:: Indeed, SDF first pointed out to me, many moons ago, that I was wasting my time debating with Stu, disagreed, I thouught he rnked as at least a worthy debater- a 'silly clever conservative' as Orwell put it, however, lately, I realised it is futile, since his desperate love of imposing schemas and rampant sophistry aside, Stu is impregnable to reason:Not at all, but there are just so many minutes in a day. I believe I can poke rather large holes in most of the parroting you guys call reason. Problem is, when I post something I consider substantive it generally sets off an avalance that I can scarcely respond fully to.
::: "But that doesn't mark as superiority when millions of other life forms have gone extinct? Go figure what's in the heads of leftist malcontents. Mush - best I can tell."
This, for instance says "Man's tenatious existence marks one aspect of his superiority over millions of other life forms which weren't clever enough to deal with changes around them". This must certainly fulfill at least ONE dictionary definition of the word. If you don't like the attached ad hominem, too bad. Take note that I tweak you guys for sport at times. Forgive me if I don't consider these posts to be dead serious. If you take this stuff that seriously and consider ad hominem attacks as taboo, call your buddies on it when they do it as well.
Which one of you guys will admit that man is superior to animals by at least one dictionary definition? Anybody? Is man not manifestly superior in a miriad measurable ways to animals? Of course he is!
Only head of programmed mush will overlook what is manifest to win an argument.
I recognize if you cut me any slack at all it undermines an argument that animals are not subject to man. Of course, I don't need your affirmation if I base my opinion of this issue on biblical decree.
I could be smug and just parrot biblical tenets. Instead, I use the logic of applying the model we have in the animal kingdom as it relates to homosexuality (which you guys provided) to the morality of meat eating.
It is said;
Animals practice sexual behavior on their same sex and that is natural so it is also natural for man to do so. What is natural should not be judged immoral.
Let's all just accept that for the purposes of this argument.
I then say;
Animals practice meat eating and that is natural so it is also natural for man to do so. What is natural should not be judged immoral.
Except it is judged immoral by the same folks who offer us this style of reasoning. I'm not addressing the half a million tangents and peripheral obfuscatory arguments that you are all going off on - just the moral judgment issue - JUST THAT!
But I am unreasonable somehow. Look people, admit this lapse of logic and be more consistent with your reasoning.
:: The Man done say, rampant and unsubstantiated ad hominem, it also places him in a position of asserting that his ideas are the palce of thought and reason, and yet when faced with a logical demolition of his piss-poor (vieled ad hominem and surrepticiously schema imposing questions) HERE he responds with...
::: "After your wonderfully clinical examination of this issue I've been convinced that you're absolutely right. Homosexuality is not repulsive to right thinking people. Now, how will we convince the other 98% of males that disagree? "
:: A refusal not only to answer the question, but also to dogde out of it sarcastically (presumably he feals my reasoning beneath him), but also a subtle ad numerum argument as well.
I'm sorry you spent so much time on your XB=YB treatise Red, I still don't have the time or the inclination to answer it though. I might if there were some connection to the stated position which spawned this
thread. Do you suppose that your "meat causes pain" argument sufficed, freeing to argue the periphery? Tell me why animals are not immoral when they cause pain among themselves. Then proceed to tell me why humans are immoral when they do the same. I have no interest in your XB=YB treatise if you blow past my fundamental point.
If you suggest here that man has a choice of what he eats and choosing meat makes him immoral because of the pain he inflicts, I'll counter by suggesting that you make two assumptions.
First, you assume animal pain is the technical equivalent of human pain. Prove that. I say the cognitive complexity of humans amplifies pain. I say the anticipation, experience, rememberance, and processing of pain for humans is greviously higher in quantity and quality than in animals. Proving that should not be too difficult should you wish to argue this further.
Second, I'll argue that morality is:
1. Universally constant and therefore ought to apply to the animal kingdom as well, making animals immoral when they kill. or...
2. Ecclesiastically ordained and therefore is beyond debate. or...
3. The product of fickle consensus opinion and therefore has no imperative other than legal consequence. or...
4. Is based on opinions and therefore has no absolutes if we are not to esteem one's opinion over another's.
You guys are not seeming to accept 1, 2, or 3. Number 4 leaves us with no absolute right and wrong yet we still hear condemnation of meat eating. This is inconsistent.
:: He holds consistent hedonistic utilitarians to be inconsistent, not by their own arguments and reasoning, but by his schematic arguments, he refuses to enter into reasonable debate, and he is openly abusive.
:: Now, lest he respond with his trademarked 'how dare ye judge my heart' routine, I have provided evidence, his own words, I have provided reason (I have debated with him reasonably, and rationally) I judge him by his works. I ahve no reason to beleive that his works are at varience with his heart, unless of course he wishes to reveal to us that he is a wind-up merchant, a mendacious and disrespectful charlatan who merely plays the conservative fiddle, I prefer to believe he is not so low, and actually beleives what he says..
:: Now, I want to be clear, this is no personal attack, no ad hominem upon him personally, rather, I am making a point about reason and rationality in debate in these chat rooms, Stuart does not live up to the high level of reason and consistancy as would be expected of adult debate. Call me old fashioned, but I still believe in reason a tad.
I rarely work less than 60 hours a week, Red. My business is growing quickly and requires most of my brain (powerfin.com). In addition, I have a wonderful wife and two very upright, conservative fiddle playing sons who I am priviledged to offer my attentions.
Sometimes I have something to offer you guys. Sometimes I take a hard day out on you. But, high levels of reason and adult debate are no more the purview of this board than are ad hominem attack and spite, nor am I the exclusive distributor of either.
Stuart Gort
