timberlandko wrote:You've tasted them, Bella?
This one time, at deer camp, I was sitting there with cjhsa and he whipped out his ding a ling and then it made me drop my coffee and it burned my leg so I had to take off my pants and cjhsa started to come on to me and I declined and then cjhsa said "bite me" and so I did.
Tastes like chicken.
nick17 wrote:echi wrote:nick17 wrote:We'll agree to disagree i think.
But where do we disagree?
You believe human beings to be animals.
I believe that humans are superior beings to animals. I do not believe humans to be animals.
On what do you base this belief?
Nowhere in your earlier posts do you establish by what criteria or otherwise validate why you believe as you do, nick17, you merely affirm and repeat your statements of belief. That by definition is the fallacy of petitio in pricipii, it is nought but circular reasoning, and thus is invalid argument.
Bella Dea wrote:timberlandko wrote:You've tasted them, Bella?
This one time, at deer camp, I was sitting there with cjhsa and he whipped out his ding a ling and then it made me drop my coffee and it burned my leg so I had to take off my pants and cjhsa started to come on to me and I declined and then cjhsa said "bite me" and so I did.
Tastes like chicken.
I don't remember that. I must have been drinking heavily at the time.
echi wrote:nick17 wrote:echi wrote:
Nick, You and I are animals.
I'm afraid, echi, that is a view I do not share.
'Animals' cannot reason - they have no reason, they act on instincts and desires.
It is true, 'humans' also act on their instincts and desires. But we have reason; which rules over, controls and (in theory at least) contains our instincts and desires.
Plato's Soul = Reason, Appitites, Desires
Example: A man has been really mean to you, never mind what he has done. You want to 'get him back' for what he did.
You want to kill him. This is your
instinct, your
desire.
But your
reason tells you that if you kill him, you will be in big trouble with the law. You will go to jail for life, you might even be sentenced to death!
The possibility that I might go to jail, or worse, is known to me because I have learned it. Non-human animals also share this ability to learn.
Your explanation does not support your belief that non-human animals cannot reason.
I submit, nick, that your example begs the question whether one's decision to refrain from killing one's antagonist really depends on any concept of law or social retribution - much evidence exists that indicates the contrary. While of course not universal (after all, what is?), an abhorance of violence and internecine strife is a culturally advantageous trait, likely instinctive, if not even genetic, in human nature; were such not the case, there is little prospect the human animal would have survived and prospered long enough to work its evolutionary way from the forrests and savannahs through the caves into cities and on to the reaches of space. Yes, there are laws, and some of those laws are based on what are termed moral precepts, but I submit that a perfectly functional moral development may be made through no more ethereal a consideration than the continued welfare and propagation of the species.
We are animals - complicated, devious, inventive, curious, often fractious, but animals none the less, and we are so by any academically or scientifically valid defintion. To maintain we are otherwise entails the arrogance and unwarranted assumption that we are by some propitious intervention of a superior being endowed with some "specialness" that is in fact not in evidence other than as perceived and professed by those to whom the notion appeals.
I was a wolf in a previous incarnation. Being at the top of the food chain appeals to me.
If one must be in the food chain, the top is a position of undeniable appeal.
If you will not even consider my beliefs to be valid, will not even participate in a CONSTRUCTIVE discussion. there is no point in me or anyone with diferent views to your own. Putting there beliefs forward
I was presenting a Kantian argument - He holds that the distinction of humans from animals in rationallity.
nick17 wrote:I was presenting a Kantian argument - He holds that the distinction of humans from animals in rationallity.
I am willing to debate that assertion, but you have not yet presented your case. What evidence do you have... What reasoning led you to arrive at your belief?
nick, that I, or anyone, dispute your contentions and offer rebuttal to same precisely is discussion. You may choose to engage in the discussion or not, as is your preference. I submit further that your assertion I will not consider your beliefs to be valid is erroneous; I consider the manner of presentation and support of those beliefs to be invalid - an entirely distinct condition.
Hey cjhsa,
What did the lepar say to the prostitute?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Keep the tip.
Nick,
Look at this:
http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Morgan/Morgan_1903/Morgan_1903_16.html
Animals DO reason, but upto a different degree than us humans. Anyways, this is not about reason or consciousness. Animals feel pain and they do have feelings (although different from that of human beings). They do nuzzle their young ones... (though their parenting differs from what we practise). How does it matter if they are "conscious" in the Kantian sense or not?
Animals have rights, yet I submit that we should still masticate them. This is not a contradiction, merely a poor attempt to create one.
The Animal Welfare Act was established to stem the growing tide of animal research cruelty amongst other things. This is to ensure that no animal suffers unduly for sustained periods of time. This isn't an animal's 'right' but rather a restriction upon mankind.
Carl Cohen writes:
"The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked."
Humans have rights, animals do not. And they taste so darn good.
Cubette recently went vegetarian. Several of her friends are vegetarian and one of them sent her a PETA video ... Needless to say, she was sickened and crying by the end of it. No matter what I tried to tell her, she wasn't gonna listen.
So, a month later, Bear goes vegetarian. Not due to animal cruelty or rights or anything, but because, as you know, he lost his gallbladder last year. The gallbladder enzymes are primarily responsible for digesting / breaking down fats / meats. Within a couple of days he had no more stomach problems, pain, bloating, gas, etc.
So, we're all giving it a try as a way to be healthier. I can't imagine that ir will hurt us meat lovers in the family to cut back on fried chicken, greasy burgers or pot roast.
To me, the key is balance. I don't have a problem with eating meat. I have a problem with eating enough vegetables and fruits. I'm being "forced" to try new recipes, vegetables and even a few soy based items that are high in protein.
BTW, did you know tofu can taste just like CJHSA???
I don't think you can tofubricate a cjhsa.
If I'm anything veggie, I'd be a giant bean and cheese burrito with extra hot sauce. Bring a mask.
Tofubricate? That's a pretty cool word. I like it. Tofubricate. Tofubricate. hehe
Anyways, I was only going by what Bella claimed you taste like. I never got to go to deer camp.
