Notices
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 238 of 238
Like Tree17Likes

Thread: Man shoots a horse to prove a point

  1. #201  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    No, dark matter is not arbitrary. That's what makes it different from rights, so that you can have a valid scientific hypothesis about dark matter. See?
    Wow- you are relentless with your lying, aren't you?

    Well, I agree. Dark Matter is different from "rights." But that's irrelevant because you're little lie is just a red herring.
    You're lying to make it appear that I made a claim I did not make.
    This is why you are utterly unable to provide a direct quote of me saying what you claim I say when you dishonestly distort what I've said in a desperate attempt to increase confusion so that you can throw out more fallacies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    A science of animal rights will need to be based strictly on facts, with no opinions or appeals to sentiment involved. Do you see how absurd this is?
    Yes, and it's also plainly clear that that absurdity is a lie, generated by you to make it appear as though claims were made that were not made.
    The demonstration:
    -Your inability to back up your claims about what other people say
    -Your clear obfuscation by implying others have said things by making direct responses or claims without directly showing them saying it in a quote
    -The way you ignore massive amounts of statements, links, references, clarifications and turn around and claim things in direct contradiction to all of the above
    -That you provide no real substance in your responses

    I've continued this charade as it exposes you for the fraud that you really are. But at this point enough is enough. You're plenty of exposed and your ridiculous shenanigans should be ignored from this point onward.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Right. When you are out of arguments, just bluster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Right. When you are out of arguments, just bluster.
    Yeah keep talkin' smack but it's painfully obvious that the only one blustering here is YOU. Along with intellectual dishonesty at every turn, epic failure to support your statements, disregarding evidence and sowing confusion when you cannot back up your lies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    All of the above is bs until you can state what your hypothesis is, and how it is to be tested. You are just beating around the bush.

    Effects of dark matter can be measured or estimated by the rotation of galaxies. Methods of looking for and validating dark matter have been proposed. Dark matter has not been declared to be arbitrary by the same people who are studying it. There isn't any comparison.
    You are applying your double standard again, dismissing this because you claim a lack of evidence or testability, while saying absolutely you do not have to do the same when asked for evidence.

    This is a science forum, and if you are asked for evidence, then you should be prepared to give it. Show us the detailed posting rules that say the Religion subforum should be given a different set or rules to the general forum.
    The double standard is because you are claiming that there is a science of rights and I do not make the claim. Since you are making the claim, then you are the one who is required to present evidence.
    There are not any detailed posting rules for the Scientific Study of Religion forum, except that preaching is not allowed. I interpret that to mean either religious preaching or preaching of an atheistic viewpoint. The name of the forum indicates that scientific discussion is expected.
    What is the specific post number of mine where I have claimed rights are a science. I have provided my evidence at least twice now, you have provided no backing to you assertions. Provide it....
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    What is the specific post number of mine where I have claimed rights are a science. I have provided my evidence at least twice now, you have provided no backing to you assertions. Provide it....
    What exactly did I assert that needs evidence? If you ask me for evidence, then you are implying that I have made a statement of fact about a scientifically verifiable subject. If I say that I prefer blondes to brunettes, are you going to ask for evidence why blondes are better than brunettes?

    Here's the first thing you said that I think was out of line:
    That you think humans have a universal immunity from consequences were animals are involved is not supported by any actual evidence.
    There is no reason to ask Gonzales for evidence unless you think that you are dealing with a scientific topic. Gonzales did not require evidence to believe this any more than you require evidence to believe in animal rights.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    In all reality- there is a scientific reason why you would prefer blondes over brunettes. And that's the proper structuring of the question- see... because you said that you prefer blondes; asking for evidence of blondes being better is a Red Herring. The proper question is why you prefer.
    You just cannot currently quantify it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    In all reality- there is a scientific reason why you would prefer blondes over brunettes. And that's the proper structuring of the question- see... because you said that you prefer blondes; asking for evidence of blondes being better is a Red Herring. The proper question is why you prefer.
    You just cannot currently quantify it.
    We can talk about all kinds of science facts about blondes and brunettes. Pigmentation, rules of inheritance, evolution, etc. None of this will necessarily change my mind about blondes and brunettes, although it just might. But you cant prove which one, if any, that I should prefer. Actually, my preference would probably be due to the culture I was raised in.

    I said something similar to that about rights, and what I believe about rights. It's traditional in the culture in which I was raised. That wasn't good enough for Paleo, though, and he keeps asking me for evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    We can talk about all kinds of science facts about blondes and brunettes. Pigmentation, rules of inheritance, evolution, etc. None of this will necessarily change my mind about blondes and brunettes, although it just might. But you cant prove which one, if any, that I should prefer. Actually, my preference would probably be due to the culture I was raised in.
    Given the influences, your genetic make-up and the physical structure of your brain in conjunction with your glands and hormonal balance- there is a scientific reason why you, personally, would have that preference. You just cannot currently quantify all the factors involved in that conclusion.

    I just said that.

    It does not preclude any necessary requirement that blondes be scientifically be shown to be better than brunettes in any way. That was the wrong question. The proper question was in regards to your preference, not to any supposed actual superiority in blondes.
    Why, oh why must everything be repeated to you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I said something similar to that about rights, and what I believe about rights. It's traditional in the culture in which I was raised. That wasn't good enough for Paleo, though, and he keeps asking me for evidence.
    Parts of the topic are belief and parts are not based on belief. But supporting assertions and beliefs with logic or well reasoned thoughts is far better than simply declaring a belief.
    It is up to Paleo to clarify what he is asking evidence for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    We can talk about all kinds of science facts about blondes and brunettes. Pigmentation, rules of inheritance, evolution, etc. None of this will necessarily change my mind about blondes and brunettes, although it just might. But you cant prove which one, if any, that I should prefer. Actually, my preference would probably be due to the culture I was raised in.
    Given the influences, your genetic make-up and the physical structure of your brain in conjunction with your glands and hormonal balance- there is a scientific reason why you, personally, would have that preference. You just cannot currently quantify all the factors involved in that conclusion.

    I just said that.
    Then I guess we agree on one thing, anyway.
    It does not preclude any necessary requirement that blondes be scientifically be shown to be better than brunettes in any way. That was the wrong question. The proper question was in regards to your preference, not to any supposed actual superiority in blondes.
    Why, oh why must everything be repeated to you?
    Yes, but the analogy is to the discussion about rights. That was not simply a discussion about sociological factors or personal experiences to explain why a certain person believed a certain thing about human or animal rights. That was somebody claiming that somebody else's beliefs did not have "evidence" for them.
    It is up to Paleo to clarify what he is asking evidence for.
    Yes, it is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,249
    I have clarified, I have asked for legal or evidence based support for the assertion that animal rights laws are not valid, and are trumped by undefined tradition.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    I have clarified, I have asked for legal or evidence based support for the assertion that animal rights laws are not valid, and are trumped by undefined tradition.
    I agree that this is reasonable. If 'rights' are trumped by 'tradition,' it is only reasonable to ask why they are trumped.
    "Rights" are only something that are recognized as such. Since beliefs and opinions vary, what legal precedents have been made?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    I have clarified, I have asked for legal or evidence based support for the assertion that animal rights laws are not valid, and are trumped by undefined tradition.
    I'm going to answer the question but first, I want to ask a few questions of my own. Is one right ever trumped by another right? If one right is codified in law, does it always trump the other right that is not a legally recognized right? Do you think there are any unjust laws that violate somone's rights? Just trying to find out the rules of the game.

    Why do you say the tradition is undefined? If a certain thing was legal in the past, then there was a tradition and legal precedent that says a person had the legal right to do it. Is that a sufficient definition, or do you require further definition?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I'm going to answer the question but first, I want to ask a few questions of my own.
    Do you require your questions be answered before you answer?
    I will jump in and answer as well...
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Is one right ever trumped by another right?
    Yes. Now, what are your reasons from trumping the rights of others, based on tradition or principle?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If one right is codified in law, does it always trump the other right that is not a legally recognized right?
    No. Does this mean that asking for a legal precedent is invalid?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Do you think there are any unjust laws that violate somone's rights?
    Yes. Does that mean all laws are invalid or asking for a legal precedent is automatically invalid?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Why do you say the tradition is undefined?
    Tradition is not defined by either law or code- it is merely the way some people have done things so far. There is variance to it and the reasons for doing it are not often defined to much greater extent than, "I'm used to it this way."



    Traditionally, racism and slavery and the like were practiced. There was no legal precedent in the United States to address it for a very long time, but there were opinions about it aplenty. Abolitionists have been around as long as the United States has been around.
    Those that questioned whether slaves should have rights to quality of life were often rebutted with arguments such as these. It was inconvenient to address the rights of slaves.
    It was felt that if a man owned slaves, he had the right to do anything he wished with them. It simply wasn't anyone elses business.
    There were groups that advocated slave rights: That while slaves may be owned, they shouldn't be mistreated.
    Slavery and the Making of America . The Slave Experience: Legal Rights & Gov't | PBS

    The parallel here is that the same arguments are being made to support the exploitation, abuse, neglect or wanton destruction of others because someone thinks that some people have a RIGHT to do such harm, that their RIGHT to do so trumps others rights to quality of life or to even Live.

    Harold14370, the commentary you inject here boils down to: "If there are no absolutes and nothing more than evolutionary consequences, then there is no basis for discussion, argument or opinions."
    Nonsense.
    This is the argument given by fundamentalists, one in which they often also invoke Godwins law, in order to promote the notion that atheists or scientists lack Morality or Ethics without the guiding hand of God and it, along with your strange tactics, oddly uneven response style, strong defensiveness toward religious topics while never being observed to question, contradict or rebut religious claims made on the forum inspires me to accuse you of being a closet fundamentalist tilting at windmills to push your agenda.
    Now, I have no idea if you are or not- and you're just really poor with communication.
    But allow me to clue you in, here:

    "Ethics" is not an absolute nor is it guided by God. Yet, it is an evolutionary trait that has a scientific basis, in spite of your attempts to make it appear that Morality or Ethics are "beyond Science."
    We are driven toward ethics as a survival trait that allows better commerce and economy, better productivity and better sociology in a rapidly expanding population.
    This IS a topic in which science has its place and even when I said I argued from belief, there is a Scientific reason why. And when I pointed this out in your "blonde preference" example- you said we agree on something. We agree that there is a scientific reason why ethics and morality are applicable constructs of humanity. Because of the physical construct of the nervous system, genetics and sociology. Influence, consequence and destruction are factors in why we are as we are. Why we argue in favor or against actions.

    The old and primitive religious isolation of Humanity from the animal kingdom can no longer hold. We have a scientific reason why: The damages we cause affect ourselves and future generations in the same manner that the irresponsibility of our ancestors have affected us, today. These physical and real influences are important as either progressive influences or detrimental influences on our wellbeing.
    Your pale attempts at obfuscation when I introduced the example of Climate Change fall down at this point.

    So it is time you stop the hand-waiving and start answering questions instead of trying to 'answer a question with a question.'
    It is time for you to provide support for any claim you have vaguely alluded to while not fully stating.
    It is time for you to state a position and defend it instead of constantly waffling back and forth.

    And if you cannot- if you cannot discuss the topic in a scientific manner without drawing allusions, answering questions with questions and obfuscating - I suggest you slide your keyboard away from you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    I get the feeling that Harold14370 might be just "stirring the pot" to get a rise out of people sometimes. As I stated in another post here Harold cannot comprehend that his viewpoint cannot be factually supported except by Harold's own opinions about what Harold thinks should be the truth. One can't reason with people like this for they are just being ignorant or trying to get others ire up. I've not said much since I thought this way and just wanted to say why I am not getting much involved with this discussion any longer.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I'm going to answer the question but first, I want to ask a few questions of my own.
    Do you require your questions be answered before you answer?
    I will jump in and answer as well...
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Is one right ever trumped by another right?
    Yes. Now, what are your reasons from trumping the rights of others, based on tradition or principle?
    I assert the traditional right to own animals and to dispose of them at my discretion, so long as I do not treat them cruelly. I base this on traditional practice, and a desire to allow myself and other humans minimal interference from other people. What is your reason for trumping my right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If one right is codified in law, does it always trump the other right that is not a legally recognized right?
    No. Does this mean that asking for a legal precedent is invalid?
    No. But I have provided a legal precedent, and anyway, a legal precedent is really a different question than moral right or wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Do you think there are any unjust laws that violate somone's rights?
    Yes. Does that mean all laws are invalid or asking for a legal precedent is automatically invalid?
    No. The law under which the guy is allowed to shoot his horse is valid.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Why do you say the tradition is undefined?
    Tradition is not defined by either law or code- it is merely the way some people have done things so far. There is variance to it and the reasons for doing it are not often defined to much greater extent than, "I'm used to it this way."
    That doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong in all cases.

    Traditionally, racism and slavery and the like were practiced. There was no legal precedent in the United States to address it for a very long time, but there were opinions about it aplenty. Abolitionists have been around as long as the United States has been around.
    Those that questioned whether slaves should have rights to quality of life were often rebutted with arguments such as these. It was inconvenient to address the rights of slaves.
    It was felt that if a man owned slaves, he had the right to do anything he wished with them. It simply wasn't anyone elses business.
    There were groups that advocated slave rights: That while slaves may be owned, they shouldn't be mistreated.
    Slavery and the Making of America . The Slave Experience: Legal Rights & Gov't | PBS

    The parallel here is that the same arguments are being made to support the exploitation, abuse, neglect or wanton destruction of others because someone thinks that some people have a RIGHT to do such harm, that their RIGHT to do so trumps others rights to quality of life or to even Live.
    This is an argument ad populum and argument from emotion. Everybody agrees with abolition, so therefore it must be morally correct. I gave you the opportunity to prove that slavery was objectively wrong. Nobody succeeded. Just because similar arguments are used, does not mean they are wrong in this case. Use of emotionally laden words like "exploitation" "abuse" "wanton" etc. are not logical arguments. They are emotional appeals.
    Harold14370, the commentary you inject here boils down to: "If there are no absolutes and nothing more than evolutionary consequences, then there is no basis for discussion, argument or opinions."
    Nonsense.
    This is the argument given by fundamentalists, one in which they often also invoke Godwins law, in order to promote the notion that atheists or scientists lack Morality or Ethics without the guiding hand of God and it, along with your strange tactics, oddly uneven response style, strong defensiveness toward religious topics while never being observed to question, contradict or rebut religious claims made on the forum inspires me to accuse you of being a closet fundamentalist tilting at windmills to push your agenda.
    Now, I have no idea if you are or not- and you're just really poor with communication.
    But allow me to clue you in, here:

    "Ethics" is not an absolute nor is it guided by God. Yet, it is an evolutionary trait that has a scientific basis, in spite of your attempts to make it appear that Morality or Ethics are "beyond Science."
    We are driven toward ethics as a survival trait that allows better commerce and economy, better productivity and better sociology in a rapidly expanding population.
    I will agree that we are driven toward ethics as a survival trait. However, you are assuming that your ethics are superior to my ethics. Yet you have not provided any objective criteria to judge superiority.

    This IS a topic in which science has its place and even when I said I argued from belief, there is a Scientific reason why. And when I pointed this out in your "blonde preference" example- you said we agree on something. We agree that there is a scientific reason why ethics and morality are applicable constructs of humanity. Because of the physical construct of the nervous system, genetics and sociology. Influence, consequence and destruction are factors in why we are as we are. Why we argue in favor or against actions.

    The old and primitive religious isolation of Humanity from the animal kingdom can no longer hold. We have a scientific reason why: The damages we cause affect ourselves and future generations in the same manner that the irresponsibility of our ancestors have affected us, today. These physical and real influences are important as either progressive influences or detrimental influences on our wellbeing.
    Prove that killing a horse is detrimental to ourselves and future generations.
    Your pale attempts at obfuscation when I introduced the example of Climate Change fall down at this point.
    Still no dots connected from killing a horse to climate change.
    So it is time you stop the hand-waiving and start answering questions instead of trying to 'answer a question with a question.'
    It is time for you to provide support for any claim you have vaguely alluded to while not fully stating.
    It is time for you to state a position and defend it instead of constantly waffling back and forth.

    And if you cannot- if you cannot discuss the topic in a scientific manner without drawing allusions, answering questions with questions and obfuscating - I suggest you slide your keyboard away from you.
    You want me to assert that my moral beliefs are backed by science, like you have erroneously done, so then you can attack them. Well, I won't do that because I don't think they are backed by science. But neither are yours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    You want me to assert that my moral beliefs are backed by science, like you have erroneously done, so then you can attack them. Well, I won't do that because I don't think they are backed by science. But neither are yours.
    But Neverfly has given many scientific examples but you've been telling only opinions.

    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I assert the traditional right to own animals and to dispose of them at my discretion, so long as I do not treat them cruelly. I base this on traditional practice, and a desire to allow myself and other humans minimal interference from other people. What is your reason for trumping my right?
    Then tell me- Where do we disagree? Why claim I'm really "far over the edge?"
    You just said the same thing that I have- and at that time, you said I was really way out there.
    I think Cosmic is right- you just like to stir the pot.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    No. The law under which the guy is allowed to shoot his horse is valid.
    Explain how killing just to piss off other people is NOT treating the horse cruelly? You contradict yourself, here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    This is an argument ad populum and argument from emotion. Everybody agrees with abolition, so therefore it must be morally correct.
    Agreed. But the fallacy is in claiming it's wrong with one group but not wrong with another group.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I gave you the opportunity to prove that slavery was objectively wrong. Nobody succeeded. Just because similar arguments are used, does not mean they are wrong in this case. Use of emotionally laden words like "exploitation" "abuse" "wanton" etc. are not logical arguments. They are emotional appeals.
    So what? No one claimed any absolutes. Again, you're just stirring shit up.
    An appeal to emotion is valid for changing perspectives or others beliefs.
    No one can prove that there is an absolute right or wrong but that is the Windmill You Are Tilting at.
    I suspect you're doing it to demonstrate that science without God leads to slavery, abuse and wanton destruction.
    And this is aside from my point which you agree with below:
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I will agree that we are driven toward ethics as a survival trait. However, you are assuming that your ethics are superior to my ethics. Yet you have not provided any objective criteria to judge superiority.
    I have and you even agreed with it: That ethics is a survival trait.
    I cannot provide compelling evidence as I cannot see the future. It is, as now, a belief. Who cares whether or not I can "prove" the belief?
    Even scientists believe in things, even atheists believe in things- and while it may be more critically analyzed than some of the more absurd beliefs out there- they are still beliefs.
    You are tilting at windmills by asking for "hard Proof" of opinions- Stirring the Pot.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Prove that killing a horse is detrimental to ourselves and future generations.
    Red herring.
    A repeated Red Herring, by the way. You are, as usual, inventing my arguments on my behalf.
    I was referring to the declared "RIGHTS" to kill anything you Claim to have ownership over (Hey Harold, PROVE ownership to me, will ya?) and the detriment that irresponsible behavior can have for the whole of society.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Still no dots connected from killing a horse to climate change.
    Irresponsible behavior having harmful effects to the whole.
    I've already spelled this out for you about four times. I don't know why I'm bothering to do it again- You will just sink back into your odd little denial mode later...
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You want me to assert that my moral beliefs are backed by science, like you have erroneously done, so then you can attack them. Well, I won't do that because I don't think they are backed by science. But neither are yours.
    Do you even HAVE any moral beliefs?
    You cannot currently back your opinions very scientifically. But there is a physical and real world reason why you have them.

    And you're wrong.
    You can have opinions just fine. You haven't expressed any, really.
    You've only harassed everyone elses opinions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    You want me to assert that my moral beliefs are backed by science, like you have erroneously done, so then you can attack them. Well, I won't do that because I don't think they are backed by science. But neither are yours.
    But Neverfly has given many scientific examples but you've been telling only opinions.
    I disagree. Neverfly has thrown out some random science facts which do not support any particular moral position.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Oh my, its just going round and round isn't it?
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I disagree. Neverfly has thrown out some random science facts which do not support any particular moral position.
    Funny... You agreed to it twice. Now you disagree. Make up your mind.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    We can talk about all kinds of science facts about blondes and brunettes. Pigmentation, rules of inheritance, evolution, etc. None of this will necessarily change my mind about blondes and brunettes, although it just might. But you cant prove which one, if any, that I should prefer. Actually, my preference would probably be due to the culture I was raised in.
    Given the influences, your genetic make-up and the physical structure of your brain in conjunction with your glands and hormonal balance- there is a scientific reason why you, personally, would have that preference. You just cannot currently quantify all the factors involved in that conclusion.

    I just said that.
    Then I guess we agree on one thing, anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I will agree that we are driven toward ethics as a survival trait. However, you are assuming that your ethics are superior to my ethics. Yet you have not provided any objective criteria to judge superiority.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I assert the traditional right to own animals and to dispose of them at my discretion, so long as I do not treat them cruelly. I base this on traditional practice, and a desire to allow myself and other humans minimal interference from other people. What is your reason for trumping my right?
    Then tell me- Where do we disagree? Why claim I'm really "far over the edge?"
    You just said the same thing that I have- and at that time, you said I was really way out there.
    I think Cosmic is right- you just like to stir the pot.
    We disagree about the horse. You are way out there because you discuss animal rights as if they are on an equal level with human rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    No. The law under which the guy is allowed to shoot his horse is valid.
    Explain how killing just to piss off other people is NOT treating the horse cruelly? You contradict yourself, here.
    The horse died quickly and humanely.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    This is an argument ad populum and argument from emotion. Everybody agrees with abolition, so therefore it must be morally correct.
    Agreed. But the fallacy is in claiming it's wrong with one group but not wrong with another group.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I gave you the opportunity to prove that slavery was objectively wrong. Nobody succeeded. Just because similar arguments are used, does not mean they are wrong in this case. Use of emotionally laden words like "exploitation" "abuse" "wanton" etc. are not logical arguments. They are emotional appeals.
    So what? No one claimed any absolutes. Again, you're just stirring shit up.
    An appeal to emotion is valid for changing perspectives or others beliefs.
    No one can prove that there is an absolute right or wrong but that is the Windmill You Are Tilting at.
    I suspect you're doing it to demonstrate that science without God leads to slavery, abuse and wanton destruction.
    And this is aside from my point which you agree with below:
    Then why are people asking for evidence for beliefs? I see you are frustrated that you can't put me in an atheist-theist pigeonhole. Stop trying, and just address the issues
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I will agree that we are driven toward ethics as a survival trait. However, you are assuming that your ethics are superior to my ethics. Yet you have not provided any objective criteria to judge superiority.
    I have and you even agreed with it: That ethics is a survival trait.
    I cannot provide compelling evidence as I cannot see the future. It is, as now, a belief. Who cares whether or not I can "prove" the belief?
    Even scientists believe in things, even atheists believe in things- and while it may be more critically analyzed than some of the more absurd beliefs out there- they are still beliefs.
    You are tilting at windmills by asking for "hard Proof" of opinions- Stirring the Pot.
    I won't ask you to prove yours if you won't ask me to prove mine. Throwing out sciency sounding arguments won't cut it. You are either doing science or you aren't. You can't claim science backing unless you have an actual hypothesis. You don't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Prove that killing a horse is detrimental to ourselves and future generations.
    Red herring.
    A repeated Red Herring, by the way. You are, as usual, inventing my arguments on my behalf.
    I was referring to the declared "RIGHTS" to kill anything you Claim to have ownership over (Hey Harold, PROVE ownership to me, will ya?) and the detriment that irresponsible behavior can have for the whole of society.
    What is irresponsible about shooting a horse?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Still no dots connected from killing a horse to climate change.
    Irresponsible behavior having harmful effects to the whole.
    I've already spelled this out for you about four times. I don't know why I'm bothering to do it again- You will just sink back into your odd little denial mode later...
    I don't know why you bother either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You want me to assert that my moral beliefs are backed by science, like you have erroneously done, so then you can attack them. Well, I won't do that because I don't think they are backed by science. But neither are yours.
    Do you even HAVE any moral beliefs?
    You cannot currently back your opinions very scientifically. But there is a physical and real world reason why you have them.
    Probably. I choose not to analyze it.
    And you're wrong.
    You can have opinions just fine. You haven't expressed any, really.
    You've only harassed everyone elses opinions.
    Yes, I will harrass anyone who tries to misuse or misrepresent science or the scientific method. Have any opinion you want. Don't try to claim it is science, and don't use faux scientific language to support it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    We disagree about the horse. You are way out there because you discuss animal rights as if they are on an equal level with human rights.
    You have no idea what I discussed. You made up whatever you claim I said all through-out. I spent a great deal of time trying to correct your misrepresentations with repetition.
    Considering that I am a hunter, Harold, that I KILL - explain how you support the assertion that you just made? Explain why I am not only not a vegetarian- but a rather staunchly unhealthy meateater (By some folks standards, they say I eat too much meat and not enough veggies. I say the Food Pyramid is a scam for sukkahs)?
    No, you have no idea what I have said in this thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The horse died quickly and humanely.
    Unknown. You have no valid basis for stating this as fact. Define: Humane. State the time it took for the horse to die. State the trajectory of the bullet, what the damage it caused was and whether death was immediate or not. You have no idea if it was or wasn't. You assume it was.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Then why are people asking for evidence for beliefs?
    Demonstrate that is what actually happened and if so, take it up with them. I did not ask you to give any scientific support for beliefs and if you are going to claim that I have- show it in a direct quote with reasonable grounds as to their meaning.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I see you are frustrated that you can't put me in an atheist-theist pigeonhole. Stop trying, and just address the issues
    No, I am frustrated by you making false claims about what I have said in this thread, then attacking the falsehoods.
    I've pointed out the fallacy of your odd behavior. I'm sure you do not like it. Well, I don't like being utterly misquoted.
    So, deal with it, Harold. You present all the hallmarks of a fundie and if that troubles you- examine why you keep coming across that way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I won't ask you to prove yours if you won't ask me to prove mine.
    Well, I didn't did I?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Throwing out sciency sounding arguments won't cut it. You are either doing science or you aren't. You can't claim science backing unless you have an actual hypothesis. You don't.
    Nonsense. Science is not solely the scientific method. And I ONLY claimed that the cause for the opinions or attitudes have a scientific explanation for them.
    Tilting at windmills- again. You really need to cut it out.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What is irresponsible about shooting a horse?
    You're back in denial mode, I see. Addressing what is not the issue in order to ignore the issue. Why should I bother? I bothered in the previous post and you went right back to your windmill.
    You still haven't got a clue what I have endorsed in this thread- have you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I don't know why you bother either.
    Agreed. Your aptitude for ignoring what I say is amazing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Probably. I choose not to analyze it.
    That is your choice. You wormed out of stating, clearly, whether you have beliefs on the topic or what they are, by the way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Yes, I will harrass anyone who tries to misuse or misrepresent science or the scientific method. Have any opinion you want. Don't try to claim it is science, and don't use faux scientific language to support it.
    Bull. You're just inventing claims that I have done so but any objective reader following what I have actually said in this thread can see plainly that
    one.) I did not say what you claim I said
    two.) You won't support your claims with direct quotes from me
    three.) You're attributing to me what was said by others
    No, you don't get to Harass members by claiming they hold a position they have repeatedly had to try to correct your claims about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Harold,
    Would it help if I recap what my beliefs are, what my position is and what I have said had scientific support in ONE post?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Horse meat (or horse beef) is the culinary name for meat cut from a horse. It is a major meat in only a few countries, notably in Central Asia, but it forms a significant part of the culinary traditions of many others, from Europe to South America to Asia. The top eight countries consume about 4.7 million horses a year. For the majority of mankind's early existence, wild horses were hunted as a source of protein. It is slightly sweet, tender and low in fat.
    Horse meat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Harold,
    Would it help if I recap what my beliefs are, what my position is and what I have said had scientific support in ONE post?
    I think this thread is probably played out. We've covered the same points several times already. But, go ahead if you want.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Harold,
    Would it help if I recap what my beliefs are, what my position is and what I have said had scientific support in ONE post?
    I think this thread is probably played out. We've covered the same points several times already. But, go ahead if you want.
    See, this is why I am such a jerk, though. It was covered several times and still misrepresented.
    I really think that the entirety of the argument could have taken up a lot less space.

    Concepts of ownership, honor and 'rights' are constructs- illusions.
    Using a claim of ownership or a right to something is a fallacy because it relies on the illusion.
    The opinions:
    My opinion is that I do not understand mass food slaughter and production. I believe it is more harmful to our species than beneficial. This is just an opinion and has no legal representation.
    I support a humans right to kill, in defense, out of hunting for hunger or necessity. We are animals and must compete in the world.
    I believe that an animal that is attacked with intent to harm should have the right to defend itself. To break the trust of a bond with an animal is the utmost of deception. It is dishonorable.
    I am opposed to senseless or needless killing. I am opposed to torture, abuse or neglect by animal caretakers. It does not need to be declared as scientific or unscientific for me to make arguments against such behaviors.
    These are beliefs. They are scientific only in that there is a way of explaining it all scientifically, but they are not scientific in that they deal with the constructs of human imagination. It is a personal choice, not a law.

    This is why asking why shooting one horse is bad for the environment is a Red herring. I never claimed that shooting one horse was bad for the environment. I argued from principle that the man was a jackass, that is all.
    However, the mentality we have for exploitation (Claim it's an appeal to emotion if you like, but exploitation is an action with consequences that can be observed, measured and predictions made from) is based on our animal behaviors, competitiveness and territoriality. It should be examined. Because future generations will be left with what we leave them. While shooting one horse in a manner that I, personally, disagree with does not damage the environment, mass scale production does have predictable detrimental effects. Even if detrimental only means- conditions less ideal than we want them to be. Wanton needless killing does have effects we consider to be undesirable. Is that a scientific opinion? No, it is a personal opinion and it does not need to be scientific for me to make the argument.
    The man shooting the horse is an example of exploitation, even if small scale. If we allow too much exploitation or justify someone having the illusory 'undeniable rights'- that, too, is an appeal to emotion. It, too, is unscientific along with any claims you make about me, personally (Such as way over the edge). He did not have "a right" to shoot the horse nor was shooting the horse "wrong." Rather, it is my opinion that it was a disgusting act; but I also point out that it is just a series of disgusting acts we commit while justifying them every step of the way.
    You are mistaking an argument of "Least benefit" to mean "Wrong." No, I am not claiming it is fundamentally 'wrong' to engage in certain behaviors. I am claiming it is predicatively detrimental for humanity to engage in certain behaviors. We'll look at this below:

    So what about the Scientific?
    We are not special nor do we hold a position of privilege by any divine instruction. We have evolved with the same animal traits alongside the rest of the planet.
    We can predict the consequences of our activities with reasonable accuracy. Because we can predict the results of our activities and that these predictions can guide us to examine our methods, it is only logical that we do so; take responsibility for ourselves and our future generations.
    You jumped in saying you were annoyed at people making claims that their position was scientific.
    But the scientific method is not restrained by "right and wrong." It is merely a method for accuracy in observation. What we make of those observations, conclusions and results, is up to us. Claiming it is unscientific to examine the evidence of process, measure the quantities and draw a conclusion simply because we realize that the conclusion would fit with our definition of detrimental is nonsense. We use the scientific method to provide more accuracy for a reason: To fulfill our own goals.
    The method only yields results. It does not determine right from wrong- that is up to us to decide.
    If the person follows the scientific method to measure the accuracy, then they are being scientific regardless of whether or not you agree with their decisions based upon the conclusions.

    The thread was not played out. It was a three ring circus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    None of what you wrote there makes sense to me. Whatever it is that you value is equally as much of an illusion as the ownership, honor or rights that I value. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but all the stuff you seem to feel is important just doesn't have much meaning for me.

    I think exploitation is fine. It's what we do. If we didn't exploit, we'd be dead. Why be ashamed of it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think exploitation is fine. It's what we do. If we didn't exploit, we'd be dead. Why be ashamed of it?
    To a moderate degree, perhaps. But this statement is exactly what you get called to support: "If we didn't exploit, we'd be dead."
    That statement needs support because to much exploitation can also cause our deaths. Also, exploitation is not necessarily required to maintain living.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think exploitation is fine. It's what we do. If we didn't exploit, we'd be dead. Why be ashamed of it?
    To a moderate degree, perhaps. But this statement is exactly what you get called to support: "If we didn't exploit, we'd be dead."
    That statement needs support because to much exploitation can also cause our deaths. Also, exploitation is not necessarily required to maintain living.
    Living creatures exploit their environment to obtain the necessary requirements for survival. That's what I mean. No need to make a dirty word out of "exploit".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Living creatures exploit their environment to obtain the necessary requirements for survival. That's what I mean. No need to make a dirty word out of "exploit".
    I did not make it a dirty word. It is one of its literal definitions.
    "1. to take advantage of (a person, situation, etc.), esp unethically or unjustly for one's own ends"

    Other definitions include a notable event or deed or to make full use of a resource.

    We are making full use of fossil fuels as a resource...

    You said that we must exploit resources or we die. The statement is very vague...
    You see, I support using resources. By one definition of the word, I support exploitation but by another, I don't.
    Strip mining vs panning or using a sluice box.
    Cutting down a few trees to build a cabin vs massive deforestation.

    The definitions stand- what worked when population was low has now become a problem. You say it makes no sense to you. Yet, when someone suggested that religious people be barred from voting; it made sense to you to find that notion bigoted and unethical- you were incensed.
    It does make sense: We're so populous now that exploiting resources has become a major problem. There simply are too many demands and not enough resources.
    "Exploiting" may not have started out as a dirty word. But it has become one.

    Gore worded it correctly: It's inconvenient. It's unpleasant. "Not US! No. We are humans, we are above that. We are not animals." But if we were- we would have been culled by now.
    Open hunting season would have lasted all year.

    So what is going to happen to us and the basic environment in the next 300 years? We would be fools to not consider the question.
    You seem so caught up in the argument that you distort my words and even ignore the key points. But my argument is nothing new. It's the cold and hard argument that we are animals. It's the apocalyptic argument that is inconvenient for humans to consider: We are too self absorbed.
    Short term, it seems quite nice. Long term- we are not doing ourselves any favors.
    I guess many people can ignore the problems. After-all, they will not be around to see the consequences.

    You can say it is 'unscientific' to speak of Honor.
    You can say it makes no sense to you.
    But I say it is scientific to speak of Honor. Because we use the method to accurately model the universe. Not to make key decisions. It is scientific to build an accurate model and you do not have to agree with the use of the word, "honorable" in implementing the decisions made from that model. It was still achieved through science and is scientific.
    We will need a concept of honor to counter the concept of ownership and of exploitation. We as a species, not as an individual.
    You can say it is unscientific to speak of Ethics.
    But Ethics are how we conduct ourselves when being scientific.
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    one minor correction, as/re:
    We are making full use of fossil fuels as a resource...
    perhaps, burning off bakken natural gas at the wellheads ain't quite making full use of the resource
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Yeah, and one might argue that in inefficient use, we are not making full use.

    I thought you're a G.W. denier, though?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    ... I thought you're a G.W. denier, though?
    You one funny dude dadio

    I do not advocate for, nor deny the primacy of god, anthropogenic climate change, heliocentric climate change, nor the harmonic climate model.

    All have certain truths and due to the imperfect nature of man, certain errors.
    And, all are of interest to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    That's a lot of rhetoric, but what's missing is a logical syllogism beginning with "Global warming harms the environment" and ends with "Therefore the guy shouldn't shoot his horse." I think there's a few hidden premises and assumptions. Spell it out for me, please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    That's a lot of rhetoric
    No, you're just good at denial. If you can't refute it, claim it's rhetoric but give no reasons why you think so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    but what's missing is a logical syllogism beginning with "Global warming harms the environment" and ends with "Therefore the guy shouldn't shoot his horse." I think there's a few hidden premises and assumptions. Spell it out for me, please.
    That's because you're changing the argument, again. It's what you've done all through out- when you cannot refute the argument, invent one that you can refute. You are simply combing several different statements into one absurdity.

    I've spelled out my argument many times at this point. Instead of blustering, try giving some substance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Somehow we went from a thread about a guy shooting a horse, to global warming. I didn't take it there. So, you're going to have to tell me what the connection is. Don't accuse me of changing the argument. As far as I'm concerned it's still a thread about a guy shooting his horse, just like it started out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Somehow we went from a thread about a guy shooting a horse, to global warming. I didn't take it there. So, you're going to have to tell me what the connection is. Don't accuse me of changing the argument. As far as I'm concerned it's still a thread about a guy shooting his horse, just like it started out.
    See, this is where I think you're being deliberate. You're ignoring what I've said and you are the one claiming that I made a direct link that I not only did not make, but have repeatedly refuted your red herrings and windmills.

    But it's ok... He shot the horse only to piss other people off. The guy is a jackass. That is my opinion. Gotta problem with it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Should've given the horse to Ikea, just saying.

    On the other hand, humans are stupid, expect everything.
    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X.
    "The future belongs to those who prepare for it today." - Malcolm X.
    "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough!" - Karl Marx's last words
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Why does man perceive god made Man in his image
    By Genesis in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 13th, 2011, 06:25 AM
  2. How a still man experiences a moving man in lights direction
    By LeavingQuietly in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: July 7th, 2010, 02:55 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 20th, 2010, 07:24 PM
  4. Horse woman
    By Robin Hood in forum Biology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 28th, 2007, 11:50 AM
  5. has anybody seen my horse!
    By susan in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: May 28th, 2007, 12:59 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •