PDA

View Full Version : Isn't maynard a vegetarian?


ThePhilanthropist
11-30-2003, 05:53 PM
Someone in tool is a vegetarian.. I'm almost positive of that.

maybe its the guy that runs the website..

maybe he's making fun of himself/the non-veggies?

nyeh..

Just wondering.

corps d'allumen
12-08-2003, 06:05 PM
i'm not a vegetarian. does that count?

AllforUnity
12-09-2003, 12:38 PM
l'm not sure...ask Maynard for yourself.

Pantient Mental
12-13-2003, 10:28 PM
Arent vegies life

AllforUnity
12-15-2003, 12:48 PM
l suppose, if you're implying the fact that through photosynthesis they produce oxygen, therefore causing us to breath and live.

aintsofar
12-15-2003, 05:34 PM
causing?

AllforUnity
12-15-2003, 08:22 PM
Yes, causing...causing being the produce of an effect, the effect is that we breath. The cause is plants producing oxygen.

Pantient Mental
12-16-2003, 09:28 AM
No I mean if you look in a dictionary to see what life is plants will fall in that category

aintsofar
12-16-2003, 03:09 PM
... causing being the produce of an effect, ...

...and produce being vegetables, we've come around full-circle =) sorry for playing Jesus's advocate, but sloppiness is just something worth pouncing on.

To be so arrogantly particular: I don't think a cause is a product of an effect. That would be saying that the reason for invading Iraq is that the Yankees have captured Saddam. I would agree to the opposite, that an effect is the product of a cause ....

Wait, no, I think I figured out what you mean ... that it's because plants produce oxygen that we breathe, taking in that oxygen to get excess carbon out of our bodies, and without that process we would die. But I think if it's worded like "plants cause us to breathe" the message gets confused.

Apologies again. I really enjoy fighting =)

salival_sty
12-17-2003, 10:27 PM
To be so arrogantly particular: I don't think a cause is a product of an effect. That would be saying that the reason for invading Iraq is that the Yankees have captured Saddam. I would agree to the opposite, that an effect is the product of a cause ....

Wait, no, I think I figured out what you mean ... that it's because plants produce oxygen that we breathe, taking in that oxygen to get excess carbon out of our bodies, and without that process we would die. But I think if it's worded like "plants cause us to breathe" the message gets confused.


Yeah, that would be the normal interpretation of the phrase "cause and effect"--that causes produce (npi) effects. However, the whole phenomenon of cause and effect is myth anyway. Think of two examples for a moment: 1. I hit myself in the head with a hammer, and I bleed; and 2. I go outside every morning and chant prayers to the sun, and the sun comes up.
Obviously the latter example is a blatant example of post hoc ergo procter hoc; my chanting has (most will agree) nothing to do with the sun coming up each morning. In the former example, which we would generally accept as a pure and simply understood example of cause and effect, we can never really prove causality, for similar reasons to the problem with the chanting/sun problem.
In the bleeding example, we can seek to prove cause and effect by initiating the "cause" action and waiting for the "effect" action, but the only "proof" we obtain from this could be matched in the chanting/sun example. (For more on this, check out Nietsche and, oh what the hell, the book "Willow.")

As a side-note, evolutionary theory usually puts plant life before animal life, with plant-life creating an atmosphere and environment in which animal life can bud, so our breathing may in fact be an effect of plant life.

"I've come 'round full-circle."