arcane20

You do actually. If you don't then I will assume you can't. Not eating meat is the default position. I have a right to my own body and what I do with it. I have the right not to be force fed by others which would be a horrid viiolation of my body and with it my human rights. Your position on the otherhand is not the default position. There is no violation of your body by not eating meat. So you can't equate them as being equally valid. Call me rebellious but the law isn't always right. It has been subject to change and will be subject to change, also which countries laws would you be talking about exactly? Good I respect you a little more for doing this but not everyone does; I'd probably bet that most people don't on the basis that if more people were buying freerange produce then the companies who make them will be more inclined to make all produce freerange. Sadly though that is not the case. I still every so often see truckloads of sheep crammed together in uncomfortable spaces on the road and I say that is wrong. Do you agree with that at least? I'm not sure if this is what you were referring to but pie isn't healthy. The pastry is very unhealthy. I'm not the kind of person to throw blood on someone for eating meat nor am I going to go to a restaraunt and start lecturing people in the middle of their meals but we're in a debate thread here and i'm going to question you in order to win you need to either show my question is flawed or give a reasonable answer.

That seems like a good debate and I agree. When children see rich spoiled pop stars on TV and the guys from jersey shore making all this money and then see their teachers making fairly low wages for the work they do it does speak to the kids about society. Who'd you think they'd rather look up to?

Ok, but that is pretty fair statement. Saying it is natural to eat rocks or something I might have a problem with, but eating meat is natural enough for humans. And it has nothing to do with genes. :psyduck: Well it might be natural but being natural doesn't make it moral in anyway. Humans are also naturally xenophobic but it doesn't make it ok. The first part yes some people will benefit from eating meat. Some people have iron and protein deficiency and it may be unreasonable to replace these with suplements. You'll have to research that yourself. But the suffering that is prevented must be greater than the suffering caused for it to be justified. Now again you need to state why it is your right to eat meat. Rights aren't something that is given to someone without reason. edit: missed one Again nature isn't always right. Just because something happens in nature doesn't justify any of our actions. There are many things which aren't natural which you would deem as good and many things that are natural which you would deem as bad. Such as smallpox and hurricanes. Also Cruelty is about suffering not respect.

I cannot respond to this properly with out getting banned. I think your comment is posted purely to get a reaction out of me. Post another comment like that and I'll see it as trolling. Actually it was an honest live and let live post, you go your way and I'll go mine. You may see it under any light you like, but before you start tossing out terms such as 'trolling', you might want to peruse the rules on forum vigilantism yourself. Kindly do not tell me what I may or may not post , that is not your prerogative. That my fanatically intolerant friend is the province of the moderators which last time I checked does not include you. I'm well aware of the rules. I'm giving you a friendly warning I will see any further comments like that as trolling. Then it'll be down to the moderators to decide. There was no need for that comment nor was their any argument being made. I saw it with nothing but malicious intent. If I was wrong then you should have no problems not taunting me like that again. Unless that was your intent. While you may say you go your way and i'll go mine i'm not going anywhere. The thing is there has not been 1 argument here that I haven't been able to debunk. And then you just say "It's my right". Well that's the issue isn't it? Do you have the right to slaughter animals for your own personal gains. I think you should justify your right. If you can't do that then I'm sorry but hands down you've lost. Now you can walk away and do as you will until the laws change but it i'm not going to say that it's ok to eat animals. edit: I'm not sure what you mean by in our genes to eat meat means. You mean we aren't carnivores? well yeah. If you look towards the start of the debate some people were claiming that it's 'natural to eat meat'. Anyways bedtime will continue this tomorrow night. :thumbsup:

Two good reasons for Beth not to worry about D11 right now. 1 - They will have no choice when the next gen releases so why jump the gun considering that... 2 - Bethesda makes it a point for each new game to be considerably better looking than the next. If they go all the way to the top now there will be no where else to go on the next game and their 20 year streak of topping each game by a large margin will be ruined. Also they like to have continuity across all platforms and since Xbox can't utilize DX11 AND they don't even need DX11 to beat FO3 they will save it for future games. It's not being lazy. Far from it, it's long term development planning. Sorry if I misunderstand this but: they're holding off on their abilities because they want to make more money? I'm now even more cynical.

A militant anti animal advocate, that has found a soapbox to stand on, so, is preaching his views of the human species. Ya know what? You don't wanna stand up for the suffering of other sentient creatures? Don't. Don't try and deprive me of my right to do so though, and do not assign motivations/assorted blames for my doing so. This particular line: I'm out. Prompts me to completely ignore anything else you have to say. You have rage quit. Therefore, your arguments are meaningless. edit: sarcasm asside can someone tell me how eating me isn't selfish? I mean I'm pretty sure animals don't that you for it.

I cannot respond to this properly with out getting banned. I think your comment is posted purely to get a reaction out of me. Post another comment like that and I'll see it as trolling. That wasn't my point I was making. I wasn't saying our ancestors didn't eat meat therefore we shouldn't. the point I made was to further debunk the construct that it's in our genes to eat meat . I did read that. The protein required can be attained through other foods and beverages such a soy milk to name one. Which is where I get most of my protein. However lentils, brocholi, etc. even rice has protein. I stand by that. Name me one human who has never suffered. Why would you think animals are exempt from pain? Animals feel pain as we do. They have pain receptors. Wherever the least amount of pain is. Personal opinions are irrelevant in a logical debate. You know it doesn't do your comment justice to go and deliberately make a provocative comment like that. Not to mention it was you who first made the "You're quite clearly from the meat is murder group" or whatever implying I'm some sort of terrorist or idiot. It's just ignorance because neither of you have an argument to make. I'm just going to assume you haven't got one and you're beaten. You've already admitted that humans don't need meat. So what you're really saying is "you're right but i'm too lazy to change my diet besides I like meat so i'll just rub it in your face". As I said to the other guy do that again and i'll see it as trolling. Let's say that we raised some humans up in brilliant standards where they were treated very very well. And then we killed them for food in the same way we kill animals. Is it right or is it wrong?

It really depends what the creation engine is capable of. I wouldn't mind finishing off my own body mod. Make one for each race.

I also want to fly around on a dragon. Maybe you could make a shout that will let you do it so it won't break immersion so much. Clothing doesn't bother me to much as i'll probably be making my own. assside from that I want any immersive feature missing from the game added.

It's a bit early to tell but if I had to wager money I'd say the rebels.

I'd like to point out to everyone that you can turn off DX11 in all the games I know which have(which to be fair isn't many) However it can be done and therefore bethesda should have done it that way. It isn't a requirement so much as a feature. Also jhardingame if you bought anything less that a GTX450 recently. You made the wrong choice. Bang for your buck anything less than a 450 is nothing but a paper weight. even the 8800 is a waste of money. Edit: Here's a cynical thought. What if bethesda know that modder will make the displacement maps for tesselation and maybe even add in the shaders given time. And as such are just getting a bit lazy.

It was a bit agressive. I will try. :wallbash: See I'm annoyed already. Whether you're doing this on purpose you're mislabelling my position in ignorance this is frustrating. Quote me where I have said that no early human was an omnivore. Again I claimed that humans evolved to eat meat before they were omnivores; I'll provide a link that Ghogiel posted before which I'm about halfway through but you only have to read the first paragraph or 2 where It says; http://nature.berkeley.edu/miltonlab/pdfs/meateating.pdf And that was my original argument exactly and not that some early humans didn't eat meat. I made this argument to address the argument that it was in our genes to eat meat. You can read the rest yourself. Anyways. We are NOT early humans, we are not lions and we are not anacondas. We do not need meat to suvive. You cannot provide evidence for this. I don't need evidence to prove we are not anacondas or lions or early humans. You need to provide that modern day humans as in you and me need meat to suvive and since I am not dead that will be very difficult. If you don't then eating meat is a selfish act. I'm trying not to be mean here but It is far beyond me how our distant ancestors justify your position that eating meat isn't immoral. I say that any suffering caused on an animal for the selfish desire of consuming animal products is immoral. No matter how good the conditions are there will always be suffering to some degree or another. The animals should not be bred for this purpose. So let me ask you a question how much does an animal need to suffer for someone's own selfish desire to classify it as unethical? And I want a real answer to that question. Firstly I'm pretty sure that I stated why your comments were inane before I called them inane. So I did justify my comment in my comment that I was commenting on when I made that comment. Ad hominem: Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain. I didn't attack your motives as you did to me. Nor did I attack your character as you have done towards me. I attacked your position. I said your comment was inane. I think I justified why it was. If you don't agree say why it wasn't. And as for the latter part of your argument Yes you are winding me up by attacking an argument I haven't made. (which is also inane BTW) and as I previously stated: I say that any suffering caused on an animal for the selfish desire of consuming animal products is immoral. No matter how good the conditions are there will always be suffering to some degree or another. The animals should not be bred for this purpose. So let me ask you a question how much does an animal need to suffer for someone's own selfish desire to classify it as unethical? I say non of it is ok. Unless the suffering you will face by not eating meat is greater than the suffering the animal will feel over its entire life (because remember it was bred for this purpose) an animal should not be bred. In the majority of cases humans do not suffer by not eating meat. (there are exceptions as with anything). Meat is luxory that comes at the cost of the animal. That last one was an ad hominem. What I should of said was: Provide evidence that these animals do not suffer. I know and we are very on topic. Eating meat is cruel for the reasons I specified. So to summarise my argument. - Humans do not need meat in their diet. - Any animal bred for food will suffer regardless of any conditions. - If humans eat less meat these animals will not need to be bred. - Animals will not suffer nor will humans. As opposed to now where animals suffer humans indulge. It is this indulgence which I regard as immoral because an animal should not need to suffer for someone's indulgence.

I couldn't agree more, DirectX 9 is coming up to being ten years old and time has moved on. Why can the likes of EA and Codemasters support DirectX 11 and not Bethesda? there is no excuse. On the subject of physics Havok can do clothes, if it's not in the game then it's down to Bethesda rather than Havok. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daZoXzBGea0 I feel like a bit of an idiot now Actually. Because I just realised that 3ds max uses havok. I actually used havok to model one of my armours. :facepalm: Should of thought for a moment that they might have been the same thing. Maybe it was the frustration talking. Yeah hope it does have cloth simulation though.

I never argued that! I argued we evolved to eat meat. Show me evidence that shows otherwise. http://nature.berkeley.edu/miltonlab/pdfs/meateating.pdf Neanderthals ate raw meat if you care about the cooking thing still. I'm gonna have to read that later. I'm a bit busy the the SYW mod at minute but I will read it when I have time. So what because other things are worse this can't be bad? Not as bad as child abuse like what was proposed. I didn't propose that though. Just to be clear. I don't see people who eat meat anywhere near on par with people who hit children or animals. I'll get back to that link later.

Having DX 11 doesn't mean needing a new computer and $4000 is one hell of a computer. DX11 only requires a GPU upgrade not an entire system upgrade also. With the price of GPU's today; $200 will get you more than you need. In Deus Ex you can turn DX11 on and off. I know why it's still DX9 but I just feel like they're disregarding all of the PC gamers. Also if you're saying your computer doesn't run games too well it's good to keep in mind DX 10 and 11 both come with performance gains not losses. I don't know of a PC game where you cannot configure the graphics to meet your needs. There's really no excuse for it.

Skyrim Direct X info from todd howard This link shows here that though direct X 11 support is a possibilty the game will be mostly a DX9 game. DX10 was released in what 2005? 2006? 5 or 6 years later.... NV was completely ruined for me because of the bugs and performance issues, I don't want this to happen with skyrim. So yeah so far: DX9 game :down: Uses Havok instead of good physics with cloth simulation. So modding clothing will remain just as akward as it has always been. :facepalm: No 64-bit Exe :down: This isn't going to be a PC game. The more I learn about it the less enthusiastic I get about it. Right now My ethusiasm meter is on meh. :dry:

Reread it. I didn't make it seem like that. In fact I specifically stated "We might all belong to the animal kingdom but we're not the same animal". So I'm not sure what you're talking about?

No you don't know what an ad hominem is. Your comments *are* inane. An ad hominem is a statement or something said to the 'person' in order to undermine the argument they're making. I addressed your argument. Make sense? You on the otherhand made statements about me personally. Very sorry for that I wasn't paying attention. Human rights have never outshined the suffering of others. Otherwise I could argue that it's my human right to go around punching people in the face. Completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what other animals do in the slightest. I don't care for your personal opinions. Is this a serious argument? Human beings have the ability to make a choice. Are you saying because our cousins might do something we can't make any decisions for ourselves. Also lions can't suvive on plants like we can. We might all belong to the animal kingdom but we're not the same animal, we don't have the same brain the body the same digestive system. It doesn't take a genius to know that suffering sucks. Suffering is bad. Why do I even need to mention this? Suffering should be avoided. It is wrong to cause suffering on anything. Give me quotes from multiple experts saying we need meat to suvive. It's ethics. And it's irrelevant unless you believe humans should have the right to cause harm on other living beings. Do you believe that? So they don't suffer? ever. Is that what you're saying? Unless you are saying that. This is irrelevant. Again irrelevant. You can't prove this it's just speculation. When I read this all I get is "me. me .me .me .me blah blah blah. I know more so shut up." I never argued that! I argued we evolved to eat meat. Show me evidence that shows otherwise. Plants do not have a central nervous system or pain receptors it's very unlikely that they suffer and if they do it's not as much as larger mammals. Suffering is the issue here. So what because other things are worse this can't be bad? Sorry if I missed anyones argument post it again and I'll be happy to tear it apart.

1.- Yes 2.- It's more the treatment of animals that I find a form of cruelty in most cases. And I don't believe it's right to bring any living organism (including human beings but that's another debate) into the world for selfish reasons. On the basis that an animal feeling pain is bad and a non existent animal not feeling pleasure isn't bad. Now I would say that you cannot ultimately eliminate pain from any existent living organism and for those reasons they should not be bred for selfish reasons. 3. I find that many are forms of cruelty there are exceptions however it is mainly point 2 that I am arguing against. 4. essentially. Agreed my argument was mocking his inane constructs. Actually I have to disagree with this if you look at the evolution of humans from our ancestors you'll notice that it's well documented that humans switching to meat had an adverse effect on human evolution in the teeth and jaw and other things. Before humans had a wide suface area tooth which would make it more difficult to eat meat. An article from Nat geo with quotes from various experts on the topic. Explaining that cooking softens meat, by cutting up our food we don't need such a large jaw etc http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0218_050218_human_diet_2.html Please provide sources for where you got your information.

"You are very clearly from the "meat is murder"" That's an ad hominem. Which is another logical fallacy. You haven't got a clue on my position. Do not try to undermine my position by labelling it. "I'd love to see you try and tell that to a lion or an anaconda. Not going to happen." Of course nature is like that. Humans DO NOT NEED to eat meat we are not carnivores like lions and anacondas. Plus humans have the capacity to ignore what is coded in their DNA unlike most animals. Just because nature is like that doesn't mean we should follow it. AGAIN It is an appeal to authority. What you're essentially saying is "Nature does it so it's ok" You know what else is natural? SMALLPOX. But we changed our mind on that pretty quickly didn't we? yeah, So if you're going to argue that everything unnatural is bad you should get off the computer because guess what? computers aren't natural and therefore must be bad by your logic. "Humans are omnivores," Yes we *can* consume prepared cooked meat. That's because we don't have the digestive system to deal with the bacteria in most raw meat. If humans had not discovered fire we wouldn't be eating meat. And just because we can does not justify anything. I can probably stab someone with a kitchen knife but it doesn't justify it. You have still yet to provide evidence that we need it. People eat it because we're addicted to it but if you brought up your children as vegetarians there would be no addiction. I don't think most people are terrible people because they eat meat. I just think they haven't thought about it. "Bringing up the actual business of slaughter is actually highly relevant, because I cannot count all the times I have had one of the "meat is murder" camp shriek at me "If you knew what happened when your dinner was slaughtered you wouldn't be eating that". Well I do, and I do." That's a strawman yet another logical fallacy. That's not my argument. You're arguing against someone else. Quote me where I have said "If you knew what happened when your dinner was slaughtered you wouldn't be eating that". "Umm...err...highly infections<sic> disease of cloven hooved beasties that causes considerable suffering to the animals." I never brought up anything about foot and mouth or anything of the sort. Every time I have said that there is no need for it is towards the slaughter of animals in general, because if they weren't bred to die it never would have happened. And also this would contradict my view of euthanasia. I also asked for evidence. WHERE IS IT? show me a peer reviewed scientific study which documents the need for humans to eat meet. "Arcane20 was arguing, so it seems, since he appears to think that killing an animal can never be justified" You're strawmanning me AGAIN!. That isn't my argument :wallbash: . My argument is that eating meat perpetuates an industry that bases itself on the breeding and slaughtering of livestock due to an inane archaic construct that human beings should eat meat and if people didn't eat meat there would be no need for the industry and no need for the unethical treatment and slaughter. Now I accept that people are addicted to meat it's hard to quit but there is no justifiable excuse to raise children to eat meat. That is my argument, what is yours? Do you know what's bad mannered?; mislabelling my position because you have no evidence.

I'm kindof curious why this is in the debate thread.

I completely disagree that intelligence is seen as a negative thing by everyone. I think you're just in the wrong circles.

In pretty much any debate religion can be involved. Sorry but I'm not responsible for that and wasn't trying to invoke religion in anyway I haven't made any claim about it so don't bring it up again. I thought this was pretty obvious but "There's probably people posting here who eat meat" Had nothing to do with telling people not to post. It was a point that pretty much *everyone* has caused needless harm on animals since a lot of people didn't seem to realise that. "that meat eaters are automatically monsters who inflict unwarranted cruelty on animals" I do actually think that it is unwarranted though I wouldn't call people monsterous in most cases. It is highly unwarranted, show me evidence that human beings need meat to survive. Not to mention the fact that many many vegetarians are perfectly healthy. People eat meat for selfish reasons and animals suffer for it. "I am also aware of how animals are slaughtered and yes, I have actually seen it, both in an abattoir and otherwise" Entirely irrelevant and an appeal to authority. " I will not go further into the gruesome process of exactly how it was done here." It's an atrocity it doesn't need to happen. And until you can provide evidence that their death is nessesary then it's unethical. "there was a dreadful job to be done " :wallbash: my point is that these is no need for it to be done. Again Show me evidence that it needed to happen. Animals are sentient beings they can feel they can suffer. If a human had the intelligence of an animal would you say it was ok to eat this human because he's not as intelligent or advanced as other humans. If you want to eat meat that's one thing but most people bring up their children to eat meat. Which again doesn't ned to happen. Don't give them the taste for it and they won't need it. The rest of your comment I think was more to yourself than to me because it has no relevance what you've experienced or what happens in a minority of cases. You can't deny that most people will not buy freerange because they're more expensive. If that happened everywhere would be freerange. So yeah please keep your experiences out of the debate it's not evidence or even an argument. :down: edit: missed something "well I hate to tell you this, but it is quite normal for animals to eat each other." This doesn't make it right. Just because something happens in nature doesn't make something good or right or acceptable. Also change your condecending tone.

Wouldn't that be Kangaroo pouch in your case?... :teehee: Well played. Thanks for your consideration of the upside down face also so I didn't have to tilt my head to see it.

It seems like a very interesting idea... what happened to cause you to leave, if you don't mind me asking? http://www.thenexusforums.com/index.php?/topic/428166-strike-1-monster-755/ That comment is just far too personal for me to accept this and that hits me hard. This person has not uploaded anything to nexus or contributed in any significant way. And then out of his own ignorance attacks me on a subject as personal as that. I can deal with people not reading the FAQ, I can deal with most insults and I can deal with people making the same comments over and over again but for me this is just too much. So I've spent the last day thinking about it and I've calmed down a bit. There's a point when I just have to say no this isn't acceptable and this is where I draw the line. Even if I decide to stay I won't be uploading anymore files. It's just not worth the hours I spend making nice description boxes, cleaning up files to a decent standard, arranging them so they're easy to install and then wasting my metered upload capacity for people like this. It might be unfair to a lot of people in the communtiy who leave constructive criticism and say nice things but yeah a few nice things said to me and the feeling that I'm contributing just isn't worth it to me as long as people like this are here. :ermm: