: Nikhil,: 1. If humans are not allowed to define the word superiority, then actual superiority does not exist.
I didn't say that the problem was one of definition. we all know what Superiority is. There is no ambiguity in saying "the gazelle is a superior runner" or "the chimpanzee is a superior tool-user." Superiority has been defined; there is no question of redefining it. The problem is that superiority can be meadsured using many different yardsticks. Depending on which criterion of usperiority you use (social harmony, tool complexity, language development, survivability, adaptability, etc.) a number of different speceis would come out on top. What I am trying to say is that your selection of a certain set of standards (or anyone else's) is at bottom a subjective choice, spurring the question "superior in what regard?" There's nothing subjective about definition, however.
Since you amy not agree with this, let me suggest an analogy which you will probably agree with. The scientific consensus is that human racial groupings don't exist. In other words, the African race, the whiote race, the Dravidian race, all do not really exist; dividing up teh human species is a useless endeavor. This is because depending on your choice of sortting criterion, you could totally rearrange the racial classification. If we judge by skin color, then we get one set of racial groupings; if we judge according to lactose sensitivity, howevber, teh Fulani of West africa and teh Swedes would be in one race, while the coastal African tribes and the mediterranean peopl,es would be in another. If we used blood-group analysis, a whole new set of racial grouposings would emerge. Because races can be sliced up in myriad ways, scientist sdo not recognize teh human "races' as actual units. Similarly, because the animal kingdom can eb ranked in myriad different ways depending oin your ranking criteriorn, does this not render the whole idea of ranking somewhat meaningless?
: 2. Your argument can be used to suggest that anything or nothing is superior to anything else. In other words, humans are not superior according to your criterion but they are with mine.
But I'm honestly trying to understand why you think humans are superior and so far I'm not able too. The arguemnt seems to hark back to the old idea of teh "Great Chain of Being" in which life ascends hierarchically from plants through primitive animals to more advanced species, trhough humans to angels and finally to God. In this scheme every speceis was alloted a place in the natural order- in oits original form, it had racist connotations as the "races" were also ranked. unfortunately, evolution and scientific progress rendered this philosophy untenable. Stephen Jay Gould has written some interesting essays on teh subject.
:This impasse cannot be overcome unless we agree that consensus determines the outcome. We will than have to define superiority by those dictionary definitions which apply in an agreed upon source. If we do that, my opinion will prevail in this country. Maybe not in India. But I'm not arguing whether Hindus or Christians are superior.
1) Consensus is a poor guide fro determining facts, particularly when you restrict teh consensus to a mere 5% of teh world's population.
2) Scientists, who ought to knwo what tehy're talking about, dn't accept teh idea of a hierarchy of life.
: The superiority argument is a tangent from my original intellectual integrity argument. I think the reason that we are so far off on this point is because I've won the other one - even if no one concedes.
See, this is why we can't determine objective facts by consensus. Becuase it';s quite possible taht teh American Majority taht you appeal to is just as mistaken as me, red Deathy, Kevin, Karen, and everyone else. (just kidding)
: 3. If men, for purposes of avoiding moral judgment of homosexual (or hetrosexual) promiscuity, are animals, why are they held to a higher moral standard with respect to eating meat? Is it because meat eating hurts animals and homosexual promiscuity doesn't?
Let me restate the crucial point here. I am not arguing that because animals engage in homosexuality, so should humans. The fact is, historically, when tryong to supply a reason tooppose homosexuality, many people have used the argument of it being "unnatural". There are two main lines of argument against homsoexuality. 1) it's unnatural, 2) it's immoral. I don't think teh third argument about health dangers has actually been used as the basis of a government policy). Each of these arguemnts needs to be countered independently. To the first, I would argue that the animal kingdom shows that homposexuality is eminently natural. To the second, I woudl argue that homosexuality, IF and WHEN it is an expression of consensual love, is no less noble and sublimne than heterosexual love, and cannot be called immoral unless you also refer to heterosexual love as immoral.
: Homosexual promiscuity deeply hurts people - mentally, emotionally, and physically. Don't argue otherwise.
Advice considered and declined. Of course, you're the one who brought up "promsicuity", Inever even mentioned it, but let that pass.
: I have far more real world experience with this issue that establishes my opinion than you are apt to even scratch with your booklearned idealism.
: Birds hurt worms. I was watching one this morning. The starling pulled a big worm out of the ground and had to rip him into smaller pieces in order to swallow him. Now that had to hurt.
I won'ty comment sinec I dpon't knwo offhand the details of worm nervous morphology...bear in midn that a worm can survive dismemberment.
:Let us all judge that starling as immoral or allow man his dietary preferrences without moral judgment - if man is only an animal.
The counterargument, which I don't really accept (but taht's only my opinion) is that humans have the moral sense and intellect, and the constitutionto be able to surtvive without causing pain. My counter-counterarguemnbt is that it's near impossible for a person to live without killing some sentient beings. When you raise crops, you're dispossessing birds and animals from their wild homes and sentencing them to death....same for building a house. You're going to kill a lot of animals anyway, so why not kill them for food as well?
: If I am only an animal, I want my place in the food chain without anyone's whining.
"Your palce in the food chain" is uncertain. Humans have certainly not generally been as carnivorous as tehy are today, the evidence seems to suggets that we evoolved on a largely vegetarian diet with some small amount of animal protein.
: But, if we are more than just animals, maybe we should evaluate certain other human behaviors for the real impact they have on the lives of the participants and society as a whole instead of just going along with the common pathos to seem enlightened.
: Stuart Gort
None.
