Vegan

[iago]

I figured I should post this here, somewhere open and clear.

Yes, I'm a vegan. The last time I purposely ate something non-vegan was mid-October, when I had a sub at Quiznos and forgot to ask for no cheese. The last time I purposely ate meat was sometime in August or September, when I had a chicken sub at Subway (and my friend suggested I try a veggie sub, which I did the next day since Subway's chicken sucks anyways).

Yes, I'm careful to take all necessary vitamins and minerals (vitamin B12, D, and iron, calcium, and protein). I eat a lot of stir fries, stews, vegetables, beans, middle eastern food, and soy/tofu.

If you have any questions, comments, etc., feel free to post. I know I've brought this up before, but I figured I'd make sure that everybody who cares enough to read my forum notices.

[BigAznDaddy]

i wish i could try to go a month without eating meat or any dairy products but i cant. i just need the protein and all the nutrients that comes out of meat, fish and other stuff like that. although chinese new years is comming up and i have to go at least one day without eating meat. so rice, tofu, and steamed vegetables here i come.

[Newby]

i wish i could try to go a month without eating meat or any dairy products but i cant. i just need the protein and all the nutrients that comes out of meat, fish and other stuff like that.

Supplements. You can do it!

[iago]

i wish i could try to go a month without eating meat or any dairy products but i cant. i just need the protein and all the nutrients that comes out of meat, fish and other stuff like that.

Supplements. You can do it!

You can do it fine without supplements, as long as you eat the right vegetables. There are a lot of world-class athletes (Olympic runners, Tour de France cyclists, weight lifters, etc) who are vegan. It's not easy, and you have to eat a lot of leafy greens and such, but it's certainly possible.

For me, I don't work out a lot (my usual workout is either cycling 20km or walking up stairs to my 16th story apartment), so I just keep up a decent protein intake and I'm good.

[Krazed]

I'm just wondering, whats the real reason behind being Vegan, other then that kid you knew where you used to live?

[iago]

He's not a kid, he's an adult much older than me with a family.

In any case, I meant to mention that in my first post, but I totally forgot to. Then I was going to go back and add that, but I forgot to do that, too.

The reason are really two-fold, though. The first is health. Meat isn't good for you. Meat consumption has been linked to various forms of cancer, heart disease, and other nasty stuff. Not to mention that the majority of saturated fats, cholesterol, and other bad stuff come from dairy and the like. The main benefit to meat and dairy is the vitamins and minerals you get from them, but those can be consumed in different ways that, although they aren't as efficient, they are healthier.

The second reason is ethical. I mentally evaluated my beliefs about animals. Am I ok with animals suffering for me? Dying for me? I'm upset when my dog or cat dies, but not the cow that fed me. Does that make sense? What's the difference between my dog and a cow/pig/chicken, other than familiarity? I couldn't resolve that question in any meaningful way. A lot of people imagine farms as ideal places where animals wander around and stuff, but 80% of the meat in Canada (and probably more in the US) come from factory farms and feedlots. In those situations, animals are treated extremely badly. Dairy cows and egg chickens and such are treated basically the same as the meat animals, and the ones that don't produce enough are simply killed off and fed to the others. When I was at the Calgary zoo, they had buckets of dead baby chickens (the male ones, whatever they're called) to feed animals. They said that they came from chicken farms and that they're of no use since they don't lay eggs, so they're just killed.

I'm aware that this doesn't happen everywhere, but the first part of my paragraph holds, in my mind -- what's so special about me that it's ok for other living animals to die just for my pleasure? I consider that selfish.

In addition to those two main reasons, there are a lot of good facts here, including environmental reasons, monetary reasons, etc. Those weren't big concerns in my mind, but they're definitely worth looking at.

The main influence of my friend who did it was showing me that it's not a difficult lifestyle to live. Before I knew him, I assumed that it was an extremely difficult lifestyle to maintain. After seeing him do it, I realized that it was a pretty easy lifestyle, as long as you don't mind giving up things like fastfood. So there you go.


Also note that I'm not trying to start an argument, and that this decision isn't up for debate. But you asked for the facts, so there they are.

[Towelie]

The first is health. Meat isn't good for you. Meat consumption has been linked to various forms of cancer, heart disease, and other nasty stuff. Not to mention that the majority of saturated fats, cholesterol, and other bad stuff come from dairy and the like. The main benefit to meat and dairy is the vitamins and minerals you get from them, but those can be consumed in different ways that, although they aren't as efficient, they are healthier.

That made me lol. It is like saying that breathing has been linked to cancer, or drinking water has been proven to cause death.

[Sidoh]

That made me lol. It is like saying that breathing has been linked to cancer, or drinking water has been proven to cause death.

There's a much stronger correlation then that.

[iago]

The first is health. Meat isn't good for you. Meat consumption has been linked to various forms of cancer, heart disease, and other nasty stuff. Not to mention that the majority of saturated fats, cholesterol, and other bad stuff come from dairy and the like. The main benefit to meat and dairy is the vitamins and minerals you get from them, but those can be consumed in different ways that, although they aren't as efficient, they are healthier.

That made me lol. It is like saying that breathing has been linked to cancer, or drinking water has been proven to cause death.

I can't really argue that, because it doesn't really make sense. But maybe I'll talk a bit about risk management.

It really comes down to risk levels (which I can talk about all day, because managing risk is essentially my job). Everything you do carries a certain level of risk and a certain level of "return" (pleasure? utility? call it what you want). The first step to risk management is to identify and understand the risks, and the second step is to evaluate whether or not the risk is worth taking, based on your understanding of it. That's how all of our decisions are made, basically, only we don't really think of it that way, it's built in.

Now, to look at breathing and drinking water, perhaps there is some risk involved. You can inhale something dangerous, or drink too much water. But the return on taking the risk is continuing to live, so that's a risk that everybody accepts without even thinking about it. Smoking cigarettes, driving cars, walking outside at night, and drinking pop are also risks, but each can also have associated returns for taking them. Cigarettes relax people, cars speed up transportation, walking at night could save money, and people enjoy the taste of pop. That's another example of a risk-return analysis -- some people lean one way, some people lean the other.

So apply that to meat -- when you eat meat, you're raising your risk of heart disease and cancer. The benefit is that you get to enjoy the taste/texture of what you're eating. That's the very simplest way to look at it. Is the benefit worth the risk? I personally don't think it is, but that's my personal evaluation.

Admittedly, there's more to it than that, which you can see from my other post. But I wanted to make this a fairly simple risk-benefit analysis.

And incidentally, because breathing and drinking water don't even correlate with cancer or death, your argument makes no sense to begin with. Unless you can provide the "link" you speak of? But really, I suspect that this whole post won't mean a thing to you. (Also, what Sidoh said while I was typing. )

[Ender]

On "milk fat":

My family friend bought me a bar of dark chocolate. As a vegan, I can eat dark chocolate so long as they don't add milk into it. But when I scanned the ingredients of this bar, I found one instance of milk: "milk fat".

In fact, I found this in many other items of their house, such as the waffles. And in all these other items that I'm talking about, the word "milk fat" was the only instance of "milk" in the ingredients.

What's up with this? Wikipedia says

Butterfat or milkfat is the fatty portion of milk. Milk and cream are often sold according to the amount of butterfat they contain.

Is that why they list milk fat as an ingredient in the dark chocolate bar and waffles we have here? As a substitute for the word "milk"? Or is it because there's actually no dairy in there, just the fat that comes from milk.

In either case, it should not be okay for a vegan, since it's still an animal byproduct.

[iago]

Weird, I've never seen that ingredient before, the big ones you have to watch out for are whey, casein, and gelatin. I don't know what that is, but it's definitely non-vegan.

I try to buy organic foods as much as I can, I got a brand of toaster waffles called "flax plus". They're really good. I don't know if you have Safeway where you live, but around here Safeway is selling more and more organic things. I'm actually pretty impressed at their selection. But in any case, organic foods tend to have less extraneous ingredients (preservatives, colours, fillers, etc) than their counterparts, which I like. I still read labels, of course.

[Rule]

[CrAz3D]

Meat isn't good for you. Meat consumption has been linked to various forms of cancer, heart disease, and other nasty stuff.

Bull shit.  if you watch what you eat almost anything natural is good.

[Blaze]

Meat isn't good for you. Meat consumption has been linked to various forms of cancer, heart disease, and other nasty stuff.

Bull shit.  if you watch what you eat almost anything natural is good.

Actually, iago is correct.

[iago]

Meat isn't good for you. Meat consumption has been linked to various forms of cancer, heart disease, and other nasty stuff.

Bull shit.  if you watch what you eat almost anything natural is good.

Let me re-state this for the 100th time: NOTHING you eat is natural!

And it's true -- do some research if you don't believe it.

[Rule]

Besides, that's a stupid comment from Crazed.  Natural does not mean good for you.  Can you explain yourself?

[iago]

Besides, that's stupid comment from Crazed.  Natural does not mean good for you.  Can you explain yourself?

That's a good point, too. There are tons of poisonous substances in nature. Rattlesnake venom comes to mind, for some reason.

[Rule]

Also, is it "natural" to cook meat?  At what point did it become "natural"?
Is it natural to pasturize milk? etc.

[Newby]

Let me re-state this for the 100th time: NOTHING you eat is natural!

And it's true -- do some research if you don't believe it.

So if I ate a brand-new baby....

[Towelie]

The first is health. Meat isn't good for you. Meat consumption has been linked to various forms of cancer, heart disease, and other nasty stuff. Not to mention that the majority of saturated fats, cholesterol, and other bad stuff come from dairy and the like. The main benefit to meat and dairy is the vitamins and minerals you get from them, but those can be consumed in different ways that, although they aren't as efficient, they are healthier.

That made me lol. It is like saying that breathing has been linked to cancer, or drinking water has been proven to cause death.

I can't really argue that, because it doesn't really make sense. But maybe I'll talk a bit about risk management.

It really comes down to risk levels (which I can talk about all day, because managing risk is essentially my job). Everything you do carries a certain level of risk and a certain level of "return" (pleasure? utility? call it what you want). The first step to risk management is to identify and understand the risks, and the second step is to evaluate whether or not the risk is worth taking, based on your understanding of it. That's how all of our decisions are made, basically, only we don't really think of it that way, it's built in.

Now, to look at breathing and drinking water, perhaps there is some risk involved. You can inhale something dangerous, or drink too much water. But the return on taking the risk is continuing to live, so that's a risk that everybody accepts without even thinking about it. Smoking cigarettes, driving cars, walking outside at night, and drinking pop are also risks, but each can also have associated returns for taking them. Cigarettes relax people, cars speed up transportation, walking at night could save money, and people enjoy the taste of pop. That's another example of a risk-return analysis -- some people lean one way, some people lean the other.

So apply that to meat -- when you eat meat, you're raising your risk of heart disease and cancer. The benefit is that you get to enjoy the taste/texture of what you're eating. That's the very simplest way to look at it. Is the benefit worth the risk? I personally don't think it is, but that's my personal evaluation.

Admittedly, there's more to it than that, which you can see from my other post. But I wanted to make this a fairly simple risk-benefit analysis.

And incidentally, because breathing and drinking water don't even correlate with cancer or death, your argument makes no sense to begin with. Unless you can provide the "link" you speak of? But really, I suspect that this whole post won't mean a thing to you. (Also, what Sidoh said while I was typing. )

Yeah, that is true. But did we evolve depending on cigarettes, soda, and cars?

[iago]

Yeah, that is true. But did we evolve depending on cigarettes, soda, and cars?

Nope, nor did we evolve depending on meat. The first humans before they had tools/weapons were gatherers, eating berries and vegetables and stuff. We aren't built like meat-eaters, and we didn't evolve like meat-eaters, and we couldn't possibly have eaten meat until we knew enough to invent tools to kill them.

[Rule]

Yeah, that is true. But did we evolve depending on cigarettes, soda, and cars?

Nope, nor did we evolve depending on meat. The first humans before they had tools/weapons were gatherers, eating berries and vegetables and stuff. We aren't built like meat-eaters, and we didn't evolve like meat-eaters, and we couldn't possibly have eaten meat until we knew enough to invent tools to kill them.

I don't think this line of discussion is relevant at all to whether it's a good choice to become vegan or not, but I doubt what you are saying.  We are omnivores, and we did evolve while eating meat.

[iago]

Yeah, that is true. But did we evolve depending on cigarettes, soda, and cars?

Nope, nor did we evolve depending on meat. The first humans before they had tools/weapons were gatherers, eating berries and vegetables and stuff. We aren't built like meat-eaters, and we didn't evolve like meat-eaters, and we couldn't possibly have eaten meat until we knew enough to invent tools to kill them.

I don't think this line of discussion is relevant at all to whether it's a good choice to become vegan or not, but I doubt what you are saying.  We are omnivores, and we did evolve while eating meat.

I agree that it's totally irrelevant.

However, I have trouble believing that our ancient ancestors, without tools or weapons, had the intelligence or ability to kill an animal. We have never had claws or sharp teeth or speed or anything necessary for that type of lifestyle. I suppose we could have been scavengers, but I can't see us actually killing an animal.

Either way, we don't know for sure, but that's just my stand. Whatever the case, the original point still stands.

[Rule]

It's obvious that we have undergone significant evolution as a species while eating meat.  There are many physiological attributes that suggest this, but here's a quote from wikipedia:

Early Homo sapiens employed a hunter-gatherer method as their primary means of food collection, involving combining stationary plant and fungal food sources (such as fruits, grains, tubers, and mushrooms) with wild game which must be hunted and killed in order to be consumed. It is believed that humans have used fire to prepare and cook food prior to eating since the time of their divergence from Homo erectus.

Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming both plant and animal products. The view of humans as omnivores is supported by the evidence that both a pure animal and a pure vegetable diet can lead to deficiency diseases in humans. A pure animal diet can, for instance, lead to scurvy, while a pure plant diet can lead to Vitamin B12 deficiency.[37] However, properly planned vegetarian diets have been found to completely satisfy nutritional needs in every stage of life,[38] significantly reduce risks of major diseases, including cancer,[39] promote a healthier body mass index, reduce excess body fat,[40] and increase longevity.[41][42][43] In particular, non-lean red meat eaten over a lifetime has been found to increase the risks of several forms of cancer by 20 to 60 percent, while possibly causing adverse mutations in DNA.[39]

But even from the Wiki article, it's clear that natural does not necessarily mean better for you.  It suggests that becoming vegetarian is a healthier choice. .

[iago]

It's obvious that we have undergone significant evolution as a species while eating meat.  There are many physiological attributes that suggest this, but here's a quote from wikipedia:

Early Homo sapiens employed a hunter-gatherer method as their primary means of food collection, involving combining stationary plant and fungal food sources (such as fruits, grains, tubers, and mushrooms) with wild game which must be hunted and killed in order to be consumed. It is believed that humans have used fire to prepare and cook food prior to eating since the time of their divergence from Homo erectus.

Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming both plant and animal products. The view of humans as omnivores is supported by the evidence that both a pure animal and a pure vegetable diet can lead to deficiency diseases in humans. A pure animal diet can, for instance, lead to scurvy, while a pure plant diet can lead to Vitamin B12 deficiency.[37] However, properly planned vegetarian diets have been found to completely satisfy nutritional needs in every stage of life,[38] significantly reduce risks of major diseases, including cancer,[39] promote a healthier body mass index, reduce excess body fat,[40] and increase longevity.[41][42][43] In particular, non-lean red meat eaten over a lifetime has been found to increase the risks of several forms of cancer by 20 to 60 percent, while possibly causing adverse mutations in DNA.[39]

But even from the Wiki article, it's clear that natural does not necessarily mean better for you.  It suggests that becoming vegetarian is a healthier choice. .

Well, I was talking about before we used tools, so that would be before we diverged from Homo Erectus. But in any case, that article does support what I said rather well.

For anybody who's curious, this is the article Rule quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Diet

Just in case you want to check references.

[Rule]

Well, at some point when we didn't have tools, we likely consumed less meat, but it's even vaguely wrong to refer to whatever species that was as "we" at that point.  It's more that some ancestor of ours didn't eat meat.  But that's true of nearly any animal. 

A great deal of our evolution took place while we ate meat.  Ancestors of ours that didn't eat meat would hardly be recognizable.  This is evidenced in part by the fact that we are omnivores.  Also through the fact that even Neanderthals used hunting tools.  Also, I believe, through the structure of our teeth, and just in general, the structure of our body and digestive system.  And most primates, tools or no tools, are omnivores.

[Towelie]

I love you Rule. 

[Sidoh]

I love you Rule. 

He's already said what we were in the past is pretty much irrelevant to the choice of your eating habits today.

[iago]

I love you Rule. 

He's already said what we were in the past is pretty much irrelevant to the choice of your eating habits today.

Perhaps Towelie likes people who disagree with him? *shrug*

[Towelie]

I love you Rule. 

He's already said what we were in the past is pretty much irrelevant to the choice of your eating habits today.

Perhaps Towelie likes people who disagree with him? *shrug*

I wasn't arguing that it was relevant to today's eating habits. My intentions (even if what I said said otherwise) was to point out why I thought that statement was funny, in a way.

[iago]

I love you Rule. 

He's already said what we were in the past is pretty much irrelevant to the choice of your eating habits today.

Perhaps Towelie likes people who disagree with him? *shrug*

I wasn't arguing that it was relevant to today's eating habits. My intentions (even if what I said said otherwise) was to point out why I thought that statement was funny, in a way.

You think that the vast majority of people raising their risk of deadly diseases is funny? :-/

[Krazed]

I love you Rule. 

He's already said what we were in the past is pretty much irrelevant to the choice of your eating habits today.

Perhaps Towelie likes people who disagree with him? *shrug*

I wasn't arguing that it was relevant to today's eating habits. My intentions (even if what I said said otherwise) was to point out why I thought that statement was funny, in a way.

You think that the vast majority of people raising their risk of deadly diseases is funny? :-/

Okay, now that is just a pity statement. EVERYTHING is dangerous, you can fall down the stairs and break your neck at any given time. Die from some unknown environmental factor. The way I see it, if you enjoy something, do it. No risk, No reward.

[Ender]

I love you Rule. 

He's already said what we were in the past is pretty much irrelevant to the choice of your eating habits today.

Perhaps Towelie likes people who disagree with him? *shrug*

I wasn't arguing that it was relevant to today's eating habits. My intentions (even if what I said said otherwise) was to point out why I thought that statement was funny, in a way.

You think that the vast majority of people raising their risk of deadly diseases is funny? :-/

Okay, now that is just a pity statement. EVERYTHING is dangerous, you can fall down the stairs and break your neck at any given time. Die from some unknown environmental factor. The way I see it, if you enjoy something, do it. No risk, No reward.

Free falling off Sears tower would be enjoyable... until you die.

[iago]

Okay, now that is just a pity statement. EVERYTHING is dangerous, you can fall down the stairs and break your neck at any given time. Die from some unknown environmental factor. The way I see it, if you enjoy something, do it. No risk, No reward.

Go back and read the long post I wrote about risk.

My conclusion after a few paragraphs was, everything is a risk and has a reward, and life is about accepting certain risks and not others. And that's exactly what you're saying, I think. So we don't disagree.

What I disagree with is Towelie saying that increasing your risk of disease/death is funny.

[Krazed]

Okay, now that is just a pity statement. EVERYTHING is dangerous, you can fall down the stairs and break your neck at any given time. Die from some unknown environmental factor. The way I see it, if you enjoy something, do it. No risk, No reward.

Go back and read the long post I wrote about risk.

My conclusion after a few paragraphs was, everything is a risk and has a reward, and life is about accepting certain risks and not others. And that's exactly what you're saying, I think. So we don't disagree.

What I disagree with is Towelie saying that increasing your risk of disease/death is funny.

True. I just hate nowadays how you constantly hear "don't do this, eat this, etc. It causes this type of cancer, this disease, etc." I eat healthy everyday, maybe a bit too much peanut butter.  But I also eat meat because it tastes great, and is a good source of protein. For me the reward outweighs the risk.

[iago]

True. I just hate nowadays how you constantly hear "don't do this, eat this, etc. It causes this type of cancer, this disease, etc." I eat healthy everyday, maybe a bit too much peanut butter.  But I also eat meat because it tastes great, and is a good source of protein. For me the reward outweighs the risk.

That evaluation is fine, as long as you understand the risks involved, which I think is the most important part.

Everybody knows that smoking has been linked to cancer. Very few people know that eating meat has also been linked to cancer. People need to understand the risk they're taking.

[Sidoh]

True. I just hate nowadays how you constantly hear "don't do this, eat this, etc. It causes this type of cancer, this disease, etc." I eat healthy everyday, maybe a bit too much peanut butter.  But I also eat meat because it tastes great, and is a good source of protein. For me the reward outweighs the risk.

I agree with your implicit premise: it would be less convenient to gather necessary proteins and nutrients from other sources.  I think that on top of already being hugely picky keeps me from becoming vegetarian or vegan.

To be honest, there's very little types of meat I like.  Hamburgers are pretty good, but I only like 1/5 of them I have.  I don't like steak, ribs or any of the other famously delicious meats.  Fried chicken is probably the only thing I consistently like.  If it weren't for my suspicion that I'd hate most of the vegetarian/vegan foods too, I'd probably consider it with more seriousness.

That evaluation is fine, as long as you understand the risks involved, which I think is the most important part.

Everybody knows that smoking has been linked to cancer. Very few people know that eating meat has also been linked to cancer. People need to understand the risk they're taking.

Not that I doubt your claims, but do you have an article or two you could link?  Sorry if you already did.

[Krazed]

Well, I never really looked into protein intake until I started seriously weight lifting, and using meat to add to my daily intake really helps. I take protein shakes everyday, along with some meat (tuna, chicken, steak, whatever.) and generally some PB&J.

[iago]

Not that I doubt your claims, but do you have an article or two you could link?  Sorry if you already did.

There were a bunch of links from the Wikipedia page for "Human" posted earlier. That's where I'd start.

Here's one about cancer:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22199057/

This is about weight gain:
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v30/n9/abs/0803305a.html;jsessionid=D7EBA16AE121A30BFE9429F561030C22

These are about average lifespans:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S
http://www.llu.edu/news/today/july2601/llu.html

And apparently, this is a good source (although I can't verify):
Mattson, Mark P. (2002). Diet-Brain Connection: Impact on Memory, Mood, Aging and Disease. Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 978-1402071294.


In response to Krazed, the average person consumes way more protein than they could use. You may be an exception if you're working out a lot, but on average we don't require a lot of protein to survive.

[Krazed]

Not that I doubt your claims, but do you have an article or two you could link?  Sorry if you already did.

There were a bunch of links from the Wikipedia page for "Human" posted earlier. That's where I'd start.

Here's one about cancer:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22199057/

This is about weight gain:
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v30/n9/abs/0803305a.html;jsessionid=D7EBA16AE121A30BFE9429F561030C22

These are about average lifespans:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S
http://www.llu.edu/news/today/july2601/llu.html

And apparently, this is a good source (although I can't verify):
Mattson, Mark P. (2002). Diet-Brain Connection: Impact on Memory, Mood, Aging and Disease. Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 978-1402071294.


In response to Krazed, the average person consumes way more protein than they could use. You may be an exception if you're working out a lot, but on average we don't require a lot of protein to survive.

To survive, no, we don't. But for a serious body building routine, the average person no longer counts. I take close to 80g of protein in the forum of protein shakes a day, along with whatever I have from food.

[iago]

To survive, no, we don't. But for a serious body building routine, the average person no longer counts. I take close to 80g of protein in the forum of protein shakes a day, along with whatever I have from food.

We still agree, that's exactly what I said.

But you still don't need meat for that, there are world-class athletes that are vegan. They just have to plan their diet more carefully. I'm not telling you to change what you do, though, people asked me questions and I answered. I'm not trying to change anybody's minds.

[Towelie]

What I disagree with is Towelie saying that increasing your risk of disease/death is funny.

You overgeneralized my statement.

[Hitmen]

What I disagree with is Towelie saying that increasing your risk of disease/death is funny.

I think it is pretty funny.

And I'm pretty sure everyone gets cancer at some point in their life these days, so really, what's the problem?

[Joe]

I'm pretty confident Towelie has a point. Breathing the air in Winterpeg can't be good for you.

[iago]

What I disagree with is Towelie saying that increasing your risk of disease/death is funny.

I think it is pretty funny.

And I'm pretty sure everyone gets cancer at some point in their life these days, so really, what's the problem?

Yes, most people get cancer. Also, most people eat meat.

Coincidence?

... probably. 

[rabbit]

Most people eat.  Most people are stupid

Coincidence?


...I'd like to hope so.

[Towelie]

What I disagree with is Towelie saying that increasing your risk of disease/death is funny.

I think it is pretty funny.

And I'm pretty sure everyone gets cancer at some point in their life these days, so really, what's the problem?

Yes, most people get cancer. Also, most people eat meat.

Coincidence?

... probably. 

Haha that immediately reminds me of part of a journal entry I did for English last week. I wanted to see Exodus in concert, and I didn't end up going, and my iPod played it in my car while on shuffle coming home from swim:
"It chose one of the thirty or so songs of that artist from the over 11,000 songs I have on my iPod. That is less that .3% of a chance. Coincidence? Yeah, probably."

[Sidoh]

Most people eat.  Most people are stupid

Coincidence?


...I'd like to hope so.

Again, crappy analogy.

[CrAz3D]

I love you Rule. 

He's already said what we were in the past is pretty much irrelevant to the choice of your eating habits today.

Perhaps Towelie likes people who disagree with him? *shrug*

I wasn't arguing that it was relevant to today's eating habits. My intentions (even if what I said said otherwise) was to point out why I thought that statement was funny, in a way.

You think that the vast majority of people raising their risk of deadly diseases is funny? :-/

Living raises that risk more than anything FYI

[leet_muffin]

I love you Rule. 

He's already said what we were in the past is pretty much irrelevant to the choice of your eating habits today.

Perhaps Towelie likes people who disagree with him? *shrug*

I wasn't arguing that it was relevant to today's eating habits. My intentions (even if what I said said otherwise) was to point out why I thought that statement was funny, in a way.

You think that the vast majority of people raising their risk of deadly diseases is funny? :-/

Living raises that risk more than anything FYI

The risk of being funny? Not for some people.

[Ender]

I love you Rule. 

He's already said what we were in the past is pretty much irrelevant to the choice of your eating habits today.

Perhaps Towelie likes people who disagree with him? *shrug*

I wasn't arguing that it was relevant to today's eating habits. My intentions (even if what I said said otherwise) was to point out why I thought that statement was funny, in a way.

You think that the vast majority of people raising their risk of deadly diseases is funny? :-/

Living raises that risk more than anything FYI

The risk of being funny? Not for some people.

I find CrAz3d funny! (On some days.)

On another note, did you know that a bar of Starburst provides you with 50% DV of vitamin C? This is its one (and only) redeeming factor.

[iago]

Living raises that risk more than anything FYI

As I said before, read the long post I made about risk. The benefits to living outweighs the risks, so it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Before you post about risks here, please think about the risk/benefit -- it's not a good analogy until they start becoming close. With eating meat, I'd say that the risk/benefit is much closer.

[Hitmen]

The benefits to living outweighs the risks

Uhhh, that depends on the person. I don't think the risk of certain people living is worth it at all 

[Blaze]

The benefits to living outweighs the risks

Uhhh, that depends on the person. I don't think the risk of certain people living is worth it at all 

You know how whiny Newby gets when you make fun of him.  Way to go!  >: (

[Newby]

The benefits to living outweighs the risks

Uhhh, that depends on the person. I don't think the risk of certain people living is worth it at all 

You know how whiny Newby gets when you make fun of him.  Way to go!  >: (

O GOOD 1 D00D LOL.

[CrAz3D]

Living raises that risk more than anything FYI

As I said before, read the long post I made about risk. The benefits to living outweighs the risks, so it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Before you post about risks here, please think about the risk/benefit -- it's not a good analogy until they start becoming close. With eating meat, I'd say that the risk/benefit is much closer.

Cost/benefit analysis don't necessarily lead to the best conclusion.  Ford's analysis suggested that they keep with the horribly designed Pinto because it was cheaper to let people die than fix it.

Meat rocks.  Period.  It's a lifestyle choice, not a healthier choice.

[Sidoh]

Cost/benefit analysis don't necessarily lead to the best conclusion.  Ford's analysis suggested that they keep with the horribly designed Pinto because it was cheaper to let people die than fix it.

Meat rocks.  Period.  It's a lifestyle choice, not a healthier choice.

When there isn't a clear, objective answer, it's the only mechanism for arriving at a reasonable conclusion...

It's absolutely a choice that can be made for health reasons.

[Rule]

Living raises that risk more than anything FYI

As I said before, read the long post I made about risk. The benefits to living outweighs the risks, so it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Before you post about risks here, please think about the risk/benefit -- it's not a good analogy until they start becoming close. With eating meat, I'd say that the risk/benefit is much closer.

Cost/benefit analysis don't necessarily lead to the best conclusion.  Ford's analysis suggested that they keep with the horribly designed Pinto because it was cheaper to let people die than fix it.

By definition it leaves you with the best result for you.  You can't get around that.  Your example shows nothing.

[CrAz3D]

Ok, I'll make sure to disregard all other people from now on to better myself.  K thanks bye.

[Rule]

Ok, I'll make sure to disregard all other people from now on to better myself.  K thanks bye.

You include the side effects of your actions in the cost/benefit analysis.  In your example, harming other people would be seen as a cost.  Whatever you get out of harming the people would be seen as a benefit.  If Sum[benefits-costs]>0, then you are better off making that action.  You still don't understand?  The weighting of each cost and benefit is subjective, but it still leads to the best possible decision you can make for yourself, which includes how much your decision affects other people.

[CrAz3D]

Hurting others doesn't cost me.
Like you said, it's subjective.

Hurting other people might benefit me ... greatly.

[Rule]

Hurting others doesn't cost me.
Like you said, it's subjective.

Hurting other people might benefit me ... greatly.

Ok.  Well, hurting others would cost me.  If hurting others doesn't cost you, why don't you do it?

[iago]

Wow, CrAz3d, that's the stupidest conclusion I've heard yet. And that's pretty impressive!

I consider others' lives and happiness, including animals, when I look at costs and benefits.

Costs and benefits work, it's what all of our lives and choices are based on. Everything, whether you realize it or not, is a choice based on costs and benefits.

The only time you wouldn't include other people in your analysis is if you're a totally self-centered person who doesn't care about anybody but himself. Personally, that's not how I am.

[Sidoh]

Hurting others doesn't cost me.
Like you said, it's subjective.

Hurting other people might benefit me ... greatly.

Your argument against the cost/benefit framework for decision making is still inapplicable.  It may sometimes requires the inclusion of subjective arguments, but that doesn't mean it can't be used to arrive at reasonable and often agreeable conclusions.  The "best" conclusion is just as subjective as the premises used to arrive there.  and as iago said, it's the only way decisions are made.

wouldn't

Hehehe.  I was having dinner with a few of my nerdy friends who read xkcd and a guy I met last semester who's a technical journalism major or something (math-phobe, hates complex and confusing things, etc) and I laughed at how many times we referenced xkcd.  We were talking about the mobius strip one where he references Escher and we had to fold a napkin up to show him what a mobius strip was.

[CrAz3D]

Wow, CrAz3d, that's the stupidest conclusion I've heard yet. And that's pretty impressive!

I consider others' lives and happiness, including animals, when I look at costs and benefits.

Costs and benefits work, it's what all of our lives and choices are based on. Everything, whether you realize it or not, is a choice based on costs and benefits.

The only time you wouldn't include other people in your analysis is if you're a totally self-centered person who doesn't care about anybody but himself. Personally, that's not how I am.

Who says I'm excluding people from my analysis?  Harming people that harm me (by locking them up let's say) helps me, but harms them.  The benefit is infinitley greater to the cost, in my perspective.

[Rule]

Wow, CrAz3d, that's the stupidest conclusion I've heard yet. And that's pretty impressive!

I consider others' lives and happiness, including animals, when I look at costs and benefits.

Costs and benefits work, it's what all of our lives and choices are based on. Everything, whether you realize it or not, is a choice based on costs and benefits.

The only time you wouldn't include other people in your analysis is if you're a totally self-centered person who doesn't care about anybody but himself. Personally, that's not how I am.

Who says I'm excluding people from my analysis?  Harming people that harm me (by locking them up let's say) helps me, but harms them.  The benefit is infinitley greater to the cost, in my perspective.

THEN WHY DON'T YOU DO IT?

[CrAz3D]

Society already does it for me.  It's called jail/prison/execution.
It benefits me but definitely harms those in the system (all for the best) much to the dismay of many punishment opponents in society.

[Rule]

Society already does it for me.  It's called jail/prison/execution.
It benefits me but definitely harms those in the system (all for the best) much to the dismay of many punishment opponents in society.

Then explain what's wrong with cost/benefit analysis?  You were implying if you did everything to benefit yourself, it would hurt other people, so cost/benefit analysis doesn't always lead you to the best decisions.

Is there something you aren't doing but would benefit you if you did do it? 

[iago]

Who says I'm excluding people from my analysis?  Harming people that harm me (by locking them up let's say) helps me, but harms them.  The benefit is infinitley greater to the cost, in my perspective.

If you lock up your enemies, you might go to jail for kidnapping (or whatever that's officially called). Or, they might overpower you and injure you. Those are risks. So I wouldn't say it's infinitely greater.

But really, what's the benefit of them going to jail? The benefit to you is that you've got your revenge, and you feel slightly justified. The cost to them is that they lose their life, freedom, well being, possibly their family, friends, and way of life, among other things.

So is jailing somebody an acceptable activity? I'm not so sure. I don't think the penal system works at all.

But this is all really a subject for another thread. We've gone way off topic, and I'll just split it if this continues.

[Rule]

But really, what's the benefit of them going to jail? The benefit to you is that you've got your revenge, and you feel slightly justified. The cost to them is that they lose their life, freedom, well being, possibly their family, friends, and way of life, among other things.

So is jailing somebody an acceptable activity? I'm not so sure. I don't think the penal system works at all.

But this is all really a subject for another thread. We've gone way off topic, and I'll just split it if this continues.

Yeah, you took the bait.  Don't let the argument shift.  We were debating whether cost-benefit decisions are in the best interests of the decision maker. 

[iago]

But really, what's the benefit of them going to jail? The benefit to you is that you've got your revenge, and you feel slightly justified. The cost to them is that they lose their life, freedom, well being, possibly their family, friends, and way of life, among other things.

So is jailing somebody an acceptable activity? I'm not so sure. I don't think the penal system works at all.

But this is all really a subject for another thread. We've gone way off topic, and I'll just split it if this continues.

Yeah, you took the bait.  Don't let the argument shift.  We were debating whether cost-benefit decisions are in the best interests of the decision maker. 

Not quite, that's still a step back.

[Rule]

But really, what's the benefit of them going to jail? The benefit to you is that you've got your revenge, and you feel slightly justified. The cost to them is that they lose their life, freedom, well being, possibly their family, friends, and way of life, among other things.

So is jailing somebody an acceptable activity? I'm not so sure. I don't think the penal system works at all.

But this is all really a subject for another thread. We've gone way off topic, and I'll just split it if this continues.

Yeah, you took the bait.  Don't let the argument shift.  We were debating whether cost-benefit decisions are in the best interests of the decision maker. 

Not quite, that's still a step back.

I don't think so:

Ok, I'll make sure to disregard all other people from now on to better myself.  K thanks bye.

Crazed, why don't you do this?  If there is no cost (to you) for doing this, and it's all benefit, explain why you don't do this?

[Ender]

Hurting others doesn't cost me.
Like you said, it's subjective.

Hurting other people might benefit me ... greatly.

Do you realize how evil this sounds? Take a step back from the blackboard and think about what you've wrote.

By this logic, you should be stabbing people on their walk home and stealing their groceries.

[Rule]

Hurting others doesn't cost me.
Like you said, it's subjective.

Hurting other people might benefit me ... greatly.

Do you realize how evil this sounds? Take a step back from the blackboard and think about what you've wrote.

By this logic, you should be stabbing people on their walk home and stealing their groceries.

Still a side argument.  I don't think he understands cost/benefit analysis.  He is suggesting that if he were to behave by cost benefit analysis, he would go out and do a bunch of crummy things because that would be in his best interests.  But he doesn't do those things because they COST him more than they BENEFIT him; that's what he doesn't understand.  There is no other logical reason for not doing those things.

[Ender]

Yeah, I know I was thinking about posting that, but I wanted to have a little fun.

[rabbit]

Hurting others doesn't cost me.
Like you said, it's subjective.

Hurting other people might benefit me ... greatly.

You seem to have forgotten to add things like "being sued" and "jail" into your cost analysis equation.

[CrAz3D]

Why would I report myself to the police instead of just burying people in my backyard?

[Sidoh]

Why would I report myself to the police instead of just burying people in my backyard?

Clearly your morals are stronger than that.  Aside from that, you're still discounting the risk of being caught.

[Krazed]

Morals are overrated.

[iago]

Why would I report myself to the police instead of just burying people in my backyard?

You do realize that many murderers get caught, right?

You're just trying to derail an argument that you've lost a long time ago.

[Ender]

Wow.

Before I thought CrAz3d was pulling our legs about his having no morals.

Now I'm thinking that he may actually have no morals...

[CrAz3D]

I 'spose I ought to think of a better scenario.


hmm.  oooh, I make chapstick that whens to explode under really rare conditions.  Three people die and I get sued.  Let's say it'd cost me $100k in lawsuits and $200k to fix the problem, which would I do?  The $100k cause that's the most beneficial.

[rabbit]

I have no idea what you're talking about....

[leet_muffin]

I have no idea what you're talking about....

C'mon, even I clearly understand what he's saying.

Someone's selling a product which malfunctions and causes death/injury. Lawsuits as a result of this cost $X amount, and fixing/recall cost is $2X. Lose money, or kill people?

[Ender]

I 'spose I ought to think of a better scenario.


hmm.  oooh, I make chapstick that whens to explode under really rare conditions.  Three people die and I get sued.  Let's say it'd cost me $100k in lawsuits and $200k to fix the problem, which would I do?  The $100k cause that's the most beneficial.

No, CrAz3d, the moral thing to do is the $200k.

I admit there is some controversy over medicines in similar situations. For example, I recently saw a TV show where a medicine had a toxin in it and the FBI suggested that the drug company recall all of its drugs. But then the company could be A) taking life-saving drugs away from people who need them and B) since it was a significant source of medicinal research, the damage of such a recall and its publicity would financially impede the research which can in effect prevent ailing people from getting due cures.

But chapstick doesn't save anyones lives, and chapstick research won't either, so there's no excuse for taking the cheaper route at the expense of others' lives. More generally, it's immoral to make money if it puts people's lives at risk and does nothing else but pad your couch cushions.

[CrAz3D]

I 'spose I ought to think of a better scenario.


hmm.  oooh, I make chapstick that whens to explode under really rare conditions.  Three people die and I get sued.  Let's say it'd cost me $100k in lawsuits and $200k to fix the problem, which would I do?  The $100k cause that's the most beneficial.

No, CrAz3d, the moral thing to do is the $200k.

This isn't about morality ... it's about a cost benefit analysis.

[Ender]

Omg. Are you pulling my leg, or do you not understand that moral transgressions are a cost? Either way, you're being annoying.

[CrAz3D]

Morals are subjective.

OR, one could argue that in a society with an exponentially expanding population we should value people less because there are so many of them and the earth can't support so many.

[Sidoh]

Morals are subjective.

That's true, but so is the value of money.  Plus, I think you'd have a hard time finding someone who doesn't find murder morally objectionable.  When you're operating in the public, it also becomes necessary to take how your actions will be viewed into consideration.  In your example, you may lose revenue because people find your actions morally repulsive.

OR, one could argue that in a society with an exponentially expanding population we should value people less because there are so many of them and the earth can't support so many.

Do you really think that a growing population devalues human life?

[CrAz3D]

I personally don't but others do and you can't say they're wrong because it's subjective.

[Sidoh]

I personally don't but others do and you can't say they're wrong because it's subjective.

I'd hope everyone here recognizes it.  That doesn't mean you can't say they're immoral, though.

I personally don't think that argument is cogent, even if you do discount the obvious moral dilemmas it brings up.

[Ender]

Morals are subjective.

How is this relevant?

The point everyone has been ANTAGONIZING over is that morals are part of cost-benefit analysis for those who are not totally devoid of morals.

There's nothing objective about cost-benefit analysis. It decides what's best for you. It's inherently subjective, since different people give different weight to certain costs.

By the way, don't dodge this and go into a side argument about the subjectivity/objectivity of cost-benefit analysis. As I said, it's completely IRRELEVANT. I only brought it up to clear up your misconceptions.

[CrAz3D]

cost/benefit isnt very useful if it's based on something subjective

[Ender]

It's useful for you.

And if you make assumptions, you can call it objective and use it for other people.

By the way, did you read this?

By the way, don't dodge this and go into a side argument about the subjectivity/objectivity of cost-benefit analysis. As I said, it's completely IRRELEVANT. I only brought it up to clear up your misconceptions.

You just brought it up again. I give up on you.

[iago]

It's useful for you.

Exactly, it's a personal thing.

Like somebody else said, the value of money is subjective, too. I personally value health and happiness far more than money

[Blaze]

I personally value health and happiness far more than money

Greetings, friend. Do you wish to look as happy as me? Well, you've got the power inside you right now. So use it. And send $1 to Happy Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. Don't delay; eternal happiness is just $1 away!

[Sidoh]

cost/benefit isnt very useful if it's based on something subjective

Man, you're missing what we're saying.

Every decision you make in your life is based on weighing costs and benefits.  It doesn't matter if you include things that are subjective in your decisions.  It's important to point out opinionated statements in arguments that try to make general conclusions, but that's not what's happening here.  iago is going through the costs and benefits that he's seen in the vegan lifestyle.  He's not trying to convince anyone that his arguments are generally true or that his conclusions should be accepted by everyone.

Aside from that, an argument can still include premises lightly subjective, make a general conclusion and be legitimately be called a cogent argument.  Classifying something as subjective doesn't automatically mean that it isn't acceptable to most people.  For example, most people would agree that murder is bad.  This is obviously a lightly subjective claim, but that doesn't mean it can't be used in an argument.

I also completely agree with what Ender said.  You seem to consistently dodge what we're saying.

[Ender]

Yeah, I so called that he would do that.

[CrAz3D]

cost/benefit isnt very useful if it's based on something subjective

Man, you're missing what we're saying.

Every decision you make in your life is based on weighing costs and benefits.  It doesn't matter if you include things that are subjective in your decisions.  It's important to point out opinionated statements in arguments that try to make general conclusions, but that's not what's happening here.  iago is going through the costs and benefits that he's seen in the vegan lifestyle.  He's not trying to convince anyone that his arguments are generally true or that his conclusions should be accepted by everyone.

Aside from that, an argument can still include premises lightly subjective, make a general conclusion and be legitimately be called a cogent argument.  Classifying something as subjective doesn't automatically mean that it isn't acceptable to most people.  For example, most people would agree that murder is bad.  This is obviously a lightly subjective claim, but that doesn't mean it can't be used in an argument.

I also completely agree with what Ender said.  You seem to consistently dodge what we're saying.

Meat isn't good for you.

That doesn't seem like him saying "I'm a vegan, yay" it sounds more like "I'm a vegan and you guys are gonna die cause you eat tainted meat"

[Sidoh]

cost/benefit isnt very useful if it's based on something subjective

Man, you're missing what we're saying.

Every decision you make in your life is based on weighing costs and benefits.  It doesn't matter if you include things that are subjective in your decisions.  It's important to point out opinionated statements in arguments that try to make general conclusions, but that's not what's happening here.  iago is going through the costs and benefits that he's seen in the vegan lifestyle.  He's not trying to convince anyone that his arguments are generally true or that his conclusions should be accepted by everyone.

Aside from that, an argument can still include premises lightly subjective, make a general conclusion and be legitimately be called a cogent argument.  Classifying something as subjective doesn't automatically mean that it isn't acceptable to most people.  For example, most people would agree that murder is bad.  This is obviously a lightly subjective claim, but that doesn't mean it can't be used in an argument.

I also completely agree with what Ender said.  You seem to consistently dodge what we're saying.

Meat isn't good for you.

That doesn't seem like him saying "I'm a vegan, yay" it sounds more like "I'm a vegan and you guys are gonna die cause you eat tainted meat"

They just have to plan their diet more carefully. I'm not telling you to change what you do, though, people asked me questions and I answered. I'm not trying to change anybody's minds.

[iago]

That doesn't seem like him saying "I'm a vegan, yay" it sounds more like "I'm a vegan and you guys are gonna die cause you eat tainted meat"

No, I said that people should be aware that there is a risk involved with eating meat, and that they be aware of it when they make the choice to eat it.

I personally evaluated that that risk, combined with my feelings about animals (yes, I include others besides my self in my cost-benefit analyses), isn't sufficient for me to continue eating meat/dairy/eggs.

[Krazed]

That doesn't seem like him saying "I'm a vegan, yay" it sounds more like "I'm a vegan and you guys are gonna die cause you eat tainted meat"

No, I said that people should be aware that there is a risk involved with eating meat, and that they be aware of it when they make the choice to eat it.

I personally evaluated that that risk, combined with my feelings about animals (yes, I include others besides my self in my cost-benefit analyses), isn't sufficient for me to continue eating meat/dairy/eggs.

 

[topaz~]

Hello everyone! I just wanted to share with all of you some exciting things I learned this week. Research has definitively proven that there are health risks involved with eating all types of foods. The only conclusion that can be made is that we must stop eating! Otherwise, we might be at risk of DYING!

[Sidoh]

Hello everyone! I just wanted to share with all of you some exciting things I learned this week. Research has definitively proven that there are health risks involved with eating all types of foods. The only conclusion that can be made is that we must stop eating! Otherwise, we might be at risk of DYING!

Even crazed already tried to make that argument.  It doesn't make sense for obvious reasons.

[CrAz3D]

Hello everyone! I just wanted to share with all of you some exciting things I learned this week. Research has definitively proven that there are health risks involved with eating all types of foods. The only conclusion that can be made is that we must stop eating! Otherwise, we might be at risk of DYING!

Even crazed already tried to make that argument.  It doesn't make sense for obvious reasons.

Yes it does, but whatever.

If igimo and I are agreeing you KNOW it has to be valid !

[Sidoh]

Yes it does, but whatever.

If igimo and I are agreeing you KNOW it has to be valid !

No, it doesn't.  The reason it doesn't was explained very clearly.

[Ender]

Hello everyone! I just wanted to share with all of you some exciting things I learned this week. Research has definitively proven that there are health risks involved with eating all types of foods. The only conclusion that can be made is that we must stop eating! Otherwise, we might be at risk of DYING!

Even crazed already tried to make that argument.  It doesn't make sense for obvious reasons.

Yes it does, but whatever.

If igimo and I are agreeing you KNOW it has to be valid !

I have a feeling igimo won't stand by your side on this one. Even if he agrees with you.

[Ender]

By the way, iago, can we have this thread moved to my forum?

[Blaze]

By the way, iago, can we have this thread moved to my forum?

What difference does it make? 

[Ender]

By the way, iago, can we have this thread moved to my forum?

What difference does it make? 

It makes for a happy Ender.

[Rule]

Does Crazed still not understand that the best personal decisions are always the solution to a benefit/cost optimization problem? 

And I wish people would stop bringing up that retarded argument that anything is a risk. 

Here, let me play devil's advocate.

HEY GUYS, I THINK YOU SHOULD DO HEROIN.  YES, THERE's a RISK BUT THERE IS ALSO A BENEFIT, and LIVING ITSELF IS A RISK, SO QED, AND THAT MEANS QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRATUM.  BY THE WAY, I THINK ALL WOMEN SHOULD WEAR HOCKEY MASKS AS THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT.  DISCUSS.

[iago]

By the way, iago, can we have this thread moved to my forum?

No. But I can split off CrAz3d's posts and move them to yours?

20:09 <newby1337> Ender has requested that the vegan thread be moved to his forum
20:10 <newby1337> (18:09:54) sparky71989: you know the Vegan thread in iago's forum?
20:10 <newby1337> (18:09:56) Newby1337: yes
20:10 <newby1337> (18:10:00) sparky71989: move it to my forum
20:10 <newby1337> (18:10:09) Newby1337: errr
Day changed to 15 Feb 2008
08:45 <Ron> Haha wtf?
08:45 -!- newby1337 is away: Away
08:45 <Ron> Ender's a thief!
09:09 <newby1337> lol

Does Crazed still not understand that the best personal decisions are always the solution to a benefit/cost optimization problem? 

And I wish people would stop bringing up that retarded argument that anything is a risk. 

Here, let me play devil's advocate.

HEY GUYS, I THINK YOU SHOULD DO HEROIN.  YES, THERE's a RISK BUT THERE IS ALSO A BENEFIT, and LIVING ITSELF IS A RISK, SO QED, AND THAT MEANS QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRATUM.  BY THE WAY, I THINK ALL WOMEN SHOULD WEAR HOCKEY MASKS AS THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT.  DISCUSS.

Damnit, that's brillant! Afk, getting heroin.

[Ender]

I'm no thief. Trix are 4 kids.

[Armin]

Is this why you haven't swallowed my sea-men within the past 6 months?

[Ender]

iago man

we should merge forums

call it

""Ender and yago's Vegan Palace""

[Towelie]

iago man

we should merge forums

call it

""Ender and yago's Vegan Palace""

You would have to modify your signature

[iago]

iago man

we should merge forums

call it

""Ender and iago's Vegan Palace""

It's a forum, not a restaurant!

[Joe]

o?