Sorry Stuart, I cannot let your waffling pass. Please clarify your position in light (obscurity?) of your earlier statements.Stuart's first statement:
"Of course man is superior to animals - by any reasonable definition of the word."
After being provided with dictionary definitions and being asked to qualify his statements, Stuart then said:
"I don't need or want to qualify my statement, Kevin. It's an opinion I have and that is all. It's also a majority opinion so it's still legal to eat animals. My opinion of the superiority of man comes partially from my belief in the Bible as God's word and partially from common sense."
In a later post, (likely having forgotten that he had earlier claimed that his ASSERTION was actually UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION), Stuart has tried to win supporters (thereby proving his majority-held position) while STILL dodging the requests to qualify his opinion:
"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."
Stuart wields the weighty weapon of alliteration, using the impressive, yet non-qualifying adjective "manifest" in front of the word "superior" to lend credence to his argument. Suddenly "Superiority" has become this higher order, other-worldly concept which eludes definition or description, yet it is MANIFEST in human beings. This brings new meaning to the whole concept of "the Word made flesh".
Please, Stuart, reconcile these statements of yours for us, will you?
