PETA likens dog breeders to the KKK

[SUBMAN1]

Nice.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/peta-vs-the-dog-show/?hp

I guess you can't fault PETA too much no matter how idiotic their ideas are. Why? Simple. It is the logical conclusion to the ideas of pure Darwinism. You are nothing more that an animal with two opposable thumbs competing for survival on this planet. Forget any idea about human dignity. An ant is an equal in PETA's and Darwanists eyes.

See now where this idea of pure Darwinism is taking us? PETA is your answer.

Animal Crackers strike again.

-S

[3Jane]

You bring a whole new meaning to the term 'missing the point' :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

You bring a whole new meaning to the term 'missing the point' :rotfl:There is no point missed here. It is just another one of PETA's stupid ideas shown in public. How many you want? I've got 1000's! :D

Based on your reply, I'd have to gather that you missed my point completely.

-S

[Kapitan_Phillips]

PETA - The evidence that the first amendment needs to be refined :lol::lol:

[STEED]

BLONDIE :shifty:

[Jimbuna]

No doubt they'll have some powerful supporters in the halls of power http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/621/thinkbigsw1.gif

"dog breeders to the Ku Klux Klan" http://imgcash3.imageshack.us/img240/9117/pointingqq8.gif

[baggygreen]

last time i checked, dog breeders dont really go round lynching dogs from trees and setting fire to crosses while wearing mums bedsheets....

[elite_hunter_sh3]

boy are they nazis :roll:

[orwell]

I never thought there'd be a day when I say "PETA says something I can agree with" but then, I just tend to have a general dislike for pets. You eat animals, not keep them in your house and treat them like equals.

[STEED]

boy are they nazis :roll:

Shall we ask uncle Adolf. :lol:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I never thought there'd be a day when I say "PETA says something I can agree with" but then, I just tend to have a general dislike for pets. You eat animals, not keep them in your house and treat them like equals.

I'm sorry but I cant stop laughing at the sheer irony of seeing your post, then your name being the same as the author of 'Animal Farm' :rotfl:

Not being derogatory to your opinions, I just smiled when I saw it :lol:

[SUBMAN1]

I never thought there'd be a day when I say "PETA says something I can agree with" but then, I just tend to have a general dislike for pets. You eat animals, not keep them in your house and treat them like equals.
I'm sorry but I cant stop laughing at the sheer irony of seeing your post, then your name being the same as the author of 'Animal Farm' :rotfl:

Not being derogatory to your opinions, I just smiled when I saw it :lol:I think so too! Its a great post!

They are for eating, and doing your work. Cats have a use - they eat mice. Dogs too - they alert you of prowlers. Horses are for riding or hauling. Cows are for foodstuffs. What else is there?

The name is great too!

-S

[Letum]

It is the logical conclusion to the ideas of pure Darwinism. You are nothing more that an animal with two opposable thumbs competing for survival on this planet. Forget any idea about human dignity. An ant is an equal in PETA's and Darwanists eyes.

See now where this idea of pure Darwinism is taking us? PETA is your answer.

Are your moral principles really so flimsy that you would think it fit to abandon them if
you believed that animals, bacteria and viruses change over generations depending on
their environment?


Oh, and boo to peta etc.

[SUBMAN1]

Are your moral princibles really so flimsy that you would think it fit to abandon them if
you belived that animals, bacteria and viruses change over generations depending on
their enviroment?I didn't say that didn't happen, and you can't deny that PETA is not the logical conclusion of Darwanism either. :D Face it - you already know your future!

-S

[Letum]

Are your moral princibles really so flimsy that you would think it fit to abandon them if
you belived that animals, bacteria and viruses change over generations depending on
their enviroment?I didn't say that didn't happen, and you can't deny that PETA is not the logical conclusion of Darwanism either. :D Face it - you already know your future!

You can not get moral conclusions from logic.
Unless you have found a way round the is-ought gap.

PETA may be a irrational conclusion from Darwinism, but that just shows peta is
irrational and we all know that.

[The WosMan]

Hey hey hey, what's with all this PETA hate in there? I happen to be a bonafide member of that organization. Yes sir, People Eating Tastey Animals is a great organization. When you cook my steak you better slap it on the grill just to get the grill marks on it. I poke it with a fork and it tries to run away from me.

[SUBMAN1]

You can not get moral conclusions from logic.
Unless you have found a way round the is-ought gap.

PETA may be a irrational conclusion from Darwinism, but that just shows peta is
irrational and we all know that.You think its irrational, and I think its irrational, but they think we are irrational, so this is defintitely not a moral conclusion since whos morals are we talking about? A Darwanist has no morals. Morals simply do not exist in Darwinism, and no Darwanist yet can show morals in Darwinism without turning into a babling wreck based on self interest that is clearly wrong as seen by any plain man. This is where Darwinism fails miserably as a theory, such as trying to explain 'Alltruism'. It can not explain this adequately and has more holes that makes even a shotgun approach miss completely. THis is why I personally believe it is all grey area when pure Darwanist see all in black and white.

So do not come at me from a moral perspective here. That will fail miserably.

-S

[Jimbuna]

Hey hey hey, what's with all this PETA hate in there? I happen to be a bonafide member of that organization. Yes sir, People Eating Tastey Animals is a great organization. When you cook my steak you better slap it on the grill just to get the grill marks on it. I poke it with a fork and it tries to run away from me.

Try sticking a fork in me and I reckon I'd be running away from you http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/c_jane24/Smileys/4_6_100.gif

[SUBMAN1]

Hey hey hey, what's with all this PETA hate in there? I happen to be a bonafide member of that organization. Yes sir, People Eating Tastey Animals is a great organization. When you cook my steak you better slap it on the grill just to get the grill marks on it. I poke it with a fork and it tries to run away from me.Oh - that is its good side. the other PETA is its evil cousin! :D We aren't talking about PETA, we are talking about PETA!!

-S

[The WosMan]

Oh, thanks for clearing that up. Seriously though, I have a freezer full of deer meat and I still have some spicey deer smokies. I wonder what that PETA would think of that?

I have a buddy that I have been friends with since we were kids. I will never forget the time I was over there and his sister decided that she was a vegan. It was salisbury steak I was having over there with his family. It's always that darn salisbury steak. In any event, she grew up to be a raging liberal. The moral of the story is if your 10 year old daughter annouces she is a vegatarian you better nip that in the bud damn quick before she becomes a total idiot. By the way there was a period of time she thought she was a lesbian too but that is another story.

[Stealth Hunter]

You know a few years ago I took pictures of myself wearing a bear-fur coat and had my brother-in-law shoot a photo of me when I went to the Canadian seal hunts... and I posted them on the official PETA website!:rotfl:

If ONLY you could see the responses... if only you could see them...:roll: :rotfl:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

boy are they nazis :roll:
Shall we ask uncle Adolf. :lol:
We can't, he retired a long time ago remember?? ;)

maybe we should ask their ringleader Frau Anderson :hmm::lol:

Stealth Hunter.. you have a link to that post?? i want to read them :arrgh!::rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

You know a few years ago I took pictures of myself wearing a bear-fur coat and had my brother-in-law shoot a photo of me when I went to the Canadian seal hunts... and I posted them on the official PETA website!:rotfl:

If ONLY you could see the responses... if only you could see them...:roll: :rotfl:Do it again! I want to see! :up:

-S

[Jimbuna]

You know a few years ago I took pictures of myself wearing a bear-fur coat and had my brother-in-law shoot a photo of me when I went to the Canadian seal hunts... and I posted them on the official PETA website!:rotfl:

If ONLY you could see the responses... if only you could see them...:roll: :rotfl:

As long as you weren't dressed up as a wolf http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/2108/thumbsupkc7.gif

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3706/50976nf0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[STEED]

boy are they nazis :roll:
Shall we ask uncle Adolf. :lol:
We can't, he retired a long time ago remember?? ;)



There's always a catch. :lol:

[Stealth Hunter]

You know a few years ago I took pictures of myself wearing a bear-fur coat and had my brother-in-law shoot a photo of me when I went to the Canadian seal hunts... and I posted them on the official PETA website!:rotfl:

If ONLY you could see the responses... if only you could see them...:roll: :rotfl:

As long as you weren't dressed up as a wolf http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/2108/thumbsupkc7.gif

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3706/50976nf0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

My god... I've found it...

My NEW and OFFICIAL U-boat emblem! Watch out, Tommy and Yankee-Doodle, I've got the most ferocious beast of all coming for you!!:rotfl: :rotfl:

[Letum]

You can not get moral conclusions from logic.
Unless you have found a way round the is-ought gap.

PETA may be a irrational conclusion from Darwinism, but that just shows peta is
irrational and we all know that.You think its irrational, and I think its irrational, but they think we are irrational, so this is defintitely not a moral conclusion since whos morals are we talking about? A Darwanist has no morals. Morals simply do not exist in Darwinism, and no Darwanist yet can show morals in Darwinism without turning into a babling wreck based on self interest that is clearly wrong as seen by any plain man. This is where Darwinism fails miserably as a theory, such as trying to explain 'Alltruism'. It can not explain this adequately and has more holes that makes even a shotgun approach miss completely. THis is why I personally believe it is all grey area when pure Darwanist see all in black and white.

So do not come at me from a moral perspective here. That will fail miserably.

-S


Of course there are no morals in Dawinism!
Just like there are no morals in the theory of gravity or the way steel rusts in salt
water. Thats my point!

[mrbeast]

You can not get moral conclusions from logic.
Unless you have found a way round the is-ought gap.

PETA may be a irrational conclusion from Darwinism, but that just shows peta is
irrational and we all know that.You think its irrational, and I think its irrational, but they think we are irrational, so this is defintitely not a moral conclusion since whos morals are we talking about? A Darwanist has no morals. Morals simply do not exist in Darwinism, and no Darwanist yet can show morals in Darwinism without turning into a babling wreck based on self interest that is clearly wrong as seen by any plain man. This is where Darwinism fails miserably as a theory, such as trying to explain 'Alltruism'. It can not explain this adequately and has more holes that makes even a shotgun approach miss completely. THis is why I personally believe it is all grey area when pure Darwanist see all in black and white.

So do not come at me from a moral perspective here. That will fail miserably.

-S

When you are talking about Darwinism what exactly do you mean by that?

As I understand it Letum is correct Darwinism is not concerned with morality its a scientific theory.

Plus I don't see how the PETA is the conclusion of Darwinism.

[TteFAboB]

You have all been brainwashed. The Dog Revolution has succeeded.

http://www.obeythepurebreed.com/

Nikimcbee is their infiltrated agent among us. You people talk to a dog and don't even realize anymore.

http://www.cafepress.com/dogs_of_war/177724

[Tchocky]

The moral of the story is if your 10 year old daughter annouces she is a vegatarian you better nip that in the bud damn quick before she becomes a total idiot. By the way there was a period of time she thought she was a lesbian too but that is another story. Damn kids and their opinions. Gotta crush that soon or they'll start thinking.

Looking for morals in a scientific theory is......unusual.

[SUBMAN1]

When you are talking about Darwinism what exactly do you mean by that?

As I understand it Letum is correct Darwinism is not concerned with morality its a scientific theory.

Plus I don't see how the PETA is the conclusion of Darwinism.A blind man speaks. I figured you'd be smart enough to figure it out, but I see I was wrong. Scary.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

You can not get moral conclusions from logic.
Unless you have found a way round the is-ought gap.

PETA may be a irrational conclusion from Darwinism, but that just shows peta is
irrational and we all know that.You think its irrational, and I think its irrational, but they think we are irrational, so this is defintitely not a moral conclusion since whos morals are we talking about? A Darwanist has no morals. Morals simply do not exist in Darwinism, and no Darwanist yet can show morals in Darwinism without turning into a babling wreck based on self interest that is clearly wrong as seen by any plain man. This is where Darwinism fails miserably as a theory, such as trying to explain 'Alltruism'. It can not explain this adequately and has more holes that makes even a shotgun approach miss completely. THis is why I personally believe it is all grey area when pure Darwanist see all in black and white.

So do not come at me from a moral perspective here. That will fail miserably.

-S

Of course there are no morals in Dawinism!
Just like there are no morals in the theory of gravity or the way steel rusts in salt
water. Thats my point!Exactly my point as well. So why did you bring morals into it then?

My guess is you are looking for traction where there is none or very little.

-S

[mrbeast]

When you are talking about Darwinism what exactly do you mean by that?

As I understand it Letum is correct Darwinism is not concerned with morality its a scientific theory.

Plus I don't see how the PETA is the conclusion of Darwinism.A blind man speaks. I figured you'd be smart enough to figure it out, but I see I was wrong. Scary.

-S

From a man who 'thinks' he can see.

Anyway I'm still at a loss to see why a group of animals rights loonies are the logical conclusion of Darwinism?

Thats why I wanted to know what you understood as 'Darwinism'.

[SUBMAN1]

From a man who 'thinks' he can see.

Anyway I'm still at a loss to see why a group of animals rights loonies are the logical conclusion of Darwinism?

Thats why I wanted to know what you understood as 'Darwinism'.You are telling me that you can't see the simple steps of logic involved? A blind man can see this. Peta elevates everything to being an equal based on Darwinism core logic. It is that simple.

-S

[mrbeast]

From a man who 'thinks' he can see.

Anyway I'm still at a loss to see why a group of animals rights loonies are the logical conclusion of Darwinism?

Thats why I wanted to know what you understood as 'Darwinism'.You are telling me that you can't see the simple steps of logic involved? A blind man can see this. Peta elevates everything to being an equal based on Darwinism core logic. It is that simple.

So where in On the Origin Of Species is that written?

[SUBMAN1]

So where in On the Origin Of Species is that written?Oh my gosh! Are you that stupid?

[mrbeast]

So where in On the Origin Of Species is that written?Oh my gosh! Are you that stupid?

Indulge me

[SUBMAN1]

Indulge meI'm sorry. They say there are no stupid questions, but I tend to disagree since you have proved me wrong with the ultimate in stupid questions. So forget it. You lack the ability to understand.

-S

[mrbeast]

Indulge meI'm sorry. They say there are no stupid questions, but I tend to disagree since you have proved me wrong with the ultimate in stupid questions. So forget it. You lack the ability to understand.

-S

Why won't you explain your reasoning? :nope:

Come on........don't be bashful :yep: :oops:

Sounds to me like your trying to skate over something Subman. :yep: More wooly thinking and childs logic perhaps? :hmm:

Maybe along similar lines to Ozzy Osbourne is a satanist or to solve gun crime in the US you simply need to add more guns or how about communism has nearly taken over the world........

.........On second thoughts, might be better if you do keep it to yourself.:hmm: :yep:

[SUBMAN1]

Why won't you explain your reasoning? :nope:

Come on........don't be bashful :yep: :oops:

Sounds to me like your trying to skate over something Subman. :yep: More wooly thinking and childs logic perhaps? :hmm:

Maybe along similar lines to Ozzy Osbourne is a satanist or to solve gun crime in the US you simply need to add more guns or how about communism has nearly taken over the world........

.........On second thoughts, might be better if you do keep it to yourself.:hmm: :yep:What part about what I have not explained have you not been able to comprehend? If all animals on the planet are vying for survival, and all animals being equal subsequently and having an equal stake in the planet, and Peta uses this logic to dictate their reasoning, it is obvious that you are not the brightest bulb in the planet! It goes back to Ozzy / Black Sabbath and upside down crucifixes - you don't have the intelligence to comprehend what most other people here can see. Its pathetic. It's actually quite hilarious in one respect since you have made me spew beer from laughing uncontrollably at some of your 'I can't think for myself' comments, but outside of that, it is a waste of time to bother replying to someone when they are so closed minded and black and white.

I understand wisdom will come in time for you, but you must get rid of your moon is made of cheese mentality because your king told you so. This is the type of argument we are having right now. I'm sure you made some people smirk however, so maybe its good for the entertainment factor alone. :D

-S

[Jimbuna]

You know a few years ago I took pictures of myself wearing a bear-fur coat and had my brother-in-law shoot a photo of me when I went to the Canadian seal hunts... and I posted them on the official PETA website!:rotfl:

If ONLY you could see the responses... if only you could see them...:roll: :rotfl:

As long as you weren't dressed up as a wolf http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/2108/thumbsupkc7.gif

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3706/50976nf0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

My god... I've found it...

My NEW and OFFICIAL U-boat emblem! Watch out, Tommy and Yankee-Doodle, I've got the most ferocious beast of all coming for you!!:rotfl: :rotfl:

http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/whistle.gif

[Letum]

If all animals on the planet are vying for survival, and all animals being equal
You have made a logic leap there.

How do you get from "all animals vying [trying(?)] for survival" to "all animals being equal" ?

I don't see the connection between the two.
It's like saying gold and iron fall to the ground at the same speed, therefore they are equal.

There is no link and there can be no link. You can not make a observation about the world
i.e. "all animals reproduce" and then conclude a moral judgement from that i.e. "therefore
they are all equal / should be treated equally"

The above is just an example, the same is true of all "is" prepositions with "ought" conclusions.
You simply can not make links between the way things are and what we ought to do.

[SUBMAN1]

You have made a logic leap there.

In that sense, you are right, since I should be looking at it backwards instead of forwards even though the end result is the same - Humans are not special and on an equal plane as all other species. That would be a more proper way to put it from a logic perspective. I stand corrected in this sense.

-S

[Letum]

You have made a logic leap there.

In that sense, you are right, since I should be looking at it backwards instead of forwards even though the end result is the same - Humans are not special and on an equal plane as all other species. That would be a more proper way to put it from a logic perspective. I stand corrected in this sense.

-S
The leap is still there.

How do you get from "all animals vying [trying(?)] for survival" to "Humans are not
special and on an equal plane as all other species" ?

How does one follow from the other?

The truth (or otherwise) of the preposition in no way guarantees or reveals the truth
(or otherwise) of the conclusion.

I hate to repeat my self, but it is still like saying "gold and iron fall to the ground at the
same speed, therefore gold is not special and on an equal plane as all other metals"

[SUBMAN1]

You have made a logic leap there.

In that sense, you are right, since I should be looking at it backwards instead of forwards even though the end result is the same - Humans are not special and on an equal plane as all other species. That would be a more proper way to put it from a logic perspective. I stand corrected in this sense.

-S
The leap is still there.

How do you get from "all animals vying [trying(?)] for survival" to "Humans are not
special and on an equal plane as all other species" ?

How does one follow from the other?

The truth (or otherwise) of the preposition in no way gaurentees or reveals the truth
(or otherwise) of the conclusion.Simple - past logic dictates that humans are from a divine nature. This has been this way through the ages. Darwanism however removes this logic and puts humans on an equal plane as all other species who are simply vying for survival, even though it fails to answer some key questions. So what you have done is lower several notches the standing of the human element in peoples minds. Darwanism stops short of actually saying that humans and animals are equal, but it doesn't need to since it implies it. A group like Peta comes along then (it was inevitable) and follows and unfinished theory to its one and only logical conclusion, which raises animals and lowers humans into an equal catagory. Matter of fact, Darwin goes so far as to put humans in the animal catagory so Peta didn't even need to do this.

End conclusion - Peta sees animals and humans as equals. Peta then starts their mad campaign to stop people from eating animal protein or harming animals in any way shape or form based on this logic.

End of story. I wonder if there is any net data on this idea? I will do a search. THis could get interesting to see if anyone has taken this further. Must search.

-S

PS. DOn't get me wrong. I think most parts of Darwins theories are accurate. Just it is a flawed theory in that it can't explain certain things based on survival of the fittest.

[mrbeast]

You have made a logic leap there.

In that sense, you are right, since I should be looking at it backwards instead of forwards even though the end result is the same - Humans are not special and on an equal plane as all other species. That would be a more proper way to put it from a logic perspective. I stand corrected in this sense.

-S
The leap is still there.

How do you get from "all animals vying [trying(?)] for survival" to "Humans are not
special and on an equal plane as all other species" ?

How does one follow from the other?

The truth (or otherwise) of the preposition in no way gaurentees or reveals the truth
(or otherwise) of the conclusion.Simple - past logic dictates that humans are from a divine nature. This has been this way through the ages. Darwanism however removes this logic and puts humans on an equal plane as all other species who are simply vying for survival, even though it fails to answer some key questions. So what you have done is lower several notches the standing of the human element in peoples minds. Darwanism stops short of actually saying that humans and animals are equal, but it doesn't need to since it implies it. A group like Peta comes along then (it was inevitable) and follows and unfinished theory to its one and only logical conclusion, which raises animals and lowers humans into an equal catagory. Matter of fact, Darwin goes so far as to put humans in the animal catagory so Peta didn't even need to do this.

End conclusion - Peta sees animals and humans as equals. Peta then starts their mad campaign to stop people from eating animal protein or harming animals in any way shape or form based on this logic.

End of story. I wonder if there is any net data on this idea? I will do a search. THis could get interesting to see if anyone has taken this further. Must search.

-S

PS. DOn't get me wrong. I think most parts of Darwins theories are accurate. Just it is a flawed theory in that it can't explain certain things based on survival of the fittest.

Subman you finally got there in the end :up: took you quite a few posts but still, I thought we'd have to spend all night trading insults :yep:

Then again we haven't got onto the content of your answer.....:hmm: .....oh well.

[SUBMAN1]

Subman you finally got there in the end :up: took you quite a few posts but still, I thought we'd have to spend all night trading insults :yep:Take note - its the way you ask that turned me off. When replying next time, sit back, look at both sides, and then say what you think. The way I feel coming from you is that the moon may look purple, but you'll tell me it's yellow.

-S

[mrbeast]

When you are talking about Darwinism what exactly do you mean by that?

As I understand it Letum is correct Darwinism is not concerned with morality its a scientific theory.

Plus I don't see how the PETA is the conclusion of Darwinism.A blind man speaks. I figured you'd be smart enough to figure it out, but I see I was wrong. Scary.

-S

Well you did kinda start the ball rolling a bit.......nevermind the discussion moves on :up:

[SUBMAN1]

Well you did kinda start the ball rolling a bit.......nevermind the discussion moves on :up:Well, you see where I'm coming from now? The idea sprang when I got a tidbit about it while flipping channels on the radio (driving to work boredom). Someone was comparing Peta to Darwanists, and if you think about it, it totally makes sense. Come in to work, read the news, and low and behold, Peta is comapring the killing of animals to the KKK.

I'm not against Darwins ideas, but I am against the purests of its purests form. THey think nothing is wrong with the theory. They beleive everything they read, and I always take everything I read with a grain of salt.

-S

[trekchu]

Well you did kinda start the ball rolling a bit.......nevermind the discussion moves on :up:Well, you see where I'm coming from now? The idea sprang when I got a tidbit about it while flipping channels on the radio (driving to work boredom). Someone was comparing Peta to Darwanists, and if you think about it, it totally makes sense. Come in to work, read the news, and low and behold, Peta is comapring the killing of animals to the KKK.

I'm not against Darwins ideas, but I am against the purests of its purests form. THey think nothing is wrong with the theory. They beleive everything they read, and I always take everything I read with a grain of salt.

-S

That is certainly not wrong, but stating that Darwinism puts everything on the same level is. ( at least in my opinion. ) I am a Darvinist by heart and my belief about this matter is:

I think that animals are simply that, Animals. They are living and feeling beeings and deserve the respect that every living beeing deserves, but nothing more than that as we still need them to feed ourselves, and I happen to like BBQs. Humanity is not divine, but it is seperated from the animals by the simple thing called self-consience (sp?) that Animals do not have. When and how we got this is a question that cannot be answered, but it separates us from our closest relatives in the Animal Kingdom. The fact that we can use tools is just a neat side-effect that allowed us to develop a technical civilization. :|\\

[SUBMAN1]

That is certainly not wrong, but stating that Darwinism puts everything on the same level is. ( at least in my opinion. ) I am a Darvinist by heart and my belief about this matter is:

I think that animals are simply that, Animals. They are living and feeling beeings and deserve the respect that every living beeing deserves, but nothing more than that as we still need them to feed ourselves, and I happen to like BBQs. Humanity is not divine, but it is seperated from the animals by the simple thing called self-consience (sp?) that Animals do not have. When and how we got this is a question that cannot be answered, but it separates us from our closest relatives in the Animal Kingdom. The fact that we can use tools is just a neat side-effect that allowed us to develop a technical civilization. :|\\You are like me - you are not a purest. You accept that it is a theory with flaws. Our differences however divide when you start to talk about the man upstairs.

We live in a world of grey no matter how people want it to be black and white.

-S

PS. Animals have been proven to be aware of their surroundings and self conscious by the way. I have something for you to read if I can find it.

[trekchu]

That is certainly not wrong, but stating that Darwinism puts everything on the same level is. ( at least in my opinion. ) I am a Darvinist by heart and my belief about this matter is:

I think that animals are simply that, Animals. They are living and feeling beeings and deserve the respect that every living beeing deserves, but nothing more than that as we still need them to feed ourselves, and I happen to like BBQs. Humanity is not divine, but it is seperated from the animals by the simple thing called self-consience (sp?) that Animals do not have. When and how we got this is a question that cannot be answered, but it separates us from our closest relatives in the Animal Kingdom. The fact that we can use tools is just a neat side-effect that allowed us to develop a technical civilization. :|\\You are like me - you are not a purest. You accept that it is a theory with flaws. Our differences however divide when you start to talk about the man upstairs.


We live in a world of grey no matter how people want it to be black and white.

-S


I am not talking about the man upstairs, I am simply stating that Humanity isn't partcularly special aside from the factors I mentoined. The man upstairs ( if is there at all ) has nothing to do with it. I agree that the world isn't black and white, though I like to believe that it is of a lighert shade of grey.

PS- Self Conciense (sp?) might have been a bad choice of words. I was trying to say that the human 'soul' for lack of a better world allows us to go beyond the immediate horizon of what is around us at a given moment.

[Jimbuna]

:roll: ....................... http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img104/2807/icontennisyk3.gif

[trekchu]

:roll: ....................... http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img104/2807/icontennisyk3.gif


I got the message. *shuts up* :yep:

[SUBMAN1]

...Self Conciense (sp?) might have been a bad choice of words. I was trying to say that the human 'soul' for lack of a better world allows us to go beyond the immediate horizon of what is around us at a given moment.Here is an exmaple of a parrot that can clearly think into the future and beyond his immediate surroundings - http://www.economist.com/obituary/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9828615

-S

[Jimbuna]

:roll: ....................... http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img104/2807/icontennisyk3.gif


I got the message. *shuts up* :yep:

No....not at all mate :nope:

It's my way of saying "this is entertaining.....like a game of tennis" http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

[trekchu]

:roll: ....................... http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img104/2807/icontennisyk3.gif


I got the message. *shuts up* :yep:

No....not at all mate :nope:

It's my way of saying "this is entertaining.....like a game of tennis" http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif


Oh...... :oops:

[Letum]

Simple - past logic dictates that humans are from a divine nature.
eh?
What does logic have to do with the divine?

Some past reasoning dictates that humans are from a divine nature, but logic does
not deal with that kind of thing.

Logic is the syntax of good reasoning, but logic can not be based on prepositions
outside of its own structure and therefore can not make conclusions on its own.


This has been this way through the ages.
This has only been the way in certain cultures, not all, and only for the last 10,000
years or so as far as we know.


Darwinism however removes this logic and puts humans on an equal plane as all other species who are simply vying for survival
This is the same logic leap rephrased yet again.

how are you getting from "humans are simply vying for survival as all other species" to "humans on an equal plane as all other species"?

Where is the connection between the preposition and the conclusion here?
What is it about adapting to survive that makes humans equal?

What does genetic history have to do with equality.




Secondly, what makes you think that animals or humans are "vying for survival"?

[you don't have to read this bit as on reflection is is a little obscure]

Vying implies it is something done with purpose i.e. "the evolutionary purpose of
animals is to survive/reproduce". This is a flawed use of language and meaning.
"purpose" is often talked about in evolution because it helps us understand the
process. On the face of it the purpose of fish's gills is to breathe and the ultimate
purpose of breathing is to live and reproduce. It is helpful to think of gills, breathing
and fish in this way, but it is also false and misleading because it confuses what
happens with why happens. Even worse, it implies design i.e. if something has
purpose, then it must have been designed by evolution for that purpose (for
example gills have evolved for breathing / evolution designed gills for breathing).

The truth is that gills, fish, breathing or humans do not have purpose, they are just
what happens when you have certain starting conditions. There is no why
happens.
The purpose of a human is no more to pass on DNA than the purpose of water is to
rain, condense and evaporate.

A object (even living ones) can have the properties of mass, size, heat etc. but no
object can possess a property of "purpose". Mass, size, etc. are properties
determined by the atoms/matter that make a object. Atoms/matter can not hold
"purpose" as a property.

"purpose" is a false property like "beauty" that humans and (perhaps) other animals
give objects. That does not necessarily mean that "purpose" is nor real, it just mean
we individually choice what the purpose of a object is. The purpose of a watch
might be to tell the time, or it might be to bang nails into a bit of wood, depending
on what purpose you give the watch.

We also do something more complex with purpose which leads to confusion. We try
to guess what the purpose of one object is to another object or non-object. For
example, we might suppose that a chair leg has a purpose for the chair; to keep it
up.

In reality, the chair has not given the leg a purpose because chairs can not think.
We also might suppose that evolution (a non-object) has a purpose for a fish; to
spread fish DNA. Of course, abstract theories can not give something purpose.

So, the only objects that truly have purpose are the objects of praxis that we use. I
use the sun, so it has purpose for me. I use this keyboard, so it to has purpose.

Back to the original statement: "humans are vying for survival". No! evolution is a
abstract theory and abstract theories can not think and give things purposes like
"survival". A machine with no purpose is not a machine, it is just a thing that
happens. The purpose of a river is not to take water to the sea, water just flows
down hill without purpose.




it [Darwinism] fails to answer some key questions.
It isn't meant to answer questions, it's just want to explain biological processes.

So what you have done is lower several notches the standing of the human element in peoples minds.

Is that really all it takes to lower the standing of humans in your mind?
It is a good thing that most peoples ideas about how to treat people stand on firmer
ground.

Darwinism stops short of actually saying that humans and animals are equal, but it doesn't need to since it implies it.
All it implies is the workings of a biological process.

Physics books don't imply that murder is wrong, even if they explain how a gun works.

Chemistry books don't imply that we are equal to rocks because both humans and rocks have roughly the same chemical composition.

Biology books don't imply that humans are better, worse or equal to animals because both adapt to their environment over a series of generations.


A group like Peta comes along then (it was inevitable) and follows and unfinished theory to its one and only logical conclusion, which raises animals and lowers humans into an equal category. Matter of fact, Darwin goes so far as to put humans in the animal category so Peta didn't even need to do this.
If you think animals and humans must be equal because they are in a equal category,
then surely humans and cars must be equal because they are both in the categories
of animate objects and also the category of things made of matter.



End conclusion - Peta sees animals and humans as equals. Peta then starts their mad campaign to stop people from eating animal protein or harming animals in any way shape or form based on this logic.
That is ridiculous.

Long before Darwin and long before the study of biology at all PETA's far less imposing Eastern cousin, Jainism was practicing Ahimsa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa_in_Jainism) towards animals
to such an extent that the Jain monks sweep everywhere they walk to avoid
stepping on ants and wear masks to avoid breathing in amoeba and killing them.

PETA's ideology shares much more in common with this than it does with
evolutionary theory, the theory of gravity or any other work of modern science.



My own thaughts on the matter.

From the scientific perspective humans are not better, worse, or equal. Science just
does not make subjective judgements like that. humans, and everything else just are. Science does not tell us what is good, bad or equal. Logic tells us nothing other
than it's own structure and reason is constrained by our solipsistic lack of direct
access to the world, our rational limitations and the subjective nature of experience.

Humans are clearly special when we look at them from the human perspective. This
is the human perspective and it is the only perspective we have on the world.
It is not changed by the redundancy of a deity in our explanations of the world
firstly because the fact that humans are special and above the animals is not a
fact about the world, it is a fact about our prospective; the only perspective there
is in the world for man to have, and secondly because the things that make us
special are not things like our genetic history or means of physical existence.

Humans are special because we are humans. Sheep are not special, because we are
not sheep.
Or in other words: "What we are is special because we are it"

If we where sheep, the sheep would be special because sheep would be what we
where, but they are not what we are and so are not special.



*edit*
Also: wall of text hits you for +447 damage.

[SUBMAN1]

*edit*
Also: wall of text hits you for +447 damage.
Considering your argument is based on the divine portion of my statement - hit missed 0 damage! :D

BB at ya on this one though. Have a major problem to solve here at work (Yes I work while typing sometimes, but server issue requires my physical presence)

-S

[Peto]

Well--this certainly has been an entertaining read. I'm thankfull that the title doesn't say Peto (instead of Peta) like I first thought it did :lol:!

My thoughts regarding Peta: If all animals and people are equal, and people who kill animals are bad, then shouldn't we also kill any animal that kills another animal? :hmm:

I'll stick with my Filet Mignon medium rare thank you!

And subman--this has been some of your finest writing :up:.

[The WosMan]

Here is my thought to put this issue to rest. Whether we are divinely inspired creatures made in god's own image and animals were put on the planet for us or that we evolved from a puddle of goo into the most intelligent primate/animal on the planet one thing is certain: OUR BRAINS PUT US AT THE TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN. Now for the love of god man pass me the barbeque, pork, lamb, beef, chicken, fish, veal, turkey, pheasant, duck, lobster because I am hungry!

http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/2000140/PrimeRib_Full.jpg
Yum yum, get me some horseradish and au jus and a glass of merlot.

[Peto]

Great. Now I've got to go make a sandwich. :lol:

[The WosMan]

Yeah me too. In my opinion, a medium rare prime rib or rib roast is right up there with the greatest of pleasures in life. This would include the obvious; women, good alcohol, a fine cigar, etc.

[Peto]

Well--for me (tonight anyway)--a tuna fish on rye, a cigarette and an Old Milwaukee will have to suffice :nope:.

[The WosMan]

HHAHA, we used to call that Ol' Milyuckie in college. Then there was Milwaukee's Beast or "the beast". Good times.

[Fish]

That is certainly not wrong, but stating that Darwinism puts everything on the same level is. ( at least in my opinion. ) I am a Darvinist by heart and my belief about this matter is:

I think that animals are simply that, Animals. They are living and feeling beeings and deserve the respect that every living beeing deserves, but nothing more than that as we still need them to feed ourselves, and I happen to like BBQs. Humanity is not divine, but it is seperated from the animals by the simple thing called self-consience (sp?) that Animals do not have. When and how we got this is a question that cannot be answered, but it separates us from our closest relatives in the Animal Kingdom. The fact that we can use tools is just a neat side-effect that allowed us to develop a technical civilization. :|\\You are like me - you are not a purest. You accept that it is a theory with flaws. Our differences however divide when you start to talk about the man upstairs.


We live in a world of grey no matter how people want it to be black and white.

-S


I am not talking about the man upstairs, I am simply stating that Humanity isn't partcularly special aside from the factors I mentoined. The man upstairs ( if is there at all ) has nothing to do with it. I agree that the world isn't black and white, though I like to believe that it is of a lighert shade of grey.

PS- Self Conciense (sp?) might have been a bad choice of words. I was trying to say that the human 'soul' for lack of a better world allows us to go beyond the immediate horizon of what is around us at a given moment.

trekchu, out of others an elefant has self-conciense.
http://www.sanparks.org/events/elephants/GREAT%20ELEPHANT%20INDABA.pdf