17 of 20
17
Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism
Posted: 02 November 2008 12:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 241 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  73
Joined  2008-10-20
erasmusinfinity - 02 November 2008 12:02 PM
sate - 02 November 2008 10:42 AM

I didn’t say anything about desperation or survival. if I had a warehouse full of tofu and wheat or whatever you folks eat I’d still kill animals and eat them.

downer

Don’t be sad, erasmusinfinity.  Sate has no argument what so ever to justify this.  When it comes time to enact laws, he and his kind will have nothing and will easily lose.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2008 12:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 242 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
BaIB - 02 November 2008 12:28 PM
erasmusinfinity - 02 November 2008 12:02 PM
sate - 02 November 2008 10:42 AM

I didn’t say anything about desperation or survival. if I had a warehouse full of tofu and wheat or whatever you folks eat I’d still kill animals and eat them.

downer

Don’t be sad, erasmusinfinity.  Sate has no argument what so ever to justify this.  When it comes time to enact laws, he and his kind will have nothing and will easily lose.

Yes-soon there will be laws outlawing the production and consumption of meat. tongue rolleye BaIB,you’re zealotry in regards to the rights of animals shines forth in your argumentative “skills”.Can you envision a world where the rights of animals will soon take precedent over humankind?NO?Me either.So,given that I don’t see the rights for millions of humans improving anytime soon,I have a feeling that the animals connected with the production of food and hides and medicines and by-products are going to be waiting a long time.
I love animals,I don’t condone animal cruelty,or the needless killings of animals.
Please,your irrational arguing in the defense of animal rights is becoming insulting to some of the more pertinent issues at hand.
You’ve taken peoples quotes out of context,twisted phrases around and given a generous heaping of ad-hominem.For example,I stated,I didn’t think cannibalism was immoral.Look how you convoluted my phrase to make me look cruel and barbaric.Shame on you.Shame on you and your ruthless judgemental attacks!!!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2008 12:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 243 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
BaIB - 02 November 2008 11:33 AM
VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 09:21 AM

So then,humans are basically “moral"I agree.So why then do you think,if humans are moral,that the vast human population eats meat??

I said humans are moral animals.  Humans are moral agents.  Moral in this context means capable of judging right from wrong.  The opposite is amoral, as opposed to immoral.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 09:21 AM

I never said cannibalism was immoral.It crops up when normal meat sources are scarce.It could also be used for rites and ritual.

I don’t even know what to say to that.  What century are you from?

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 09:21 AM

Yes I know the difference between artificial and natural selection.What is your point in relation to my sentences there?

Pigs, cows and other domesticated animals did not evolve, as you said, they were created by us using artificial selection.  They are the way they are because we created them precisely the way we wanted them.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 09:21 AM

I won’t provide any argument,everything I stated in my post is basically fact.I don’t think that the progress of civilization is immoral.Just like the progress of civilization included stocking of animals,and hunting of animals for food and hides.

And also including slavery, genocide, oppression of women, and child labor.  So should we revive these practices and continue with them?

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 09:21 AM

As far as animals having rights,feel free to help the animals defend their rights,just as people try and defend their own rights.

I am working towards non-human animals being granted basic rights.  This has already happened in Span where chimpanzees were granted basic rights.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 09:21 AM

I don’t need to provide any arguments.You however must provide an argument supporting why people have been wrong to hunt,capture,breed and stock animals for food,hides,raw materials.

I did provide an argument.  Again, it is wrong to kill humans, humans are one of the animals species, therefore, it is wrong to kill other animals.  But since you don’t agree with the first premise, there is no common ground for us to begin with.  And frankly, I am glad I have no common ground with someone who even thinks that killing and eating humans is OK.

Another example of your methods.Concerning evolved and artificial selection.As you no doubt read my post,my statement was,”...these animals were slowly domesticated and evolved alongside man"Slowly domesticated implying artificial selection,or husbandry.Evolved alongside man,meaning the literal sense and the “slow passage of time,and referencing long period of refinement"Yes baIB,“Evolve” meaning a slow gradual term where something is refined and perfected!!!
I will seek no further to parse out anymore of your argumentative low-blows.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2008 01:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 244 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  73
Joined  2008-10-20
VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 12:40 PM

Yes-soon there will be laws outlawing the production and consumption of meat. tongue rolleye

When did I ever say “soon”?  I am very much aware that it won’t be soon, but it will happen.  As I said, chimpanzees in Spain were granted rights recently.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 12:40 PM

BaIB,you’re zealotry in regards to the rights of animals shines forth in your argumentative “skills”.

If I am so bad at arguing, then why do people still feel a need to answer my posts? And no one was able to refute my arguments.  They were just ignored.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 12:40 PM

Can you envision a world where the rights of animals will soon take precedent over humankind?NO?Me either.

I can envision a world when non-human animals will not be used by humans as means to our ends.  I never said that non-human animals’ rights should take precedence over human rights.  I don’t even see a conflict.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 12:40 PM

So,given that I don’t see the rights for millions of humans improving anytime soon,I have a feeling that the animals connected with the production of food and hides and medicines and by-products are going to be waiting a long time.

Is it the fault of non-human animals that we humans violate each other’s rights?  Why should non-human animals be punished because we are rotten to each other?

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 12:40 PM

I love animals,I don’t condone animal cruelty,or the needless killings of animals.

You can take your love and shove it you know where!  Do you think animals care whether you love them or not?  No.  They care about not being killed.  You kill them and dead them.  Yeah, you love them alright, when they are lying dead on your dinner plate.
Throughout centuries men claimed to love women (just look at the literature), but what good was that to us women.  Men still treated us as their property.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 12:40 PM

Please,your irrational arguing in the defense of animal rights is becoming insulting to some of the more pertinent issues at hand.

My arguments are not irrational just because you call them irrational.  You have to prove by rational argument that they are irrational.  You have not done that.
What pertinent issues at hand?  Were we not discussing animal rights?  I am not aware of any other issue being discussed just now on this thread.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 12:40 PM

You’ve taken peoples quotes out of context,twisted phrases around and given a generous heaping of ad-hominem.For example,I stated,I didn’t think cannibalism was immoral.Look how you convoluted my phrase to make me look cruel and barbaric.Shame on you.Shame on you and your ruthless judgemental attacks!!!

I did not take anything out of context.  How can I do that when everything is recorded?
You said that you don’t think cannibalism is immoral.  That leads me to conclude that you are cruel and barbaric.  I don’t think any sane person would disagree with me.  Cannibalism is cruel and barbaric.  It is not practiced in civilized society.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2008 01:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 245 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1214
Joined  2007-09-21
BaIB - 02 November 2008 12:28 PM

Don’t be sad, erasmusinfinity.  Sate has no argument what so ever to justify this.

Thanks for the cheer up BaIB.  I know that he has no argument to justify this.  But that he is intent without reason makes me even more sad.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2008 01:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 246 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  73
Joined  2008-10-20
VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 12:54 PM

    Another example of your methods.Concerning evolved and artificial selection.As you no doubt read my post,my statement was,”...these animals were slowly domesticated and evolved alongside man"Slowly domesticated implying artificial selection,or husbandry.Evolved alongside man,meaning the literal sense and the “slow passage of time,and referencing long period of refinement"Yes baIB,“Evolve” meaning a slow gradual term where something is refined and perfected!!! I will seek no further to parse out anymore of your argumentative low-blows.

You said: “ You know,when the christians or buddhists or whatever religion speaks of intelligent design,I often think their best argument could concern food sources.Look at pigs and cows.The hybridization and stocking of these animals is perfect.Look at a pig.It’s a veritable feast of plenty walking around on four legs.Same for the cow.Pigs,cattle and chickens.These animals were slowly domesticated and evolved right along side of man.This was no accident.Eggs,milk,cheese,meat,tallow,hides,glue,medicine.”

As if to argue that since cows, pigs, and chickens are so good at giving us meat, milk and eggs, that it is obvious and natural that we should use them.
I replied that they are the way they are because WE MADE THEM that way by using artificial selection. We can take any animal (humans included) and alter his/her genetics to make the animal so that we can best exploit her/him.  It is not a moral justification for exploitation of non-human animals.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2008 01:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 247 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
BaIB - 02 November 2008 01:14 PM
VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 12:40 PM

Yes-soon there will be laws outlawing the production and consumption of meat. tongue rolleye

When did I ever say “soon”?  I am very much aware that it won’t be soon, but it will happen.  As I said, chimpanzees in Spain were granted rights recently.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 12:40 PM

BaIB,you’re zealotry in regards to the rights of animals shines forth in your argumentative “skills”.

If I am so bad at arguing, then why do people still feel a need to answer my posts? And no one was able to refute my arguments.  They were just ignored.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 12:40 PM

Can you envision a world where the rights of animals will soon take precedent over humankind?NO?Me either.

I can envision a world when non-human animals will not be used by humans as means to our ends.  I never said that non-human animals’ rights should take precedence over human rights.  I don’t even see a conflict.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 12:40 PM

So,given that I don’t see the rights for millions of humans improving anytime soon,I have a feeling that the animals connected with the production of food and hides and medicines and by-products are going to be waiting a long time.

Is it the fault of non-human animals that we humans violate each other’s rights?  Why should non-human animals be punished because we are rotten to each other?

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 12:40 PM

I love animals,I don’t condone animal cruelty,or the needless killings of animals.

You can take your love and shove it you know where!  Do you think animals care whether you love them or not?  No.  They care about not being killed.  You kill them and dead them.  Yeah, you love them alright, when they are lying dead on your dinner plate.
Throughout centuries men claimed to love women (just look at the literature), but what good was that to us women.  Men still treated us as their property.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 12:40 PM

Please,your irrational arguing in the defense of animal rights is becoming insulting to some of the more pertinent issues at hand.

My arguments are not irrational just because you call them irrational.  You have to prove by rational argument that they are irrational.  You have not done that.
What pertinent issues at hand?  Were we not discussing animal rights?  I am not aware of any other issue being discussed just now on this thread.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 12:40 PM

You’ve taken peoples quotes out of context,twisted phrases around and given a generous heaping of ad-hominem.For example,I stated,I didn’t think cannibalism was immoral.Look how you convoluted my phrase to make me look cruel and barbaric.Shame on you.Shame on you and your ruthless judgemental attacks!!!

I did not take anything out of context.  How can I do that when everything is recorded?
You said that you don’t think cannibalism is immoral.  That leads me to conclude that you are cruel and barbaric.  I don’t think any sane person would disagree with me.  Cannibalism is cruel and barbaric.  It is not practiced in civilized society.

I also thought your assertions that some members arguments were derived from being “....white,male and heterosexual”,was a very bad choice in taste.How contrived!!
Cannibalism is considered cruel by you,and the christian missionaries that encountered them.Scientific viewpoints can point to rational explanations for cannibilism.

[ Edited: 02 November 2008 01:25 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2008 01:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 248 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  73
Joined  2008-10-20
erasmusinfinity - 02 November 2008 01:19 PM
BaIB - 02 November 2008 12:28 PM

Don’t be sad, erasmusinfinity.  Sate has no argument what so ever to justify this.

Thanks for the cheer up BaIB.  I know that he has no argument to justify this.  But that he is intent without reason makes me even more sad.


But without an argument or even a reason, he is not going to be successful in the long run. In the long run, we will win.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2008 01:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 249 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1214
Joined  2007-09-21

I admire your optimism BaIB.  I don’t think that it always works that way.  I hope that you are right.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2008 01:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 250 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
BaIB - 02 November 2008 01:22 PM
erasmusinfinity - 02 November 2008 01:19 PM
BaIB - 02 November 2008 12:28 PM

Don’t be sad, erasmusinfinity.  Sate has no argument what so ever to justify this.

Thanks for the cheer up BaIB.  I know that he has no argument to justify this.  But that he is intent without reason makes me even more sad.


But without an argument or even a reason, he is not going to be successful in the long run. In the long run, we will win.

In humankinds quest for rationality,and progressive thinking,any situation in which a win/lose scenario is envisioned verily cancels out the rationality or progression,thereby making it redundant.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2008 01:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 251 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  227
Joined  2008-07-26
BaIB - 02 November 2008 11:49 AM

sate:Except that I want meat.

And pedophiles want to have sex with children.  Rapists want to rape. So I guess that’s ok because a want justifies it.

I have seen no argument here that persuedes me for the slightest moment any comparison between human suffering and the painless death of an animal could be made. I’ve seen no persuasive argument that humans and animals are morally identical. and yes, wants do matter. They are human industry, art, culture, and science.

BaiB - 02 November 2008 11:49 AM

Sate:Reform would work perfectly just as reform as alleviated other social ills.

Reform would not solve anything.  Animals would still be murdered.

So, eliminating the cruel warehousing, painful killing, cannibalism, disease and suffering of millions and millions of animals counts as nothing to you.. if we kill them painlessly later? Animals can not be murdered, only people can.

BaiB - 02 November 2008 11:49 AM

sate:I didn’t say anything about desperation or survival.

And you would be acting immorally.
If you can justify killing humans, then you can justify killing other animals.

According to you. I reject your pronouncements and I submit there is no convincing argument that humans and non-human creatures are morally identical. However, I am always willing to entertain them. Want to share some? Indulge yourself, pedophile-style.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2008 01:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 252 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  227
Joined  2008-07-26
erasmusinfinity - 02 November 2008 01:19 PM
BaIB - 02 November 2008 12:28 PM

Don’t be sad, erasmusinfinity.  Sate has no argument what so ever to justify this.

Thanks for the cheer up BaIB.  I know that he has no argument to justify this.  But that he is intent without reason makes me even more sad.

What madness grips this thread? BaiB is in full-tilt foaming at the mouth mode, but what is your excuse? Why wouldn’t I have an argument to justify it? is this insult necessary? What is the matter with you? intent without reason? Here’s an idea: how about you ask instead of just leap to hurling insults? I thought you were better than this.

First, no preference need be justified. It is what it is. You like chocolate and I like rocky road. So what? Now is one choice moral or immoral? That’s another question- an action needs to be justified. My justification is that animals do not have sufficient moral status that prohibits using them for sustenance. They are not people. They do not have any particular right to exist.

Where are the protestors for protozoa and dust mites, I wonder? Funny their animalistic rights to life seem absenta even from PETAs agenda. Seems we all draw our line somewhere.. don’t we?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2008 02:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 253 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  227
Joined  2008-07-26
BaIB - 02 November 2008 01:14 PM

...As I said, chimpanzees in Spain were granted rights recently.

I’m glad Spain is there to show us the way. They are on the frontier of animal rights.. in between that thing where they slice up drugged cows to the cheers of stadium crowds I mean. Either way, they’re all about the cutting edge.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2008 02:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 254 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
BaIB - 02 November 2008 01:20 PM
VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 12:54 PM

    Another example of your methods.Concerning evolved and artificial selection.As you no doubt read my post,my statement was,”...these animals were slowly domesticated and evolved alongside man"Slowly domesticated implying artificial selection,or husbandry.Evolved alongside man,meaning the literal sense and the “slow passage of time,and referencing long period of refinement"Yes baIB,“Evolve” meaning a slow gradual term where something is refined and perfected!!! I will seek no further to parse out anymore of your argumentative low-blows.

You said: “ You know,when the christians or buddhists or whatever religion speaks of intelligent design,I often think their best argument could concern food sources.Look at pigs and cows.The hybridization and stocking of these animals is perfect.Look at a pig.It’s a veritable feast of plenty walking around on four legs.Same for the cow.Pigs,cattle and chickens.These animals were slowly domesticated and evolved right along side of man.This was no accident.Eggs,milk,cheese,meat,tallow,hides,glue,medicine.”

As if to argue that since cows, pigs, and chickens are so good at giving us meat, milk and eggs, that it is obvious and natural that we should use them.
I replied that they are the way they are because WE MADE THEM that way by using artificial selection. We can take any animal (humans included) and alter his/her genetics to make the animal so that we can best exploit her/him.  It is not a moral justification for exploitation of non-human animals.

Would you argue that mans domestication of these animals,whether it is chickens for food,cows for meat and milk,horses for power and transportation,was unnatural?Would you argue that this development of humankind was a wrong turn in the history of civilization?Are you proposing that man,now in the present day is enlightened enough to know that these were wrong choices,and that now we must turn away from the animal as a means of resource?
One other question.Do you have any pets?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2008 03:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 255 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  73
Joined  2008-10-20
sate - 02 November 2008 01:42 PM

I have seen no argument here that persuedes me for the slightest moment any comparison between human suffering and the painless death of an animal could be made.

Why are you comparing these two things?  What do they have in common?

sate - 02 November 2008 01:42 PM

I’ve seen no persuasive argument that humans and animals are morally identical. and yes, wants do matter. They are human industry, art, culture, and science.

When did you join this discussion?  There were at least 3 variations of the argument for animal rights:
1.  Richard Dawkins’ in the interview under which this discussion is taking place
2.  Tom Regan’s as discussed in his book “The Case for Animal Rights”
3.  Mine

Add to that Peter Singer’s utilitarian argument.  Go back and read the discussion. It is rude to just jump in and make everyone repeat himself or herself.

sate - 02 November 2008 01:42 PM

So, eliminating the cruel warehousing, painful killing, cannibalism, disease and suffering of millions and millions of animals counts as nothing to you.. if we kill them painlessly later? Animals can not be murdered, only people can.

Maybe not nothing, just a temporary fix until the animals are totally liberated.

sate - 02 November 2008 01:42 PM

According to you. I reject your pronouncements and I submit there is no convincing argument that humans and non-human creatures are morally identical. However, I am always willing to entertain them. Want to share some? Indulge yourself, pedophile-style.

When someone presents an argument, the opponent either accepts it or refutes it.  If you don’t want to do either of these two, then leave the discussion.

Profile
 
 
   
17 of 20
17