Is there proof for...

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Do you have a problem with eating your relatives? If so then you had better stop eating.

I don't have a problem because I don't believe that I'm related to broccoli. On the other hand you are the one who should have the problem, because you actually sic believe that you are eating a distant relative.[/b]

No problem there.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why should I have a problem with it? I don't see anything wrong with eating my distant relatives.

Yeah, I know, I know... Firstly you have to chop them up into pieces and then boil them in a pot...

So tell me would you have a problem if someone chopped you up into pieces and then boiled you in a pot before eating you?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yeah, I know, I know... Firstly you have to chop them up into pieces and then boil them in a pot...

So tell me would you have a problem if someone chopped you up into pieces and then boiled you in a pot before eating you?

Are you a vegetarian deej? If not, well, the same argument applies to you.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No problem there.

And by the same logic you shouldn't have a problem with anything else either.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Are you a vegetarian deej? If not, well, the same argument applies to you.

By my logic I am not related to vegetables, by your logic you are.

Originally posted by dj2becker
By my logic I am not related to vegetables, by your logic you are.

Well, no.... Unless you aren't human, of course. We either both are, or both are not. There is no logical way I can be related, and you are not.

Originally posted by dj2becker
And by the same logic you shouldn't have a problem with anything else either.

You really are a master of sweeping generalisations, aren't you?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, no.... Unless you aren't human, of course. We either both are, or both are not. There is no logical way I can be related, and you are not.

First you must logically prove that you are related to broccoli. Good luck.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You really are a master of sweeping generalisations, aren't you?

You were the one that said we are all related to broccoli. Speak about a master of sweeping generalisations. 😉

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yeah, I know, I know... Firstly you have to chop them up into pieces and then boil them in a pot...

So tell me would you have a problem if someone chopped you up into pieces and then boiled you in a pot before eating you?

Of course I would have a problem with it. But what does that have to do with me not having a problem with doing it to distant relatives such a broccoli?

Does it have anything to do with my claim that we are relatives or not? Please explain.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course I would have a problem with it. But what does that have to do with me not having a problem with doing it to distant relatives such a broccoli?

Does it have anything to do with my claim that we are relatives or not? Please explain.

The point is this: explain the logic behind not having a problem by eating a distant relative, but having a problem when you are eaten by a distant relative.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The point is this: explain the logic behind not having a problem by eating a distant relative, but having a problem when you are eaten by a distant relative.

You're kidding right?

Originally posted by dj2becker
First you must logically prove that you are related to broccoli. Good luck.

I could go into the similarities of DNA sequence, gene homologies, cellular biochemical similarities, I could show cladistic analyses; I could present all manner of data, and you'd sweep it under the carpet with your favourite excuse for everything - "magic man done it".

Why not prove that this magic man exists? I can prove all my data.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You were the one that said we are all related to broccoli. Speak about a master of sweeping generalisations. 😉

Your two sentences don't make any sense when put together.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The point is this: explain the logic behind not having a problem by eating a distant relative, but having a problem when you are eaten by a distant relative.

I will explain it when you explain the logic behind not having a problem by eating a piece of broccoli, but having a problem when you are eaten by piece of broccoli.

[edit]
You are claiming that the two positions are related and conflicting. You must show that first before I need to show any logic as to why they do not conflict.