Who are your friends?

More or less. We have some differences of course..but we have a lot of similarities, too.

I don't hang with anyone. My longtime nextdoor neighbor is my closest buddy.

Me no understand!

I LOVE BIRDS!

For the most part yes birds of a feather do flock together...... when I worked.. my friends were co workers and when I drank a lot of beer my buddies were I can say drunks.

Most of my friends are conservative. I do have some friends that are somewhat liberal. But, my liberal friends aren't over the edge. Most of my friends I've known for 35, 45 to 60 years. My friend who I've known for 60 years, I tell her everything, and visa versa. Some of my other friends, even though I've known them many years, I would not confide everything.

I guess, it's not something I talk about much with my friends - there's so much more interesting things to talk about...

i would say we are different but the same in many ways. i have many gay and lesbian friends but not all by far. i have a good many liberal friends(and those aren't all the gay and lesbian friends-i don't understand it either) but not all by far. i have a few tho' not many ring wing conservative friends. i have about half have children and half don't and we don't have any kids. many friends younger and many the same age and a few older. i do have a lot of friends from work. hmmm, it's actually pretty varied!!!!

I tend to be friends with people that are in some way different or eccentric.

I would say I was also different and eccentric.

My SO is normal though, she keeps me sane

I'm not certain if all of my friends are atheist, but we're all anti-religious.
Most of us are a bit (to very) bent.
Most of us are liberal but we don't talk about it often anyway.
We're very 21st Century.
Like a post-post modern man.
Oh, we're pretty post-ironic, too.

government employees like me, from the neighborhood where I live, from a Colombian neighborhood nearby, etc. There's no set group for me; I make friends pretty easily.

My oldest and dearest friends are 1 from high school, 1 from undergrad, and 2 from the Army.

I'm atheist, friends are atheist, jewish, quaker, hindu, buddhist, and various denominations of christian. I'm libertarian and friends are mostly liberal or conservative. I'm straight with friends who are straight, gay, and bi. I'm 45 with friends from their mid-20's to mid-50's. This makes me sound all open-minded but I don't really think of myself that way.

I suppose my friends are all over the map, though I'm not sure what qualifies someone as being my friend (where do a draw the line? Do I could all those people on facebook, some of which I've never met in person? What about people at SC? ). I think it's fair to say that most of my friends are liberal and agnostic. I used to be liberal but I'm more libertarian now. I probably got that from dab. Though, he's more extreme about it and I'm still liberal in some ways. I think I tend to be more extreme about being atheist. I'm not agnostic. Though, if pressed, you might get me to admit to some sort of universal spirit kind of thing.

I think I tend to choose a position that's different from the people around me. It's like I play devil's advocate and it sticks a little. But, really, I like to think I just see things from different sides more easily. But, this may cause me to seem conservative around my friends who are liberal because I will sometimes try to defend or at least explain the conservative point of view. And, in truth, I think conservatives make some good points (mostly about government spending - though libertarians cover that better, though probably too extreme too).

A great majority of my friends are supportive of gay/lesbian rights as am I. I think that may be one of the things there's very little difference on. We're homogeneous about homosexuality.

My friends are largely liberals. I'm an atheist, but many of my friends, including my SO, are not. I think there's some variety among my friends, although I will admit that it's not an enormous amount. They are probably all more like me than not. The biggest difference I probably have with a lot of my friends is with the Jewish ones who are pro-Israel. Not all of my Jewish friends are Zionists, but some of them are. I'm not exactly anti-Israel, but I'm not much for it, either.

I'm an idiot, so...

I have different friends with different beliefs and hobbies. Birds of a feather don't always flock together. I've had friends that did things I'd never do.

My friends are from all walks of life, and I wouldn't have it any other way I have friends who are Christians, new-age, atheist, tall, short, chubby, thin, introverted, extroverted ... it doesn't matter.
That's the beauty of friendship - dwelling on the things you have in common, and respecting each other for the things you do not have in common.

My friends don't have feathers, they have fur.

With my friends, all the usual differences exist, like sex, religiosity (is that a word?), politics, etc., but mostly I go to movies and dinner and plays and stuff with people who are near my own age. Age is my comfort zone. With family, anything goes.

I hang with similar birds, but not alike. It's hard to find nerdy liberal feminist Christian women.

Mixed nuts

Me and my friends are all from unique and interesting flocks. We have different politics and religious views but when we talk about things we are always interested in our friends views.

then Mary and I go home and talk about them heh heh heh

No, my birds are all shapes and sizes.

My friends have been in jail and those are the kinds of friends i have and friends in prison as well

I'm an atheist, but most of my friends are Christian. I've a vegetarian, but many of my friends eat meat. I'm pretty left-wing and my friends seem to be pretty well spread politically.

> I'm an atheist, but most of my friends are Christian. I've a vegetarian,
> but many of my friends eat meat. I'm pretty left-wing and my friends
> seem to be pretty well spread politically.


What's your reason for being a vegetarian?

I became vegetarian when I was about 12, partly because I wasn't all that fond of meat and was increasingly finding eating it fairly distasteful (we weren't well-off, so - bar special occasions - I was rarely exposed to good cuts of meat , just lots of fatty, gristly, veiny stuff), partly because it was at about that time that the BSE/vCJD thing was really big news, and partly because it seemed like the right thing to do in a rather woolly sort of way.

As I've got older, the ethics of it have become more of an issue for me. I do believe that meat can be produced in a sustainable and ethical way, but I don't think the meat industry is very good at doing that at the moment. People in general eat far more meat than they should and that has a huge impact on the environment and also raises issues about the efficient use of land and resources (e.g. because the land/resources needed to produce enough meat to feed 10 people might be sufficient to grow enough vegetable crops to feed 1000 people - I forget the actual ratio, but it's big.) Obviously, it isn't as simple as, 'if no-one ate meat, no-one would go hungry' but it does contribute, especially the ridiculously excessive consumption of meat in the West. I also don't think that the meat-industry as it stands is cruelty free. We aren't perfect at relieving suffering in our hospitals where that is the main aim of the whole operation, so I have my doubts that the whole process of meat animals from birth to death is as ethically sound as it should be. Finally, I don't need to eat meat in order to live or remain completely healthy and if I don't need an animal to die, then do I have the right to eat meat at all?

There are clearly plenty of rejoinders to everything I've said so far:

Firstly, my vegetarianism is not entirely rational and objective - there's a huge subjective component which is difficult to qualify and therefore it's difficult to say if it's reasonable or not. Secondly If I only ate meat occasionally, I could afford to buy good quality cuts that would be much more pleasant to eat and could also ensure that I only bought free-range local meat that I was confident had been produced to the highest ethical standards. Also, as I would be eating small amounts, I wouldn't really be a major contributor to resource-use problems. Then there's the fact that vCJD never became a huge epidemic but as a result of it, the safety standards in the British meat industry are some of the best in the world. Finally, it's early days, but it does seem likely that perfectly acceptable meat could be grown in labs in the future, without the need for an animal (so no nervous system and hence no capacity for suffering). All of these things make me question my vegetarianism, especially the idea of lab-grown meat as there are no rational objections that I could make to that (assuming therewere no safety issues, and I see no real reason why there should be), but I still have a sense that I would still feel uncomfortable renouncing my vegetarian ways and eating meat again...which is where that subjective 'something' rears its head again!

Thanks.

I became a vegetarian as of January

What were your reasons?

> What were your reasons?


I don't agree with the statement that we shouldn't eat meat. However, I think the current practice of breeding animals for food is incredibly cruel and inhumane. The main obstacle in improving this is the fact that there are too many mouths in the world to feed. However, I also lay blame to religion which has over estimated the importance of humans over other animals.

If the world accepted that we came onto this earth by natural selection, then we would accept that we are equal with all life on the planet, and that cramming 10,000 chickens into a shed is simply cruel and unnecessary. We have the intelligence that other animals don't have, yet very few of us use it for the right reasons.

So where do you stand on animal experimentation?

I hate it and would never use any products that experimented. However, I must admit I have not done enough research and I have probably used products that have done this. That, I must look into quickly!

And medically?

Against

Is this where you give me the bombshell and tell me that I inadvertentely advocate animal testing by going to the doctor?

How do you think that drugs are tested? How do you think that we have developed a detailed understanding of physiological processes that allow us to develop new treatments? It's not so much that you are advocating animal testing by going to the doctor, as that you are benefiting from it. But it's not just when you go to the doctor, it's when you walk down the street, secure in the knowledge that you aren't going to get smallpox or when you drink tapwater or when you slap on suncream at the beach...There's also the irony that at this moment in time, doing more animal experimentation is helping us to learn how we can reduce animal experimentation in the future. Not to mention that when we use animals in experiments for human gain, we also further our knowledge of how to treat animals medically and gain insight into how to meet their needs and avoid suffering (for example, in the meat industry). It's not perfect (remember the 'elephant man' human trial of a drug that had previously been tested in animals?) and we shouldn't rely on it more than we have to, but as long as there are people in the world who may derive genuine benefits from animal testing (clearly, I'm not talking about a better shampoo here) then I want those people to be my priority.

Besides, are all animals really equal? Would you swat a fly because it's bothering you? Or just ignore it as it beats its head against your window until it runs out of energy and dies? Then why not use fruit-flies in genetics studies? Or are fruit-flies less worthy than other animals after all? And if so, where do you draw the line? Do you just ban animal testing on cute animals? Working out which (if any) animals truly perceive pain or fear is studded with pitfalls so that's not a great criterion. So what is?

> then I want those people to be my priority.

I don't see why humans should get priority.

> Besides, are all animals really equal?

Of course

> Would you swat a fly because it's bothering you?

Never, I don't even kill mosquitos!

> Or just ignore it as it beats its head against your window until it runs out of energy and dies?

I don't ignore it, I always help it escape.

> Then why not use fruit-flies in genetics studies? Or are fruit-flies less worthy than
> other animals after all? And if so, where do you draw the line?

I draw the line below all forms of life that don't have a nervous system. If a living thing feels pain, then we need to consider it.

> Do you just ban animal testing on cute animals?

Absolutely not, one of my favourite animals is the spider.


> Working out which (if any) animals truly perceive pain or fear is studded with pitfalls
> so that's not a great criterion. So what is?

All animals feel pain

> I don't see why humans should get priority.

A human child and a kitten are drowning in a pool of water. They've both stopped breathing and you'll need to perform CPR (a skill in which you happen to have been trained on both humans and cats) so it's only going to be possible to help one of them. All else being equal, which do you save?

> I draw the line below all forms of life that don't have a nervous
> system.

So, experiments involving fruit flies really are out as far as you are concerned? They are one of the best models we have for human genetics and have contributed massively to our understanding of some truly awful genetic disorders.To me, even millions of fruit flies, bred in a lab, couldn't come close to equalling a human life. Again, would you run into a burning building and rescue a box full of fruit flies, or would you rescue a person instead?

> All animals feel pain

I'll freely admit that I don't know or understand a huge amount of neuroscience, but I do know that isn't true. 'Pain' is a perception, not a sensation. You might be able to make zen blanket statements like that to some people, but I have a biology degree and I'm studying medicine. A fruit fly does not experience pain. C.elegans does not experience pain.

> |> I don't see why humans should get priority.
>
> A human child and a kitten are drowning in a pool of water. They've
> both stopped breathing and you'll need to perform CPR (a skill in
> which you happen to have been trained on both humans and cats) so
> it's only going to be possible to help one of them. All else being
> equal, which do you save?


No idea which I would save. Probably 51% child but because I choose the child, it doesn't mean that it SHOULD be picked above the cat!



> |> I draw the line below all forms of life that don't have a nervous system.
>
> So, experiments involving fruit flies really are out as far as you
> are concerned? They are one of the best models we have for human genetics
> and have contributed massively to our understanding of some truly
> awful genetic disorders.To me, even millions of fruit flies, bred
> in a lab, couldn't come close to equalling a human life. Again, would
> you run into a burning building and rescue a box full of fruit flies,
> or would you rescue a person instead?

You're right, fruit flies have contributed to our understanding but this has also contributed to the grossly over populated human situation that we are in. Is it a good thing to put one species through pain in order to prolong and disperse the life of another type?

> |> A human child and a kitten are drowning in a pool of water...which do you save?

> No idea which I would save. Probably 51% child but because I choose
> the child, it doesn't mean that it SHOULD be picked above the cat!

Are you saying that because you're trying to stick to your guns, or are you saying that because it's true? If it is true, then I find that pretty shocking.

> You're right, fruit flies have contributed to our understanding but
> this has also contributed to the grossly over populated human situation
> that we are in.

Which is why the most- overpopulated countries in the world are also the ones that are the most renowned for their amazing healthcare and sanitation...not. Besides, genetics is far too new a field to be held accountable for massive population growth.

>Is it a good thing to put one species through pain
> in order to prolong and disperse the life of another type?

Um, I'll say it again: fruit flies do not experience pain. If you think they do, then you really have absolutely no concept of what pain is, how the nervous system works or what the function of the brain is. You cannot experience pain without 'understanding', which is why it is one of the measures of sentience. You really think that fruit-flies are sentient?!

You're claiming that your beliefs are based on rationalism and science, but you don't understand the science. It's like anti-MMR campaigners who don't even know what's in the vaccine.

When did you become so militantly atheist and so zealously interested in animal rights? It seems like it's a fairly new thing - at least, not something I remember you commenting a lot about last time we were both around at SC .

> |> |> A human child and a kitten are drowning in a pool of water...which
> do you save?
>
> |> No idea which I would save. Probably 51% child but because I
> choose
> |> the child, it doesn't mean that it SHOULD be picked above the
> cat!
>
> Are you saying that because you're trying to stick to your guns, or
> are you saying that because it's true? If it is true, then I find
> that pretty shocking.

Like I said, I would probably go for the child but my point is that there is no reason why the child should be saved ahead of the kitten! Just because a human is more intelligent doesn't make it more important: if not, then Einstein was more valuable than the average human.

> |> You're right, fruit flies have contributed to our understanding
> but
> |> this has also contributed to the grossly over populated human
> situation
> |> that we are in.

> Um, I'll say it again: fruit flies do not experience pain. If you
> think they do, then you really have absolutely no concept of what
> pain is, how the nervous system works or what the function of the
> brain is. You cannot experience pain without 'understanding', which
> is why it is one of the measures of sentience. You really think that
> fruit-flies are sentient?!

I admit, I don't know enough about fruit flies so I'll take your word for it. Any good links for me to look into?

> When did you become so militantly atheist and so zealously interested
> in animal rights? It seems like it's a fairly new thing - at least,
> not something I remember you commenting a lot about last time we were
> both around at SC .

It's a new thing. Two years ago, I was a carnivore and didn't question the existence of God. Then I woke up

Sorry if my last reply was a bit snarky - combination of being tired and PMSy!

> Like I said, I would probably go for the child but my point is that
> there is no reason why the child should be saved ahead of the kitten!
> Just because a human is more intelligent doesn't make it more important:
> if not, then Einstein was more valuable than the average human.

That's a good point, but it's not necessarily about intelligence. To me, it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective that I should put those more like me higher than those less like me (the basis of altruism, though it's a lot more complex than that!). Given equal choice, I would save my own child from drowning rather than another child. I would save my friend rather than a stranger. I would save a cat rather than an insect. Take a few steps back, and why should that be the case? I think it's laudable that you want to value animals and that you want to consider them equal to humans - from the perspective of nature (if it had one!) then of course humans and other animals are the same, but as humans, I think we have the right to be a little bit biased! In a way, you are actually looking at humans in an unequal way - other animals would either ignore both animals in a drowning scenario, or might save one that they were very closely related to (thought no CPR!!!) but you wouldn't judge them negatively for favouring their own. Only humans would try to save any child they saw drowning, and only in humans would so many risk their lives to save a complete stranger (and many would risk their lives to save a mammalian animal too) yet you would judge humans for favouring other members of their own species, despite the fact we are the species that takes altruism to a whole new level.

> I admit, I don't know enough about fruit flies so I'll take your word
> for it. Any good links for me to look into?

I actually recommend that favourite resource of medical students: Wikipedia! Look up 'nociception' and 'pain' and try to understand what the difference is. Then try and be aware that even nociception is not seen in all animals - fruit flies have nociceptors but most other insects don't. If you were interested beyond that, then you could read some wider neurology, but it's very difficult to get your head around (no pun intended!) You have a point when talking about pain in animals like cats or rabbits, but their perception of pain is still incredibly limited. Once you understand that pain is a 'perception' then you can start to see how an awareness that pain may signal death or disability is (probably) going to be limited to humans with our big cerebral cortex. Even if a cat is 'perceiving' a pain in its leg, its nervous system doesn't seem capable of allowing it to be aware that this may mean it will lose the leg or even die. Human experience of pain has much greater depth than that seen in other animals - we suffer more from pain because we understand what it can mean. Does greater suffering indicate greater need, and greater need give us the right to use other animals to ease that suffering? I think it does, but of course it isn't straightforward (with fruit flies, I think it's straightforward!)


> It's a new thing. Two years ago, I was a carnivore and didn't question
> the existence of God. Then I woke up

Was there a trigger? Did the two go together?

> Sorry if my last reply was a bit snarky - combination of being tired
> and PMSy!

No worries, I respect you too much!

> |> It's a new thing. Two years ago, I was a carnivore and didn't
> question
> |> the existence of God. Then I woke up
>
> Was there a trigger? Did the two go together?
>
>
>

There was no connection between the two except that they both occured during my 'enlightenment' period (since 2006)

The animal affinity came first, followed by the religion.

The animal affinity came naturally; I didn't use to like animals much (especially small ones) but it gradually increased. I knew in 2006, when I spend 30 minutes saving flies from a swimming pool, that a lot had changed.

As for my Athiesm, it was a combination of watching a few documentaries, and being a fan of consiparcy theories (Is God part of the overall consiracy that rocks our planet!?)

Okay, but you have to learn how to spell "atheist" if you want to be one!

I get a bit narky about the animal rights thing because I've encountered quite a few animal rights groups (in Oxford) that are essentially terrorist organisations. There's no circumstance in which digging up someone's dead grandma, threatening someone's small children or burning down university property is justifiable. I've also seen a lot of people suffering from diseases that are being controlled to some extent by treatments tested on animals - the sheer level of suffering that would exist if those treatments weren't available (and do exist in countries where they cannot afford them) is staggering. I can respect your view that from the perspective of nature, all life is equal, but I could never agree that as humans we should share that perspective. But I'm very human-centric - I look at vets and I just can't understand why they would choose that over medicine (it's harder to get into veterinary school than medical school). Obviously, someone has to do it, but it's not a choice I would ever have made.

> I get a bit narky about the animal rights thing because I've encountered
> quite a few animal rights groups (in Oxford) that are essentially
> terrorist organisations. There's no circumstance in which digging
> up someone's dead grandma, threatening someone's small children or
> burning down university property is justifiable. I've also seen a
> lot of people suffering from diseases that are being controlled to
> some extent by treatments tested on animals - the sheer level of suffering
> that would exist if those treatments weren't available (and do exist
> in countries where they cannot afford them) is staggering. I can respect
> your view that from the perspective of nature, all life is equal,
> but I could never agree that as humans we should share that perspective.
> But I'm very human-centric - I look at vets and I just can't understand
> why they would choose that over medicine (it's harder to get into
> veterinary school than medical school). Obviously, someone has to
> do it, but it's not a choice I would ever have made.


Surely it's improvements in sanitation, like clean water supplies and proper sewage disposal, that have contributed the most to the health of human beings. There is also better housing conditions and improved nutrition. Animal experimentation in the name of health is only a minimal improvement, despite the maximum cruelty inflicted from it. The main improvement have resulted in human studies: anaesthetics, stethoscope, penicillen etc. None of these had any animal testing!

You're right that improved sanitation, etc. has contributed the most to improved human health since the industtrial revolution, but we've done that now (here at least) and yet there is still a lot of suffering. That was the age of sanitation and hygiene, this is the age of evidence-based-medicine and scientific medicine. It's a bit like saying "The invention of the landline telephone contributed the most to increasing human communication and globalisation - so why bother with mobile phones or the internet?" I don't want to do unnecessary animal testing (and some of it *is* unnecessary), but if animal testing offers the hope of curing my brother's diabetes before he ends up suffering amputations, strokes, blindness and an early death then I want those animal tests to be done.

> You're right that improved sanitation, etc. has contributed the most
> to improved human health since the industtrial revolution, but we've
> done that now (here at least) and yet there is still a lot of suffering.
> That was the age of sanitation and hygiene, this is the age of evidence-based-medicine
> and scientific medicine. It's a bit like saying "The invention of
> the landline telephone contributed the most to increasing human communication
> and globalisation - so why bother with mobile phones or the internet?"
> I don't want to do unnecessary animal testing (and some of it *is*
> unnecessary), but if animal testing offers the hope of curing my brother's
> diabetes before he ends up suffering amputations, strokes, blindness
> and an early death then I want those animal tests to be done.


Fair enough. I guess it now comes down to how much people like animals and how they compare in valuation to humans...

Something we can agree on