ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 17th July 2017, 11:53 PM   #201
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,771
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
No, not at all. We are not talking about "right vs wrong" as if there were some absolute sense of right & wrong ordained by a higher all-knowing godly power.

There really is no fundamental "right" or "wrong". That again shows that you are trying to make a religious type of argument where you subconsciously (or consciously?) think that "right" and "wrong" exist as absolute facts … as if ordained by some God from the beginning of time.
Moral imperatives don't need any religious justification. Ethics is a secular subject.

If only courts and legislative institutions can make genuine laws, on what the right of dissidence is based on?
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2017, 12:39 AM   #202
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,754
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post


Are you deliberately missing the point by using these misdirections? It's the logic of the arguments that is the same, not the fact that they are about a moral wrong. Do you even understand the point of analogies?


No, there was no "misdirection" from me. If anything, it was clearly an attempted “misdirection” from you when you tried to make an analogy between homosexuality and legal process in cases of animal cruelty … the two issues have no connection at all. I was simply pointing out to you that there actually is no fundamental "right" or "wrong".

In fact none of your attempted analogies here have been analogous at all. They are just attempts by you to bolster you own beliefs by introducing all sorts of other things that have absolutely no connection with so-called "animal rights" ... e.g. you tried earlier to talk about solar panels as analogous to animals such as cats and dogs.

And as far as “morals” are concerned, I'm not the one making any moral argument here (I just noted that other posters here have mentioned a moral argument), so you will have to argue with those other posters about that.

But I notice you remained silent on the question of whether or not you have ever hunted animals and shot them? Can you tell us if you have ever done that? It's not a trick question. But it is directly relevant because a background like that might explain why anyone takes a particular stance on this issue and why they defend certain positions.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2017, 02:20 AM   #203
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
But I notice you remained silent on the question of whether or not you have ever hunted animals and shot them? Can you tell us if you have ever done that? It's not a trick question. But it is directly relevant because a background like that might explain why anyone takes a particular stance on this issue and why they defend certain positions.
No, it isn't.

Ad Hominem

Def.: Any attempt to discredit a view by calling attention to the character, actions or personal circumstances of those who hold it rather than the reasoning they provide in support of it.
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2017, 04:13 AM   #204
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 7,408
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Moral imperatives don't need any religious justification. Ethics is a secular subject.
That needs a little clarification, as people is using in all these fora a blurry, almost colloquial, "distinction" between morality and ethics. Allow me to build on top of that phrase.

Morality is autonomous (no matter it is considered to be theonomous or not). Ethics is heteronomous.

Autonomous morality ---> the individual self-imposes certain ways of behaviour (even ways of thinking or feeling by use of self-repression)
Theonomy ---> Autonomous morality is supposed to be Devil(god) given or at least to be aligned with the devilish(divine) nature.
Heteronomous ethichs ---> the individual is forced to follow a code of behaviour or some procedures which aren't purely technical norms.

As an example from the field of ethics: the MA. You must avoid exclusively addressing the arguer in an aggressive fashion. You have the right to appeal a sanction you received for failing to follow that rule.

And here come rights (animal ones included): rules apply on other subjects -heternomously- for them to do or avoid to do something that benefits of affects the person or entity entitled those rights.

That's why in my previous post here I linked an old thread I started: Argentina's legal system already granted some rights to animals gifted with high intellect and sensibility by creating a new category: the NON-HUMAN PERSON. This doesn't go in the way of corporations and other legal types, but it extends the legal notion of natural person as a cloak that covers also apes and gives more strength to those trying to ban any fishing technique that might unlikely result in any death toll among toninas (local dolphins), the same way high mortality techniques has been already banned [I suppose fishing octopuses is the line in the sand]

But I suppose this is a discussion about animals and the United States (or at most the Anglosphere) and not a discussion about animals and humankind. I can't follow it because I have members on ignore, but that's the way it looks for what I see.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.

Last edited by aleCcowaN; 18th July 2017 at 04:17 AM.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2017, 01:13 AM   #205
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,754
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
No, it isn't.

Ad Hominem

Def.: Any attempt to discredit a view by calling attention to the character, actions or personal circumstances of those who hold it rather than the reasoning they provide in support of it.

No, you are wrong. It cannot possibly be an ad-hominem, because thus far it's only a question. And so far there has been no such attack on Argumemnons personal character resulting from merely asking that question (a question which he has so far twice declined to acknowledge at all). So it's definitely not an ad-hominem.

And secondly you have no idea whether I was going follow in the future with a personal attack on anyone's individual character as a result of Argumemnon telling us anything at all about any hunting interests (none of which we have any idea about).

Last edited by IanS; 19th July 2017 at 01:14 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2017, 04:46 AM   #206
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
No, you are wrong. It cannot possibly be an ad-hominem, because thus far it's only a question. And so far there has been no such attack on Argumemnons personal character resulting from merely asking that question (a question which he has so far twice declined to acknowledge at all). So it's definitely not an ad-hominem.

And secondly you have no idea whether I was going follow in the future with a personal attack on anyone's individual character as a result of Argumemnon telling us anything at all about any hunting interests (none of which we have any idea about).
If the definition of X involves properties A, B and C. Arguing against properties D, E and F is a non sequitur.
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2017, 07:11 AM   #207
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,771
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
That needs a little clarification, as people is using in all these fora a blurry, almost colloquial, "distinction" between morality and ethics. Allow me to build on top of that phrase.
I was not using the words "ethics" and "moral" in the same way than you.
In my case "ethics" and "moral" were interchangeable and referred to a system of behaviour rules that is considered valid in itself (non-instrumental as a whole). I cannot follow your definitions because are a little confuse.
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Autonomous morality ---> the individual self-imposes certain ways of behaviour (even ways of thinking or feeling by use of self-repression)
Theonomy ---> Autonomous morality is supposed to be Devil(god) given or at least to be aligned with the devilish(divine) nature.
Heteronomous ethichs ---> the individual is forced to follow a code of behaviour or some procedures which aren't purely technical norms. (…)
And here come rights (animal ones included): rules apply on other subjects -heternomously- (…)
You are mixing diverse criteria in the same classification .
(a) Source: Inside the subject or external to the subject (god, for example). (This is usually the sense of “autonomous”. It means that the subject is giving the rules himself, by an act of rational will, while “heteronomous” when his rules are imposed by an external agent (could be Religion, society or other else).
(b) Object (target): Whether the rule is applied by the subject to himself or applied to other.

The problem of animal rights is not the autonomy or heteronomy of the law (this is a problem of the origin of the rule) but the scope of application of these rights. Moral rules stablish duties that imply rights. My duty to my wife’s dignity establishes her rights as a familiar partner. There are not any doubts about that persons have rights (although we are not always in agreement on what are exactly those rights). But the debate arises when we speak of the rights of non human beings. Some time ago the heart of the question was posed in rationality and reciprocity. Today we have crossed the boundaries of rationality and we accord some rights to non rational beings. My position is that the reasons of this enlargement were not mainly caused by rational arguments, but by more emotional finesse. We have reinforced our natural links of empathy and discovered the companionship with animals and the duties that we have to them. In my opinion this resultss in a better life as humans. That we call this moral or non moral it doesn’t matter.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2017, 10:26 AM   #208
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 7,408
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I was not using the words "ethics" and "moral" in the same way than you.
In my case "ethics" and "moral" were interchangeable and referred to a system of behaviour rules that is considered valid in itself (non-instrumental as a whole). I cannot follow your definitions because are a little confuse.
Philosophical, not legal. I'm not concerned with the philosophical.
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I cannot follow your definitions because are a little confuse.

You are mixing diverse criteria in the same classification .
(a) Source: Inside the subject or external to the subject (god, for example). (This is usually the sense of “autonomous”. It means that the subject is giving the rules himself, by an act of rational will, while “heteronomous” when his rules are imposed by an external agent (could be Religion, society or other else).
(b) Object (target): Whether the rule is applied by the subject to himself or applied to other.
No mixing. They're legal, not philosophical. I'm concerned with the legal issues and nothing else.

The fact that the individual manufactures some Santa Claus and pretends this fantasy to impose the moral rules is meaningless -unless we're talking of religious beliefs-. Any classification that includes such fantastic beings won't do anything for the topic of animal rights.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The problem of animal rights is not the autonomy or heteronomy of the law
Of course. It doesn't relate with banana crops either. Those we can agree.

As for the rest. You're pointing to the cause for the legal system to evolve. "Emotional finesse" seems to be also the cause for the abolition of slavery and not stoning homosexuals but allowing them to marry. Less "emotional finesse" and people would have free different looking human-like goods to exploit and fruitcakes to torture, or at least bully.

I'd rather sum up 230 years of still evolving societies in the acknowledgement of individuals, their peculiar natures and point of views and their right to try to make the most of their lifetime. The only difference is it now crossing the interspecies boundary.

By the way, Sandra is dealt as a human younger than 14 or people with Down syndrome no matter their age, and she has now a set of guardians appointed by the court, which also includes the people who took care of her most of her life.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2017, 01:06 PM   #209
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 5,275
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
...
Morality is autonomous (no matter it is considered to be theonomous or not). Ethics is heteronomous.
It's phrases like these that have me hating (rhetorically) and clapping at the same time. OK, now the debate. I'll skip theonomy, a source we can acknowledge and then dismiss, at least for my purposes.

Quote:
Autonomous morality ---> the individual self-imposes certain ways of behaviour (even ways of thinking or feeling by use of self-repression)
Theonomy ---> Autonomous morality is supposed to be Devil(god) given or at least to be aligned with the devilish(divine) nature.
Heteronomous ethichs ---> the individual is forced to follow a code of behaviour or some procedures which aren't purely technical norms.

As an example from the field of ethics: the MA. You must avoid exclusively addressing the arguer in an aggressive fashion. You have the right to appeal a sanction you received for failing to follow that rule.
Terminology nitpick, really. I fail to see how, say, creating and attempting to follow a personal code of ethics is different, other than in the words used, from autonomous morality.

Otherwise, perhaps a category of unreflected, perhaps amydala-driven morality might be added as a form of autonomous morality? Still rule-based, only on emotive and subconscious heuristics. Maybe. Or is this the definition of immorality?

Quote:
And here come rights (animal ones included): rules apply on other subjects -heternomously- for them to do or avoid to do something that benefits of affects the person or entity entitled those rights.
No nitpick here. The long argument boils down to recognizing a similar seat of preference and being (personal history, motive) in another. Given evolution, ridiculous to posit the chasm between human animals and others that religion implies. The equivalence is functional and existential sameness (humans) or similarity (other animals), not membership in a genetic club. (Which, by the way, is the main argument against racism and sexism whenever supposed statistics are thrown out to support inequality.)
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 19th July 2017 at 01:11 PM.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2017, 12:14 AM   #210
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,771
Confusion is confusion be legal or moral. It is a matter of definition or use.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Less "emotional finesse" and people would have free different looking human-like goods to exploit and fruitcakes to torture, or at least bully.
I have not understand well this statement. Can you explain it better? Thank you.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2017, 12:20 AM   #211
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,754
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
If the definition of X involves properties A, B and C. Arguing against properties D, E and F is a non sequitur.

It was not an ad-hominem, and you should have known that.

But it does raise the question as to why on earth you were trying to demean anyone's character with an obviously untrue assertion like that!
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2017, 12:25 AM   #212
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,771
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Given evolution, ridiculous to posit the chasm between human animals and others that religion implies. The equivalence is functional and existential sameness (humans) or similarity (other animals), not membership in a genetic club. (Which, by the way, is the main argument against racism and sexism whenever supposed statistics are thrown out to support inequality.)
Evolution has nothing to do here. The theory of evolution stablishes continuities and differences. The opponent to animal rights can argue the differences. He also can argue the concept of person that is philosophical. Once again, questions of value are not matter of facts.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2017, 03:59 AM   #213
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 5,275
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Evolution has nothing to do here. The theory of evolution stablishes continuities and differences. The opponent to animal rights can argue the differences. He also can argue the concept of person that is philosophical. Once again, questions of value are not matter of facts.
Actually, this depends on the method used to derive rights. The only thing required is that the method of derivation rely on some form of analysis or criteria which lends itself to extension along a broader cognitive spectrum. And evolution is the very basis for that spectrum. In fact, keeping it clearly in mind distinguishes those who talk about "humans and animals" and those who refer to "human and other animals." Big difference in attitude and relation to science. Yes, this is philosophical, as there is no straight derivation from science "is" to preferential "should," although I would venture that any "should" that runs directly counter to an observed "is" is most likely mistaken.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 20th July 2017 at 04:01 AM.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2017, 11:55 PM   #214
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,771
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Yes, this is philosophical, as there is no straight derivation from science "is" to preferential "should," although I would venture that any "should" that runs directly counter to an observed "is" is most likely mistaken.
I absolutely agree. I would add that this is the only/last/main function of philosophy today: clarification and analysis.

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Actually, this depends on the method used to derive rights. The only thing required is that the method of derivation rely on some form of analysis or criteria which lends itself to extension along a broader cognitive spectrum. And evolution is the very basis for that spectrum. In fact, keeping it clearly in mind distinguishes those who talk about "humans and animals" and those who refer to "human and other animals." Big difference in attitude and relation to science.
The distinction between “spiritualists” and “evolutionists” is important in the field of the rights of animals. In the twenty-first century it is absurd to speak of an “absolute exceptionality” of the human being. This position was sustained on religious beliefs that are obsolete today. But this doesn’t solve the question because the party anti animal rights can maintain some degree of difference that would justify the exclusiveness of the human rights. The theory of evolution only weakens this position and forces them to seek another bases than metaphysical exceptionality of the “person”, “manifest destiny” of humanity and similar.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2017, 04:38 AM   #215
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 5,275
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I absolutely agree. I would add that this is the only/last/main function of philosophy today: clarification and analysis.


The distinction between “spiritualists” and “evolutionists” is important in the field of the rights of animals. In the twenty-first century it is absurd to speak of an “absolute exceptionality” of the human being. This position was sustained on religious beliefs that are obsolete today. But this doesn’t solve the question because the party anti animal rights can maintain some degree of difference that would justify the exclusiveness of the human rights. The theory of evolution only weakens this position and forces them to seek another bases than metaphysical exceptionality of the “person”, “manifest destiny” of humanity and similar.
OK, this is interesting. My position is that, although the DoI uses "natural rights" as "self-evident," this was fine for brevity, but entirely crap as foundational argument, not that we can't get there on our own without gods. Here are some "is" observations:

Basics
- Higher social animals can interact in a coherent and predictive manner socially, even without evolved speech, owing to the Theory of Mind.
- The ToM is no big theory, just the capacity to posit or behave as if others in the group also possess the same "inner life" consisting of vitally felt needs and preferences, and, of course, dissembling and subterfuge as survivalists.
- That is, social animals predict behavior by projecting.

Tad more
- Social animals learn by imitation, one of the key methods for acquiring culture, such as one monkey watching another use a stick to get ants.
- Brain scans show that the neural pathways of observers (humans) fire sympathetic mirrors of the person observed (e.g., to see someone in pain fires much of the pain-processing in the brain, but not the peripheral system, so no real pain).
- Thus, observation and learning involve mapping the inner states of others in our own brains. (Avatar's iconic phrase, "I see you.")
- That is, humans can incorporate other into self, which in short hand let's call "empathy."
- By extension and following the same analysis, other higher-order social animals can, and observably do, recognize "others" as fully functioning mimics of self in order to function and survive in animal society.

To finish the "is"
- It is this activity which most likely did most to boost human intelligence in an ever increasing "war" between correctly interpreting intent and hiding one's true intent for gain (pretend to be "good," but steal your hidden stash of food when you aren't looking, mate with your mate, etc.).

Should
A "should" based on this is one that can only be the result of agreement, but the beauty of democracy is that the fundamental equality it requires most definitely does not depend on each having some god-given soul, or any other form of merit that does not derive from being human. No need to elaborate much, because the argument is basically one of agreeing to formalize the above "is." Given that, animals can be afforded recognition of a real seat of experience that deserves "respect," formalized as rights or rules of engagement.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2017, 04:59 AM   #216
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
It was not an ad-hominem, and you should have known that.
Argument my assertion. Not really a great improvement.

Quote:
But it does raise the question as to why on earth you were trying to demean anyone's character with an obviously untrue assertion like that!
No, it doesn't.
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2017, 01:04 PM   #217
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 40,616
So how's that animal rights discussion working for ya, kids? Reached any verdict yet?
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2017, 02:41 PM   #218
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,056
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
So how's that animal rights discussion working for ya, kids? Reached any verdict yet?
I was going to answer but it reminds me instead of another joke.

A farmer is showing a relative around his spread. He comes to a little fenced off area in one of the fields. The relative asks what that's about, and the farmer replies that it's a little shrine to his first sexual experience. It was so grand that he felt it needed to be memorialized. The relative, impressed, asks what the other party had to say about it. "Not much, says the farmer. She just said mooo!"
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2017, 11:38 PM   #219
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,754
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Argument my assertion. Not really a great improvement.

No, it doesn't.

It was not, and could never be, an ad-hominem. And you should have known that.

Merely asking whether Argumemnon had ever hunted animals, could not possibly be any kind of ad-hominem at all.

And when you reply to others by just saying “no it doesn't”, you are simply aiming to precipitate a series of replies that just say “yes it is”; “no it isn't”, “it is” ; “it isn't; “is” - “isn't” etc. - and that is exactly the sort of silly bickering that gets posts moved to AAH, so I'm not interested in a worthless waste of space like that.

If you have something to say about the subject of animal rights, then say it.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2017, 12:22 AM   #220
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 5,275
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
So how's that animal rights discussion working for ya, kids? Reached any verdict yet?
Parse some sentences and you may very well find out. Cookie?
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.