Against Animal Rights Activists

What you are saying is irrelevent and misguided. Whether or not I know who or what I am, I cannot doubt that I am.



I fail to see why I should bother. It's completely irrelevent in this case. Suppose I don't know how the mind and body interract. So what? The mind is nonetheless seperate from the body, and demonstrably so.



You've contradicted yourself. Furthermore, if you disagree with what I am saying, then feel free to point out which premise in the proof is false, or how the proof doesn't "follow."

As a teenager unexperienced in philosophy, especially that of Descartes, of course my arguments are going to be terrible! It's three in the morning and I'm working on random thoughts.

You speak of things being irrelevant, but don't you think that what you're saying is also irrelevant to life? It doesn't help or hinder anyone in anyway except to bring a wave of paranoia as to some unknown, omnipotent force that could deceive us with reality itself. Who cares? It's not as though we can see this evil demon to fight it, and perhaps to anticipate it is to fall into its very traps! In short, why fight something that we can't? This isn't like the slaves and the opressors, with the slaves only believing that they can do nothing, this is the equivalent of an ant trying to implode the sun with a stick.

Then no wonder you are terrible at arguments?

In any case, I'll be more clear, then:

If you have a green apple, and apple B is red...well...apple B is not your apple. Leibniz's Law of Identity is that A is identical to B if and only if A possesses every property that B possesses.

I cannot doubt that I am.
It is not the case that I cannot doubt that I have a body.
From Leibniz's law of identity, it follows that I am not my body.

I suggest you read what I posted on page one.

The only situations which cannot occur are the logically impossible ones, those are incomprehensible. You are a set of facts in logical space. What you experience, what occurs, what can occur is predetermined by logical possibility. You can move and feel and think and will but these cannot be separated from the facts, what is is not necessarily so because of any will. Now, that you will your arm to move can be refuted. The arm moves when you will, but to connect these facts all we have is correlation. Your will is not , and cannot, be shown to have a direct connection with what is.

So, can you decide? Or is it simply an illusion.(this is rhetorical of course)

It is not true that you cannot doubt that you are, you can; but it is without a logical direction that you do so. You would in a sense, doubt that you doubt if you were to doubt that you are. This is absurd.

That you are aware that the will has no connection with other logical facts is only a part of the picture. These facts cannot be shown to have bearing on each other, only that there is a pattern to their organization. We can speak of how our picture of reality is organized, but not of why it is organized or even how it comes to be organized. We can speak of a pattern of organization, this is science. We can speak of how things are and how they have been, and we can hope for the pattern to continue, but we cannot say that it will with any honesty.

So, is will attached to thought? Is it attached to anything but itself? I would say that we cannot know. We know that when we will a thought, it is conjured up(unless we are having a flashback or hallucination or compulsive thought ect.) but this is still empirical. So, we will a thought, the thought comes, the doubt is resolved, but are these events connected as directly as we think? I would say not necessarily, but that we also cannot know, for if there is a connection, it does not make itself apparent to us.

To keep a bit on topic: We 'know' that an animal can feel pain, at least more complex animals. They can become neurotic, they can fear(at least as their behavior indicates, which is as much as we can say for humans). To say that you do not want animal rights is to say that you would allow a creature pain that is unnecessary. I think that it is certainly worthwhile to afford livestock some room to move around and disallow brutalizing an animal. You may disagree.

Haha, I meant more that I cannot argue too well, I can use wikipedia as well as any man.
But how is the mind undoubtable? Descartes said 'I think therefore I am', but another approach could be 'I think therefore something is thinking'. Rudimentary, but stay with me. Could it not be said that we could all be representatives of the hypothetical brain cells of a higher being and our reality its brain. Each of our thoughts is not our own, not indistinct, but part of this beings judgements system, our opinions to be its method of balancing arguments, our knowledge and discoveries actually belonging to this powerful thing. By the way you seem to doubt the reality around us, this could make complete sense aswell as doubting our existence as both bodies and minds, instead having us as an overall brain.

'Superior' my a$$! Leave it to a vain man to define his own 'superiority' to other species (and even his fellow specie)!
It is this sort of vainly egoic delusion that is responsible for much horror on the planet. Rationalizing pulling the wings off of flies and lighting cat's tails on fire. I find such vanity and ignorance, that lead to such pain for our fellow animals and probably people (as you can similarly rationalize and make excuses to harm others that don't fall under your 'self serving' definition of 'superior'!) abhorent!

And some of us find your use of apostrophes out of context abhorrent. What's your point? Since you are so kind to point out how everyone else has ego issues, tell us how come you have different standards for yourself than for others. Everyone is entitled to their own perspective. Some are just better than others, but that doesn't mean you should blast others for voicing their perspectives and perceptions. If you feel the need to share your perspective allow others to do so as well--no matter how much you may not agree with it.

Bona, I would disagree with your basic premise that we should not have animal rights activists. Humans have become masters of the earth, and as its masters, we must exercise proper stewardship, that is, exhibit empathy towards all things on this Earth (i.e., God's Creation), and the reason animal rights activists come about is because we are disrespecting (not exercising empathy towards) certain animals; therefore, in order to correct this imbalance, we must have animal rights activists.

This coming from a known carnivoire.

Perhaps the 'problem' is 'yours' for not 'understanding' the 'context'. And, like myself, what 'you' might find abhorrent is 'your' problem, not mine.
Of course 'your' 'complaint' was 'inapropriate' 'to' 'the' 'post' 'referenced', indicating the 'emotional content' and 'disingenuousness' of your response/attack. Bruised ego? It'll heal.
Don't stalk me.


You must have your eyes squeezed tight not to pick up the (albeit dramatic) point.


Uh oh, the real reason for your post here emerges. Have I hurt your feelings? Bruised your ego? This 'response' is quite common such as that.


If your personal 'attack' has any validity, please provide links in support of your unfounded and emotional attack/criticism. And even if I did have the largest ego in the world, that in no way invalidates my comments on the ego that i see. Perhaps it is because I have such an ego that I can recognize it and it's doinge where some others cannot.
Pfft!


I calls em as I sees em. That is called honesty. As you demonstrate, 'honesty' does not make 'friends', good medicine is distasteful.


I never suggested that anyone not share their views, I will, however, comment as I see fit, whether it offends your personal delicate sensitivities or not.
My point remains valid. Whether you like it or not!
You might want to refrain from reading my posts if they disturb you so.
But, thanx for sharing...

YOU cannot say that about other PEOPLE either.

Sure we can. We have brains scans which detect activity in the brain during thought and action. The word "will" might be a little tricky, but thinking, ect, is pretty well established.

Ignore everything this post previously said. I don't want it entered into the discussion.

Ignore everything this post previously said. I don't want it entered into the discussion.

That's quite right D.T., but waves of electromagnatism are not thought; they are phenomena that we have assosciated with thought via empirical observation. As your reading this paragraph, would you day that you are experiencing thought or waves of electromagnetism? I know what you mean and that you know what I mean...no need to go farther, I was just making a cheeky remark. :cool:

If thought is tantamount to aforementioned electromagnetic waves, or if thought is in part comprised of aforementioned electromagnetic waves, then I could say that I am experiencing both thought and waves of electromagnetism.

I'm all in favor of cheeky remarks. Thanks, BrightNoon.

You can think that there are electromagnetic waves doing something in your brain when you think, but you cannot experience them in the same way that you experience your thoughts, unless you want to admit that 'electromagnetic waves' do not exist except as that very thought: i.e. that there are no electromagnetic waves existing independent of your awareness of them. Of course, if we accept that, then the whole materialistic argument is negated anyway.