Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Deadly Lamarr]

That was an interesting derail aside from the tense emotion over diet. Ha ha, internet.

Now that we've managed to get persecution, ethics, and rape into a "So what the hell is sweetbread?" post: How can sweetbread be weaponized? The use of magma is encouraged, but not required.

Bay 12 has not figured out to weaponize sweetbread yet? For shame. For shaaaaaame!

Poison. Or mod it to have a temperature as hot as the surface of the Sun.

Poisonous sweetbread: a hallway covered in pancreases ... deadly, deadly pancreases. Beautiful.

Can super-hot sweetbread be combined with some sort of chute to drop fiery justice pancreas on goblins? Is projectile sweetbread a possibility? You could throw it in Adventure Mode if it didn't melt you. On the other hand, butchery + super-hot sweetbread = bomb ... ?

[rephikul]

Why is it important that the human race not have no future? Why is it not a good thing for a community of idiots to survive?

Because that's how life work. Life continue to exist because the organisms in it try to. Anything that doesnt try or unable to stay alive is killed and eaten. Due to this, evolution occurs so that traits which made creatures to survive better and to have more will to do so is passed. Those traits accumulate in us who're more or less most evolved on the planets. That's why most of human have the urge to make babies and possess maternal instincts to some extends. It's neither good nor bad, it just happen.

From wikipedia: On the average, 1 person dies every second as a result, either directly or indirectly, of hunger - 4000 every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58 % of all deaths (2001-2004 estimates)

I'm pretty sure if we are only carnivore or herbivore this number would have risen because that simply mean we have less access to food. YOU who can afford an internet connection may not feel the need for it, but many does.

I'd make a less extreme example: outdoor survival. Many have had to endure days or months in the wild and had to secure food for themselves. And according to military procedures, it's takes less time to procure surely non-poisonous animal-derived food while plant-derived chows are more abundant. Each has its own strength and having 1 more option is always better.

This, quite simply, is irrelevant. No sane veg(etari)an is going to tell you that humans, as a whole, should give up eating meat right now, nor will they tell you that people in survival scenarios shouldn't eat whatever they can.

The fact of the matter is that we're not talking about people in starvation scenarios, or wilderness survival situations. We're talking about situations where restricting one's diet is a feasible option that does not significantly harm their quality of life. You're talking about scenarios that quite simply aren't relevant.

I'm forcing certain lifestyles on you, I'm asking whether or not the decision of making such lifestyle natural and logical (sane). In example, it's natural and logical for me to ask this question because the knowledge I might gain from doing so would make me more knowledgeable and a have better chance to survive in a human society. Anything that can be reasoned down to instinctive needs which allow us to survive can be considered natural and logical.

[Lagslayer]

I'm not forcing certain lifestyles on you, I'm asking whether or not the decision of making such lifestyle natural and logical (sane). In example, it's natural and logical for me to ask this question because the knowledge I might gain from doing so would make me more knowledgeable and a have better chance to survive in a human society. Anything that can be reasoned down to instinctive needs which allow us to survive can be considered natural and logical.

Fixed for you.

[noob]

inb4lock?

[G-Flex]

I'm asking whether or not the decision of making such lifestyle natural and logical (sane). In example, it's natural and logical for me to ask this question because the knowledge I might gain from doing so would make me more knowledgeable and a have better chance to survive in a human society. Anything that can be reasoned down to instinctive needs which allow us to survive can be considered natural and logical.

Rape and murder are natural and logical choices to you, for instance? After all, in the right circumstances, those could certainly grant you a better chance of survival and genetic reproduction.

[Demicus]

Rephikul, did you consider figuring psychology of a person into that? More importantly, the 'groundless beliefs,' that your so adamant against?
While they might be 'groundless' they are still important to figure in. Survival is a complex calculation of things, though much of it can be summed up as cost and benefit as many have pointed out. All foods impart a certain level of benefit (calories, vitamins, minerals, etc) they also impose a cost (Energy spent to obtain the food). If the given food is in violation of beliefs, it increases the cost. Not just from a values stand point, but also from a physiological stand-point, as being forced to violate beliefs will cause stress. High levels of stress can cause health problems, which could potentially lead to death.
Now you might say say that the stress-induced death from this is cause by 'groundless beliefs' but contemplate this: Why do people follow those beliefs? Generally there is a reason, and the reasons are extremely varied. Some, like most western religions, are followed to attempt to reach paradise in the afterlife, something science can neither confirm nor deny. Other beliefs though are typically followed so the person feels better about themselves. This in itself is a benefit, as feeling better about oneself can help reduce stress and other negative emotions. Enough 'good feeling' can promote better health, and better thinking. So while the sustainence options are artificially limited, in theory at least, the person will be more able and more active to utilize the 'available' food sources.

[CinnibarMan]

fiery justice pancreas

Siggin'.

[rephikul]

I'm asking whether or not the decision of making such lifestyle natural and logical (sane). In example, it's natural and logical for me to ask this question because the knowledge I might gain from doing so would make me more knowledgeable and a have better chance to survive in a human society. Anything that can be reasoned down to instinctive needs which allow us to survive can be considered natural and logical.

Rape and murder are natural and logical choices to you, for instance? After all, in the right circumstances, those could certainly grant you a better chance of survival and genetic reproduction.

They indeed do give the person better change of survival and genetic reproduction, at the cost of the direct damage done onto the suffered. These activities are natural to some extend and understandable. However they are still debatable and are generally bad because the personal benefit is usually not great enough to offset the damage done. That's why human possess altruism, which's used to gauge the needs of other human against himself. I've read an interesting study somewhere that monkeys are likely to sacrifice themselves to protect its herd if the herd it belongs to are more blood related to it. In this case, the collective of small genetic advantage from the safety of each other monkey has been considered against the genetic advantage within the sacrificing individual monkey. I hope my wording was understandable.

Rephikul, did you consider figuring psychology of a person into that? More importantly, the 'groundless beliefs,' that your so adamant against?

I'm asking precisely about this psychology involved in the decision. Indeed, everyone have their own reason as you have listed (religions, feel-good, et cetera) but I wonder if these reasons or beliefs are deep enough to be considered as basing on something substantial. In example, the psychology behind religions has been debunked, and it is safe to assume it's pretty insane for any persons of intellect who's been shown the light (pun intended) to still sticking to his religion, refusing to accept reality. Do note that as most religions, while irrational, advocate actual healthy practices and since they are generally harmless, treatment shouldn't be forced. In the other reason you provided, "feeling good about oneself", I'd like to ask why do people feel good by doing so, any feasible deeper explanation? Isnt this the same kind of insane self-delusion which drove people to commit mass murders and other cruel deeds?[/quote]

[Kamamura]

What's all the shocked responses about? Isn't sweetbread what you get nicely minced in your McBurger? Believe me, it can be a lot worse...

[Demicus]

I'm asking precisely about this psychology involved in the decision. Indeed, everyone have their own reason as you have listed (religions, feel-good, et cetera) but I wonder if these reasons or beliefs are deep enough to be considered as basing on something substantial. In example, the psychology behind religions has been debunked, and it is safe to assume it's pretty insane for any persons of intellect who's been shown the light (pun intended) to still sticking to his religion, refusing to accept reality. Do note that as most religions, while irrational, advocate actual healthy practices and since they are generally harmless, treatment shouldn't be forced. In the other reason you provided, "feeling good about oneself", I'd like to ask why do people feel good by doing so, any feasible deeper explanation? Isnt this the same kind of insane self-delusion which drove people to commit mass murders and other cruel deeds?

[/quote]
Not quite sure what you mean by psychology of religion. Though on the feel good response, that would be related to the response that humanity evolved to help enforce helping other people. Not sure where the research is at amongst the internet, but there have been studies that suggest giving to charity actually triggers a pleasure response in the brain. Applying this feature towards non-humans is a quirk in peoples psychology, not necessarily something bad, as some quirks can lead to better people. Evolution is merely a series of genetic quirks and mutations. In a certain frame of mind, humans could be seen as extremely-mutated bacteria (though I think only crazy people honestly think like that). Back on topic, the 'feel good' response that could possibly come from not eating animals could be an altered(expanded?) version of the mechanism that encourages people to help each other. Not entirely sure on that, but it's not out of the question. Homo Sapien has been constantly evolving mentally and socially. Tools become better, which allows society to become more and more complex. At the root at still the basic biological needs (Food, Hydration, Shelter, Defense, and Reproduction), just the means to obtain these needs have 'evolved.' Now does this feel good response from not eating animals justify the trouble of removing those nutritional opportunities, I don't know.
Though some people might take up the 'strange' habits because someone else did so first. Humans are a social creature. And with how our society is constantly changing, people looks for groups the can belong to. With the possible exception of some loners and isolationists, a person that doesn't belong to a social group is unhealthy. So people take up fashions and lifestyles they (maybe subconsciously) believe will help ensure they remain part of whatever social group. Does the fashion/lifestyle ensure that the person remains in the group, maybe. That's heavily situational.
Oh and on the point of the mass murders and cruel acts, those typically did have some kind of motivation behind them. The motivations might be due to warped ideals or unstable mentalities, but then those could probably be tracked back further to deeper roots of the problem.

Addition:
Just had a thought on something. Respecting animals. Seen in many Native American cultures, especially those that hunted on the plains. They still ate the animal, but they paid it respects and made sure to waste nothing of the animal. What would happen if a person's mentality formed so that they respected the animal to the point they couldn't take its life, without causing themselves undue stress? Maybe even respect the animal to the point that they can't stand any 'cruelty' befalling the animal. A little extreme, but feasible for humanity, given the wide variety of personalities, mentalities, and other what not on this planet.

[Phmcw]

Are you finished with the pointless derail? You wouldn't want to be reported, the great toad banhammer strike swiftly.
"The path of the righteous forummer is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the troll and the tyranny of thread derail. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the noobs through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to troll and derail their thread. And you will know My name is the Toad when I lay My banhammer upon thee."  Toady one

On topic:(the message below doesn't concern our vegetarian friends).

WHAT!!! I happen to learn that what I thought to be dwarfy players are disgruntled by the though of eating thymus? That liver is above their taste?
BARBARIAN!!! Veal liver and thymus (sweetbread) are an expensive delicacy. I ate a wonderful turkey stuffed with truffles and "ris de veau" on new year.
Grilled veal liver served with a slice of lemon is among my favorite breakfast. Chicken liver are cheap and delicious when cooked with white wine.
MAN UP!!!

Seriously, about anything is eaten by some culture. I hope toady soon implement (he said he'll do in in an indeterminate future) proper cultural tastes soon.
Then nourishing our dwarves will get more tricky.

[rephikul]

Not quite sure what you mean by psychology of religion.

I cannot explain it with my own words, but I consider Dawson's The God Delusion the best writing on the matter, give it a try.

Though on the feel good response, that would be related to the response that humanity evolved to help enforce helping other people.

You are probably referring to altruism which I've also mentioned. In this case, as you have stated, people extend the scope of their goodwill onto the animal and treat them much like they would other people. Is this sane? Consider for a moment the movement to preserve and improve the balance in ecosystems worldwide. "Save the animals", they said, and many reached out out of their love for other species. But on a grand scheme, is this necessary mean the movement is to save anything but US. 

Though some people might take up the 'strange' habits because someone else did so first. Humans are a social creature. And with how our society is constantly changing, people looks for groups the can belong to. With the possible exception of some loners and isolationists, a person that doesn't belong to a social group is unhealthy. So people take up fashions and lifestyles they (maybe subconsciously) believe will help ensure they remain part of whatever social group. Does the fashion/lifestyle ensure that the person remains in the group, maybe. That's heavily situational.

That's an interesting POV which I've never considered. Groupthink, I believe, it's called. However as groupthink is an outside influence, not actual basic desire and change from culture to culture (Hinduism vs christianity in example) it's probably unfit to be considered as a part of the equation.

Oh and on the point of the mass murders and cruel acts, those typically did have some kind of motivation behind them. The motivations might be due to warped ideals or unstable mentalities, but then those could probably be tracked back further to deeper roots of the problem.

That's still self delusion my friend.

Just had a thought on something. Respecting animals. Seen in many Native American cultures, especially those that hunted on the plains. They still ate the animal, but they paid it respects and made sure to waste nothing of the animal. What would happen if a person's mentality formed so that they respected the animal to the point they couldn't take its life, without causing themselves undue stress? Maybe even respect the animal to the point that they can't stand any 'cruelty' befalling the animal. A little extreme, but feasible for humanity, given the wide variety of personalities, mentalities, and other what not on this planet.

These people worship the animals and that fall under religion belief.

[Durin Stronginthearm]

inb4lock?

and hopefully 24 hours muting for anyone retarded enough to get into yet another pointless boring internet debate about vegetarianism.

and possibly me, for being retarded enough to get annoyed by it.

[lordnincompoop]

inb4lock?

and hopefully 24 hours muting for anyone retarded enough to get into yet another pointless boring internet debate about vegetarianism.

and possibly me, for being retarded enough to get annoyed by it.

Pointless? Boring?

I don't know about pointless, but it certainly isn't boring. I myself enjoy debates like these, and I'm going to formulate some more arguments once my legs stop cramping. Your opinions are not everyone's opinions, arrite?

I really do think we should move this to GD though, because this is not what DF Dmode Disc. is for, nor what the thread was originally for either.

I'm off to make the topic in GD, then.

[Durin Stronginthearm]

inb4lock?

and hopefully 24 hours muting for anyone retarded enough to get into yet another pointless boring internet debate about vegetarianism.

and possibly me, for being retarded enough to get annoyed by it.

Pointless? Boring?

I don't know about pointless, but it certainly isn't boring. I myself enjoy debates like these, and I'm going to formulate some more arguments once my legs stop cramping. Your opinions are not everyone's opinions, arrite?

I really do think we should move this to GD though, because this is not what DF Dmode Disc. is for, nor what the thread was originally for either.

I'm off to make the topic in GD, then.

Oh come on, that's hardly fair. If you're going to insist I preface everything I post with the disclaimer "THIS IS JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION" then you should apply that to everyone.

I prefer to assume that most people are able to work that out for themselves though. Evidently not everybody!

This argument is widespread on the net. Depressingly so. And that's fact, not opinion.