know anymore, maybe caused by withdrawal from alcohol following habitual excessive drinking, or the frequent use of barbiturates.
Poor pole greaser, he should really get some help.
If you don't like how we do things in Britain, get out. You weren't invited here and you're not wanted here. - Ramases@211, quoting Pat Condell.
I'd never heard of Condell before this thread, and on the evidence of the video I was undecided, but I agree, this is a classic racist trope. Notice that it could be equally applied to Afro-Caribbeans, Eastern Europeans, Hindus, orthodox Jews - anyone who has a different culture. The BNP and other fascist parties are all concentrating their fire on Muslims at present, as the easiest target. If Condell does not want to be associated with them, he needs to give more thought to the possible consequences of his words; it's all to easy to imagine a gang of white racist thugs beating up a Muslim while chanting "You weren't fucking invited here and you're not fucking wanted here!".
Nick,
I haven't seen all of Condell, but I think that quote was out of context, probably unintentionally but still.
Condell was most likely talking about how Muslims want to have their own subset of laws. That's what he refers to as "how we do things here."
Im with Pat Condell on this,as should be clear by now,and there is no racism involved here,and there is no xenophobia,he argues against the increasing influence of Islam in Europe,and just points out that Islam stands for pretty much all that secular humanism and enlightenment opposes and got over 300 or more years ago in european societies,and that we should not allow to let Sharia law and other islamist bullshit take hold in our society.
If you want to marry and screw your 10 year old,or beat up and enslave your wife,or tell us what cartoons to publish or who to mock and who not,go back to Afghanistan or Saudi-Arabia,we wont have that sort of shit here.Thats what the message should be,nothing to do with racism.
I hope you have your appendix taken out by a female muslim doctor who based on religious tolerance laws doesnt have to wash her hands before your surgery !
Clinteas, you used this example before, telling us that the female Muslim had "nearly" got away with not washing up properly. So, to put that another way, she hadn't got away with it, right? This is the best example you've got? We've had other recent cases in the UK, concerning Muslim dress in schools. In one, a classroom assistant wanted to wear the burka - she was refused. In another, Muslim girls wanted to wear the jilbab (only the face showing) rather than trousers and shalmar khemeez (tunic); they were refused. Islamist extremists have been prosecuted and jailed for displaying placards with posters saying "Behead those who insult Islam", and for calling for Jews, Hindus and gays to be killed. All absolutely right - but hardly suggesting that the UK is on its way to Muslim domination.
If you want to marry and screw your 10 year old,or beat up and enslave your wife,or tell us what cartoons to publish or who to mock and who not,go back to Afghanistan or Saudi-Arabia,we wont have that sort of shit here.
Clinteas, if we're still talking about the UK, your ignorance is showing. The number of Muslims from those countries in the UK is minute. 70% of British-resident have origins in Mirpur, a relatively small, poor, rural part of Kashmir. The vast majority are UK citizens - we have no legal or moral right to tell them to leave. All the acts you list are against the law (well, so far as cartoons and mockery are concerned, if threats are involved), and should be punished in accordance with the law.
Nick Gotts,No 232 :
I admit Im fond of that example LOL,because it illustrates the case nicely,and yes I know this is not currently happening,but it still serves as a good thought experiment I hope.
I am not in the UK,so freely admit to not having first hand impression on how relevant this is over there these days,but aware of examples from Germany and Australia with Muslim churches,enforced burka wearing,violence/death threats in relation to girls having boyfriends,suppression of Islam-critical pieces in newspapers,or theatres,or on telly.....
So I guess I stand to my opinion on the matter,got to draw a line in the sand,and at least treat them as they would treat us if we started living our lifes in their society.(Then again,if you try that,you end up in jail if youre lucky,and beheaded if youre not)
Islam stands for pretty much all that secular humanism and enlightenment opposes and got over 300 or more years ago in european societies
Oh, right. The slave trade, colonialism, the most destructive wars the world has ever seen, anti-semitism and anti-Roma prejudice resulting in genocide, legal subordination of women until the 20th century, continuing religious conflicts in northern Ireland and the Balkans - Europe has been just such a wonderful example to the rest of the world, hasn't it?
Thanks Nick,
If you are interested in how the extreme right and the BNP view Condell, you may be intersted to know that they love him - http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2007/05/telling-it-way-it-is…
Clinteas,
Pat Condell would not know what secularism is if it hit him in the face.
Fundamental to secularism are two things - separation of church and state and freedom of belief (or disbelief).
Condell does not believe in the latter. He does not believe Muslims, moderate or otherwise, have any right to practice their religion in the UK. If you don't believe this, just listen to the first minute of the Condell rant above.
Pat Condell is not a secularist.
Also, in beef there are 12 amino acids. We only need 6 of them, so about half the protein in beef is mostly wasted on us (we burn the excess protein as calories, and there are much cheaper ways to obtain those).
Woah... a lot of confusion here, of the quantity-vs.-quality type.
Human protein metabolism uses all twenty of the classical amino-acids.
For some, we can make a specific amino-acid out of an other. For six of them, we can't : that's why they are called "essential". So we need to get them from our food intake.
That doesn't mean we flush all non-essential amino-acids down the drain, far from it! We absorb and reuse them to make our own protein, just like the essential ones.
On the other hand, whereas excess fat intake gets stocked for later use, excess protein intake doesn't not. So eating three pounds of meat a day won't make you put on the same weight of lean muscle. But that wasn't the question, was it ?
"how Muslims want" - andyo
Which Muslims? Believe it or not, different Muslims want different things. This kind of essentialist thinking is only one step from outright racism, if that.
Guys,can we get away from calling this racism? Im not against Islam being practiced in non-islamic countries because most of Islams proponentsists have olive skin and a beard.
And Nick and Neg,i respectfully agree to disagree on the matter with you LOL....
Clinteas,
Ramases' reaction doesn't surprise me at all, it's actually quite predictable in the current European context, which is very different form the American one.
Religious fundamentalism are minorities in Europe, and are on the decline, muslims of 2nd or 3rd generations are also secularizing exactly like the other faiths, so why these scare tactics ?
Actually by repeating this, that it's all on the decline, that it's useless, that they are just greedy middlemen, we secularists maximize much more efficiently the network externalities and accelerate the process of decline, than by overstating the dangers of some hypothetical muslim fundamentalist rebirth which doesn't exist and can only be interpreted as participating in the anti-immigration scare tactics.
Condell should stick to reality, evidence, history. Should be more than enough. As soon as he overstates the dangers of one particular religion, he'll be accused of participating in the anti-immigration scare tactics. It will happen, Condell doesn't just say things in a vaccuum. So why take this stupid risk ? It's really not necessary in the European context.
Wow man, that was way off. What if I said Mexicans here just want to live a decent life? "Mexicans just want..." Would that be racist? Should I always say "Most Mexicans, or maybe some, may or may not want..."
Come on. You and everybody know what I meant. This issue of yelling "racist" at the first criticism of people's ideas is just getting out of hand.
"Muslim" is not an ethnic group. There are Arab, Persian, Pakistani, Indonesian, etc. muslims. Condell is presenting a clear argument against an ignorant superstition promoted by misogynist pigs called imams.
Apparently Nick hasn't got a clue. Secularism fought against slavery and racism, it was the religiously supported powers that were that promoted such things. He also has apparently never heard of the Eastern slave trade run by muslims both before and after the Atlantic slave trade run by xians. It included as many if not more people than the Atlantic one and is still practiced in some muslim countries.
Well, and also, muslims are united by a set of common ideas, cultural and religious. They as a group of course want some things, the same as Latinos here and other minority groups, only that Latinos don't even care about religious stuff that much and, as a group, don't try to impose religious stuff into law. Just leave the religion out, that's what we're asking.
And I'd like you Nick (please?), to say flat out if you do think that Muslims as a whole aren't trying to change laws based on religious belief. If you really think that they aren't then yeah, you can accuse us of ignorance (not that you'd automatically be right). The fact that there is coercion from Muslim religious fanatics so strong that even governments, businesses and individuals are pronouncing against the "offenders" where it's perfectly OK to criticize other religions and ideas, that's one of the main things critics of Muslim religion in Europe are coming from.
at least treat them as they would treat us if we started living our lifes in their society
(my emphasis)
Clinteas, I regard "our society" as belonging to everyone living here, however strongly I dislike their views. You clearly disagree. Please include me out of your "us" in future, if by "us" you mean people who share your,/I> views.
andyo, having just watched Condell's "Islam in Europe" I can easily see Condell as the leader of a British right-populist racist party, like Pim Fortuyn. He'd wipe the floor with Nazi shits like Nick Griffin and the hopeless halfwits of the UKIP. He's clever enough to keep the rhetoric just at the point where people who don't want to admit he's a racist can fool themselves, while unashamed racists can see very well he is.
Sorry Nick,but youre talking rubbish now mate.
Youre way off with that last post,and I dont think we can have a rational argument at this point,to be honest,if you compare Condell with some right-wing Nazi whackaloons.
bernarda,
apparently, you are the one who doesn't have a clue.
Condell is making a straight line projection, as if people who were immigrant from "predominantely muslim countries" in Europe were going to remain muslims after a few generations, when they are actually secularizing exactly like the rest of Europeans. He is the one who is making the kind of stupid projections that are completely contrary to evidence. He is actually lumping them together, when these people don't want to be lumped together, why ? because of their ethnicity ? Don't you see what he is doing ? Think a little bit more.
Why can't he stick indeed with presenting a clear argument against an ignorant superstition promoted by misogynist pigs called imams ? I actually would like that very much, if he did that.
Secularism fought against slavery and racism, it was the religiously supported powers that were that promoted such things. He also has apparently never heard of the Eastern slave trade run by muslims both before and after the Atlantic slave trade run by xians. It included as many if not more people than the Atlantic one and is still practiced in some muslim countries. - bernarda
As it happens most of the early opponents of slavery were religious, because almost everybody was at that time (they were also mostly racist in modern terms). Of course I've heard about the Eastern slave trade, why is it relevant here? I mentioned the slave trade purely in response to clinteas's nonsense about how wonderfully enlightened Europe had been for the last 300 years.
Oh please Nick,
//Oh, right. The slave trade, colonialism, the most destructive wars the world has ever seen, anti-semitism and anti-Roma prejudice resulting in genocide, legal subordination of women until the 20th century, continuing religious conflicts in northern Ireland and the Balkans - Europe has been just such a wonderful example to the rest of the world, hasn't it?//
Now Im not saying Europe,or human nature,is perfect....But feel free to try your luck in Saudi Arabia my friend,if things are so bad in Europe.....
Im not against Islam being practiced in non-islamic countries because most of Islams proponentsists have olive skin and a beard. - clinteas
So let's be clear about this, are you saying the practice of Islam should be banned in Europe and North America?
I dont think we can have a rational argument at this point,to be honest,if you compare Condell with some right-wing Nazi whackaloons. - clinteas
Read what I wrote: the only person I compare him to, as in saying he's like them, is Pim Fortuyn. There is a clear distinction between Nazis like Griffin and the rest of the BNP leadership, and right-populist racists like Fortuyn. I'm saying Condell could take most of the BNP's votes - the people who vote BNP aren't Nazis - the votes of UKIP, which is really a one-issue anti-EU party (notice that Condell includes "Brussels" among his targets), and reach beyond those limited constiutencies. Whether he'll ever shift into electoral politics I don't know, but I would not be surprised.
R.C. Moore:
Well, isn't that obnoxious. My parents still own the farm, leasing it to others to run, and I still visit it whenever I see them (and still help out with things like rebuilding barb wire fencing), so yeah, I know a bit about the way a farm currently works in rural Texas.
And you still haven't really responded to the point that others have kept hammering away at -- fewer cows would mean less land used for crops, since cows eat grain.
Brownian, OM (#90):
And she hasn't featured in Doctor Who yet? Come on, Auntie, get yer act together!
Should I always say "Most Mexicans, or maybe some, may or may not want..." - andyo
Well, I think you should be wary of over-generalising about what any ethinic group want, yes - particularly if you are attributing to that group wants that you're attacking as unacceptable.
To answer your question, I think a significant section of Muslims, but not a majority, want to change the law in an Islamist direction. There is actually poll evidence about this, although as ever, polls need treating with caution - a lot depends on exactly what you ask, and exactly when.
A poll in the wake of the cartoons furore: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Mus… showed 40% for and 41% against introducing sharia "in predominantly Muslim parts of Britain". This was at a time of maximum alienation, but 91% said they felt "loyal to Britain" (which is more than I am!), 25% "sympathised with the motives" of the 7/7 bombers (under some interpretaitons of that question, I could say the same, since the motive expressed in their suicide videos was opposition to the invasion of Iraq), but only 1% felt the bombings were "right". In another (more recent) survey (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religion),
60% said they wanted to live under British law, but young men had a higher percentage (27%) support for sharia than other groups. I'm not saying there is no problem here, but that lumping all Muslims together, and saying people who have a legal right to be here, and often were born here, should leave if they "don't like how we do things", will make it worse.
Actually, one of the things about progressive movements for human rights, as those of us who have been involved in them know, they have all types in them - atheists, christians, jews and muslims. I have never quite understood how the religious ones can reconcile their humanitarian positions with the wacky intolerant scriptures they claim to base their beliefs on, but that is really their business.
I know muslims who believe men and women should be treated equally, who support the separation of church and state, who believe in equality for gays and lesbians and who support a woman's right to choose in contraception and abortion. They may not be typical, but I can assure you such muslims do exist. Working with them has opened my eyes somewhat and made me wary of simplistic generalisations.
It is Condell's obsession with the supposed alleged demographic threats from muslims and his repeated statements that they do not "belong" in Britain that gives him away. Don't fool yourself, this IS racism.
My objections to Condell are similar to George Orwell's objections to fanatics and bad arguments on the left. It was because Orwell was of the left himself that he found them so objectionable. Why discredit a progressive movement with bad arguments when there are so many good ones?
We can surely do so much better than Condell.
In this video, Pat Condell does remind me a little bit all of this ...
(extracts from the link #166)
Nick,
When individual Islamic practices do go against the law, and especially against basic civil and human rights which is too often, those practices should be banned and not be treated in any special way, just like with any other religious practice of any other group of people of shared ideology.
By the way, would those imams hold such power to get away with the intolerant idiocy they spout if they didn't have the support of at least a large chunk of muslim people? Maybe there's something else going on there, I don't know first-hand. And again, where are those speaking publicly against those specific Imams? There might be some, but not nearly many enough. It seems people are too comfortable not criticizing the muslim religious authorities.
"When individual Islamic practices do go against the law, and especially against basic civil and human rights which is too often, those practices should be banned and not be treated in any special way"
I would completely agree with this. Same for any practices for any reason when they violate human rights.
By the way, some muslim people I know would also agree.
But feel free to try your luck in Saudi Arabia my friend,if things are so bad in Europe - clinteas
I showed that your claim about Europe's wonderful example to the Muslim world over the last 300 years was crap, so you pretend the argument is about something else. Not exactly subtle.
By the way, I'm not your friend.
When individual Islamic practices do go against the law, and especially against basic civil and human rights which is too often, those practices should be banned and not be treated in any special way, just like with any other religious practice of any other group of people of shared ideology. - andyo
If you search my comments in this very thread you'll find I have said this myself.
By the way, would those imams hold such power to get away with the intolerant idiocy they spout if they didn't have the support of at least a large chunk of muslim people?
What do you mean? They don't need power in order to say intolerant things, and if they keep within the law, they ought not to be stopped from saying them. I do know that Muslims who don't hold extreme views have complained that the media ignore them - their views are not newsworthy. The same media eagerly report the words of any homophobic, misogynist, anti-semitic scumbag who calls himself an imam.
Andyo,
Exactly. And what do you think is more intelligent ?
Speaking out and denouncing as much as we possibly can those practices whenever they happen within the European society, show that they represent an infimate minority of muslim lunatic fanatics, that most people from muslim origin are actually running away from this and are secularizing as the rest of Europeans, or pretend, as Pat Condell is doing, that we are at great risk that Muslims are taking over Europe, and that we we will have no choice than to democratically allow such practices ?
Nick,im not your friend either,mainly because you have been talking nonsense for the last 3 hours and are using ad hominems now that you have run out of arguments.
Good luck with your happy go lucky approach to Islam.
Bas (#132):
Erm, why hasn't anyone mentioned cooking? We cook meat to make it more edible and digestible (and in the case of poultry and pork, to kill certain pathogens). We do the same to vegetables, grains and pulses, for the same reason, which dramatically reduces the mass of food needed to supply daily energy requirements (see Wrangham R, Conklin-Brittain N. Comp Biochem Physiol A 2003; 136: 35-46).
Since we invariably cook (and according to the above study, should generally cook) our foods anyway, a vegetarian diet should incur no additional processing energy costs over those of a standard omnivorous diet.
because you have been talking nonsense for the last 3 hours and are using ad hominems now - clinteas
Tosh, and you know it. I've been giving detailed reasons and evidence, none of which you have shown to be wrong, you haven't been giving any, because your opinions on this matter are not based on anything of the kind.
To change the subject completely (as this is an open thread) -
Most here would have heard about World Youth Day, the Catholic event happening in Sydney, and the laws that make it an offence to offend any of the pilgrims, top fine $5,500.
The new law has led to a boom in anti-youth day T-shirts - http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/top_10_antiworld_youth_day_ts…
Some of the best -
"You can fine me $5,500... But I still won't believe in God"
"WYD08: We close 300 roads so 300,000 can close their minds"
"Oh no, I stepped in Dogma"
Anyone got any new ones to suggest?
Ramases,
other then" Who would Jesus do" and the "Sponsor a lion" one,I cant think of any good ones now,I just hope people will be out there confronting and engaging the Catholic zombies whenever they can.
And PZ gave us a whole thread to whinge about WYD recently lol....
Well I live 1,000 kilometres from Sydney, but with the new laws it is almost tempting to head up there with a T-shirt.
The effect of the laws will probably be exactly that - to bring out a lot more people with anti WYD t-shirts than would otherwise have been the case.
Andyo #243,
This is a fabulous example of misjudgement, preconceived ideas, geebus, please stop this.
France with 6 million, has by far the largest supposedely muslim population in Europe. You call them united and trying to impose their religious stuff.
But all studies show, for instance, that more than 70% of those so called muslims, never visit a mosque, less than 20% of them are keen to abide to the strict religious teachings of their faith, so where do you get these ideas from ?
If for you, you don't see any latinos who have the appearance of cristofacists, then for you the whole group doesn't care much about their religion, but if muslims have a tiny minority of islamofacists, you call them united in trying to impose their religion into the law ?
Actually, I've just checked out the t-shirt site, and there are some good ones.
I like this one...
Coming to a Harbor City Near You
125,000 young Catholics
Getting Down for Jesus
No Condoms Allowed
More than just the word of God
Will spread this July
You cannot be serious. More than a billion people living across several continents share a common culture and set of religious ideas. Right. Reminds me of J's constant harping on what "Islam" does, as though "Islam" had a body through which to act.
By the way, for anyone with journal access and a tolerance for academic writing (probably a lot of overlap there), there's a recent, interesting article by Sherene H. Razack, "The 'Sharia Law Debate' in Ontario: The Modernity/Premodernity Distinction in Legal Efforts to Protect Women from Culture," Feminist Legal Studies 15 (2007): 13-22.
Clearly, he never lived under the PP. :)
Ramases - Thanks for posting those. I needed something to make me smile this morning.
Talking about ethnic and religious sterotypes, I should correct some of the assertions made in previous posts about Mexicans.
I actually lived there for some time, and I can assure you they are NOT nearly all catholics. They may mostly come from catholic backgrounds, but I know plently who are atheists.
It's happening already:SCHOOL PUNISHES BOYS FOR REFUSING TO PRAY TO ALLAHThis happened in Cheshire.
For those who enjoy (as I do) or hate Pat Condell (and want more to criticize), I have created a YouTube playlist consisting of 40 Condell Rants in roughly chronological order of posting.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A646961C75B96EAC
Reginald Selkirk@272,
"The Daily Express says it happened" is not the same as "It happened". If it did happen as they report, I expect the teacher to be disciplined - at the least, warned that if she does anything of the kind just once more, she's out of a job. If that doesn't happen, I'll be writing to complain myself.
That said, many many UK schoolchildren, including my son, have been subjected to similar pressure to take part in Christian worship, or listen to Christian clerics mouthing their lies and fantasies. Let's work for the removal of all religious ceremonies and "instruction" (as opposed to real education about religions) in UK schools.
Anaglyph [195] "Let it be." Or "so be it."
llewelly [189], Thanks for trying. I didn't know because I didn't try to vote again. So I guess it will remain at 92@ against, in contrast to the 91% of Canadians who think that abortion should be legal.
Reginald Selkirk,
And you don't think that's a completely irrational conclusion ?
Just confirms it, with Islam, people just blow things out of proportions, they just react completely irrationally. They go immediately from this event in a school in Cheshire to "how long before big ben is replaced with a muezzin?".
Jehovah's Witnesses have grabbed a lot of Latino converts. I'm too lazy to look it up, but IIRC I read that the only populations among which the Witnesses are actually gaining converts are in Mexico and Central America. Still a small minority compared to Catholics, certainly, but growing. My partner's family is Latino/Native American and they've been Witnesses for two generations. (Not my partner!) Other evangelical groups have been making inroads among Hispanics, too. Sad but true. Quite frankly, I'd prefer main-stream Catholicism.
Speaking of evangelicals, lately I've begun to hope that they're not all nuts:
Dobson doesn't speak for all evangelicals
One can only hope that this point of view will be, well, evangelized . . .
In the modern world religious extremism flourishes mostly where there is poverty, a sense of hopelessness, and a dirth of educational opportunity. Every time economic prosperity becomes prevalent, secularism grows. The best way to combat religious extremism of any kind is to help people to have a better life.
As to our current agricultural practices, Mr. Moore should come to Iowa and see the oh so terrific results of draining, tiling, tilling, and plowing huge swaths of land to grow corn and soybeans to feed cattle and pigs. Why do we need flood plains when we've got those great levees and dams that work so well, right? Gotta love it! Eating less meat would do everyone a world of good.
@216:
"Moore: 'Would we be able to produce the athletes we have today on vegetarian diets?'"
In fact, some of the toughest, strongest athletes today are vegetarian and even vegan. It's easier to build muscle with readily assimilated nutrients from plants rather than animals.
Here's a list of vegan athletes, including a bunch of Ironmen:
http://www.veganathlete.com/vegan_vegetarian_athletes.php
R.C. Moore, you might want to read Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma."
Reginald Selkirk,
by the way, you'll notice that this news item didn't fail to get picked up by the BNP of course !
http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/07/detention-for-refusing-to-kneel-in-class-…
So, I wonder if you will agree with most of the comments there ?
What about Pat Condell, he must be making a lot of friends in those ranks...
I disagree that large-scale agriculture is necessary to feed "the masses." Industrial agriculture has been a disaster. Intensive horticulture approached scientifically and using greenhouse technology, etc. combined with sustainable field culture (see Kropotkin) is the way to go. If you doubt the productivity of horticulture, see the comments on a recent thread about "squash-bombing." Responsible horticulture can be practiced, and is increasingly being practiced, in cities - on rooftops, in lots, all sorts of places - and by institutions such as schools.
Despite initial skepticism and resistance to the idea, necessity during World War II pushed some Allied governments to promote and support the redevelopment of local horticulture. This was highly successful in Britain. The "Dig for Victory" campaign "quickly produced twice the tonnage of food previously imported, about 40 percent of the nation's food supply" and inspired the Victory Garden movement in the US and Canada. Produce grown in the Victory Gardens in the US equaled the tonnage (9-10 million tons) of commercially produced vegetables, as in Britain up to 40% of all of the produce consumed in the country. And these were ad hoc, unscientific, loosely coordinated efforts.
Urban horticulture, now due to other pressures, is again on the rise, even in the US. Urban gardens are increasingly widespread in Latin America and, interestingly, many present or former State Communist countries: In Shanghai, for example, "over 600,000 garden acres are tucked into the margins of the city. In Moscow, two-thirds of families grow food. In Havana, Cuba, over 80 percent of produce consumed in the city comes from urban gardens."
[I can supply the references for the quotations if anyone cares]
Silly people who think religion is some big conspiracy for the benefit of clergy make me laugh.
But what makes a Muslim a Muslim? Did I say all Muslims share the same principles? Sorry if what I said seemed to imply that then. It's the same as other religious groups, isn't it? Let's say catholics, they also claim about a billion or something. Are we considering muslims as an ethnic group, or as a religious one? I am the latter.
negentropyeater,
Clearly many "muslims" are non-religious, even atheist. But I and others are not counting them as an ethnicity. Perhaps that's our mistake? Those 70%, I don't think they are muslim anymore, like I am no catholic anymore, in any religious sense. Does the religion of islam not unite religious muslims at least in some sense? Perhaps you are right, generalization of muslims without further clarification should stop, but what also should sto is yelling "racist!" at the first sign of criticism of a minority group's beliefs and ideas that one finds intolerant (not that you did that, but it's the other side of the coin).
Trent, anyone who doesn't realize that religion is a big conspiracy for the benefit of the self-proclaimed clergy is an idiot.
How did organized religion began? A few people were clever enough to say that they had an inside line to the mysteries of the world. They convinced the suckers that they should be subsidized. All priests, preachers, imams, rabbis, etc. are parasites who have never contributed anything to the common good. They have never produced anything useful.
Note that they are all males too. What women have written any of the so-called sacred texts? They are male chauvinist pigs, particularly the imams. Condell is arguing against this clergy vampire cast, not against any ethnic group. He is absolutely right.
In particular, Islam is a religion of male pigs, by male pigs, and for male pigs. Any muslim male who is offended? tough titties.
Does the religion of islam not unite religious muslims at least in some sense? andyo
Well, only in the trivial sense that they all claim to be Muslims. Many of them don't recognise each other as Muslims, and the difference between, say, Wahhabis and Ismailis is as great as that between Fred Phelps and John Spong.
Trent@282. I agree, see my 65, first few lines. I'm delighted to be considered an idiot by bernarda.
Ramases,
Of course some Mexican and Latinos are atheist. Please, you couldn't possibly think I meant ALL of them were catholic. I am a Latino recovering catholic myself, I know how big (in numbers) catholicism is in Latin America, since the Spaniards a few centuries ago were so kind to bring it about. Some Latinos even still hold resentment over that, I kid you not, and dislike Spaniards now. I mentioned people from Mexico (as being born there, not much to do with ethnicity), because they're the main "problem" immigration critics talk about.
But I was making a comparison between Mexican (or Latino at large) immigration in the U.S. and immigration of muslims into Europe. I will re-make my point, if I may, since people have mentioned that it's a small muslim minority that's making all the racket over there, (who presumably are very, very vocal).
I think then it's safe to say that there is a larger percentage of catholics in the Latino population than religious muslims in the muslim population. Still, religious Latinos make no racket whatsoever in this society based on religious belief.
I would also like to note that nobody here that I know is criticizing muslim immigrants to the U.S. Somehow in Europe there seems to be more of an issue. The reaction millions took to the streets, many violently, to the cartoons for example, is something surely to be considered.
And Nick,
If those crazy imams held no substantial power, is the danger some vocal critics (or even just parodists) of muslim culture/religion, however right or wrong they may be, imagined? The Salman Rushdie thing was already some time ago, do you think it couldn't happen again, to force someone into hiding? It's not rhetorical, I'd like to know what you think about that.
I'll agree that the media looks for the batshit craziest moron they can find, but that doesn't by itself negate if these idiots have some power over a substantially large group of people.
nick "I'm delighted to be considered an idiot by bernarda."
I am equally delighted to consider you an idiot.
The reaction millions took to the streets - andyo
Nonsense. That is an absurd exaggeration. Where did you get that figure?
Recall that "the Salman Rushdie thing" was started by Khomeini, not by any Muslim in Europe, although some European Muslim self-described leaders then joined in (and at least one offered him refuge in his own house). I am unsure at this distance in time whether any of them broke the law in their comments - if they did, they should have been prosecuted. Yes, I think sometihng similar could happen again, in which case anyone who breaks the law shuold be prosecuted. so far as terror is concerned, it's not that there is no threat - the 7/7 bombings and attempted attacks in London and elsewhere show there is - but that both the far right and the government have exaggerated that threat and used it for evil purposes. Notice that there have been no successful attacks in the UK since 7/7/05 - which hardly suggests we are about to be swept away by a tide of Islamist terror. Compared to the PIRA, the Islamists are a disorganised bunch of amateurs.
If you say that they share a common culture, then you are basically considering them an ethnic group. That is essentially the definition of an ethnic group (and what makes "ethnicity" distinct from "race," which is a category defined by physical characteristics, though these terms are often mistakenly used interchangeably).
From my lecture notes :):
The "ancestry" aspect can be a complicating factor in distinguishing between these two, but certianly no one would consider that all Moslems share a common ancestry. And even if the specific religious beliefs and practices of all the groups who broadly consider themselves Moslem were the same, which they aren't (like Christianity and Judaism there is a great deal of variation within the larger umbrella), religion is only one element of culture (which is, broadly, a shared way of life).
Sorry if I implied that you were like J with his monolithic presentation of Islam, but all Moslems simply don't share a common culture. I think you're just using the wrong terminology.
Also, you're no longer a Catholic if you have left the religion. Not going to church or making your religious beliefs central to your life would not make you a non-Catholic. You seem to want to exclude a number of groups (moderates, "heretics," non-practicing people, those who lean toward agnosticism) from the definition of Moslem, and then suggest that all Moslems share the same beliefs and practices.
Point taken. Perhaps I should have left "culture" out of it. But I never meant to imply including all muslims there.
About the catholic thing, it also is about terminology I think. I am no longer a catholic of course if we mean the religion, but it seems those sneaky bastards, at least in several countries, keep books. There are 5 sacraments I think that catholics have to go through in official ceremonies. Baptism, first communion, confirmation, and then either marriage or holy orders. Each of these is documented, and you can't do one without having done the previous (i.e. no confirmation without baptism or first communion, no marriage without having been confirmed).
It's a hassle for someone wanting to get married to a catholic person (if the catholic half of it wants to do it "properly").
So back to this sneaky bookkeeping, at least in some countries, you'll need to officially renounce or be excommunicated for you to no longer be considered a "catholic." This counts because when those sneaky bastards talk about statistics and their strength in numbers, I'm probably one of those numbers.
continuing #286....because by "idiot", bernarda means "non-bigot".
I am no longer a catholic of course if we mean the religion,
I do, and I was taking issue with your apparent desire to conflate those who remain Moslems but don't conform to a certain stereotype of Moslems with those who are no longer Moslems, whether that break is "officially" recognized or not.
I often wonder if the Baptists would still consider me one of their number, as I was saved several times as a child. (Why sit in the audience and be bored when you can go up on a stage and get extra-special attention? Amazing that no one ever called me on it - "Hey! Didn't you already get saved last year at Bible camp?")
SC,
As long as you've subsequently got wasted, at least as many times as you were saved as a child, I think you'll be OK ;-)
Pierce R. Butler (#174),
Thank you for the recommendation. I found a good deal on Amazon, so hopefully I'll soon be enlightened.
As long as you've subsequently got wasted, at least as many times as you were saved as a child, I think you'll be OK ;-)
Oh, then I'm definitely in the clear, and steadily (or unsteadily, as the case may be) becoming more purified all the time.
I suggest you read it again. The criterion he applies is "adapt[ation] ... to our way of life". Unless you believe that ways-of-life are somehow race-linked, there is certainly nothing racist about this quote. (Condell may or may not actually believe in such linkage, but if so it's not evident in the words you cite.)
noncarborundum,
whatever you call it, it's pretty damn fucking pathetic, don't you think so ?
I'm 50 tomorrow, July 6.
I bet you're all jealous. Especially since I'm celebrating in Point Reyes.
As much as I love Pat Condell, I think he missed the mark on one vitally important point: humanity is WAY too dumb to go marching away from religion THAT easily.
Hi. The thread and probably everyone commenting on it has moved on, but I just wanted to apologize for dropping a question in and then disappearing. The dog ate my internet access over the weekend. But thanks for the answers.
On the vegetarianism stuff:
cows have highly developed digestive systems capable of processing material that we can't get any nutritional value from, like grasses.
Grasses don't have the water and fertilizer requirements of grains, and can therefore grow without agriculture in far more locations than grains.
Theoretically, animals could be grown entirely on grasses and provide food with zero agriculture. Obviously, this is not the case in the US.
Some people have provided a 70% figure for amount of grain fed to livestock; I would be interested in a number for what percent of a typical cow's diet is grain? Is it mostly grain, or mostly grass, with grain provided after it is brought to the slaughterhouses where using grass would be less economical?
Aren't these comments supposed to be moderated (but not censored)? How did it get hijacked by that ridiculous blood thread? Heads must roll.
I would be interested in a number for what percent of a typical cow's diet is grain? qbmsd
I doubt it makes sense to talk about "a typical cow". In what country? Beef or dairy? For some it would be zero, for others the grass percentage would be 0, although I don't know if any are fed exclusively on grain - often high-protein supplements like fishmeal or even slaughterhouse waste are added - the latter being the probable cause of the British BSE epidemic.
I have thought about this statistic, as it was brought up a lot, and there is no reason to dispute it as a number. But what it means is the real question. In the San Joaquin Valley, most cows are dairy cows, and they are fed alfalfa. But they are also fed grain. The grain has little market otherwise (ethanol production is changing this), so I would not be surprised if 70% if given to cows. So in this case we are turning something we don't use (low quality grain) into something we really desire (high-quality dairy products).
Some beef cattle in the San Joaquin are range fed most of lives, then fattened at a stockyard on grain and rendering plant products. Some I am sure lead their entire existence in the stockyard -- I do not know the current percentages. Again, they are probably fed from that 70% of grain number.
My youth was spent farming and harvesting grain. We mostly were paid by the government not to plant it. I remember one summer, under the PIC(?) program, irrigating a field of maize in the foothills, trying to get it 2 feet high, so the government would then pay us top dollar not to harvest it. (you only got paid for grain you could have harvested, but did not). So I am not surprised that the low quality grain still grown goes to livestock (cows/chickens) -- it is the only way to make it profitable.
There is I understand good demand and profits for high quality human consumption grain. Why do we not use the land currently used for livestock grain, and plant is with high quality grain. I do not know in general, but I would guess that it is expensive to grow and the marketplace cannot afford the cost. The other problem might be the large amount of carbohydrate and fat one must consume to obtain an equivalent amount of protein when comparing grain/soy and meat.
#304, I was speaking of US, raised for beef cattle. Although, I would also be interested in the comparison with other countries. Do you have sources for any of this?
Sili,
Didn't read enough comments to see if someone addressed this but it's not a "fact". In fact the can eat shit, garbage, whatever. Even poison ivy. I've had the pleasure of using an outhouse with a chute that went right into the pigs pen.
"With 2 to 3% of the European Union's population, projected to maximum double within a generation, and showing the same genrational trends in decreasing religiosity as with other religions, what is he talking about ?"
Immigration.
Plus he said some countries, not all. You're not under the false impression that the more like 5% is spread evenly. Perhaps you should visit Miami while considering that Cubans make up less than half a percent of the US population.
Once they get beyond a few percent they can also influence elections if they block vote like say Jews in Kiryas Joel do to get all sorts of religious concessions long before becoming the majority.
Unfortunately European countries don't have church state separation in all cases. The UK being an example, and with Church of England bishops pushing for sharia, he's right and your so very wrong about the dangers here.
The danger is quite real. Hell, they are already working on it in Canada, the UK and elsewhere and they aren't even close to the majority. Usually, and ironically because of Marxist inspired political correctness. Some opiates are better than others.
The danger is quite real. Brian Macker
The danger that sharia will be instituted in the UK is zero.
The real danger is that bigot morons like Macker will manage to stir up enough hatred against ethnic minorities to get them put in camps, compulsorily fingerprinted, and treated as if they're all criminals, as is currently happening to Roma immigrants from eastern Europe in Italy.
Definitely no competition for resources there. My relatives are large pig farmers in Missouri, and they do feed with grain, but is is all dry farmed grain that is stored in silos for long periods of time. Because of this it they can use land that cannot be used for high quality grain, and don't need to water or fertilize. This keeps the feed costs manageable I guess.
I've had the pleasure of using an outhouse with a chute that went right into the pigs pen.
No competition for resources, but ideal conditions for recirculation of intestinal parasites.
"Marxist inspired political correctness" Brian Macker
I would have called that an oxymoron. I thought Marxism came with a "we're right and everyone else is wrong" mentality, and political correctness was more of an outgrowth of democracy and trying to compromise.
#311
Don't worry; I'm sure they were pumped full of antibiotics. That's a good solution, right?
> compulsorily fingerprinted, and treated as if they're all
> criminals, as is currently happening to Roma immigrants
> from eastern Europe in Italy.
Italy is a prime example of what happens to a country where the left battles imaginary American and Zionist boogeymen, and turns a blind eye toward fascism.
> because of Marxist inspired political correctness
?!% Where I come from - and I think this is representative for most of former West Germany, and for Austria and Switzerland too, and even some places in former East Germany, like Leipzig - the harshest critics of Islamism, and the kids that actually engage the Islamist thugs on the streets, are Marxists, or at least consider themselves Marxists (although Marxists that, living in a post-holocaust world, have abandoned the whiggish "march of progress" teleology of 19th century Marxism). Marxism is atheistic by nature, and considers religion, including Islam, as opium for the people. Beside this, most Marxists, and probably most radical leftists in general, will consider political correctness either liberal bourgeoise hippie crap, or a strawman made up by the political right.
As for bishops that press for sharia: Cardinal Meissner, the Archbishop of Cologne, had done that, too. As Meissner is a right-winger if there ever was one (PZ has blogged about Meissners infamous ramblings that atheists only produce "degenerate" art), I think he was hardly motivated by political correctness or multiculturalism. It was more like: Wingnuts of all faiths unite, you have nothing to loose but your straightjackets!