- Members allowed to view this conversation
- Everyone
- ‹ Previous First
-
unread43-62 of 72 posts
- Last Next ›
Robert Adamant - go to this post
If morality is for sapient human beings and not for animals then what are humans if not animals?
You're arguing that humans are animals? Do you really wish to open that can of worms upon yourself?
sure. i'm fairly sure that humans are animals.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
sure. i'm fairly sure that humans are animals.
And what leads you to this laughable conclusion?
Dr. Gene Ray, Ph.D. - go to this post
And what leads you to this laughable conclusion?
Because humans share characteristics of animals.
Hopefully we aren't having a discussion on ontology now because that hardly seems relevant.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
Because humans share characteristics of animals.
Humans also share characteristics of urine and feces. That doesn't make humans urine and feces.
Dr. Gene Ray, Ph.D. - go to this post
Humans also share characteristics of urine and feces. That doesn't make humans urine and feces.
ok looks like we do have to go into ontology.
It depends upon what level of precision you care about.
If you say fish live in water that will generally be true but inaccurate for the things that live in the water which would not be called fish for other reasons.
That's the matter of precision, if you try to be too precise or vague with the terminology you risk considering everything a fish or nothing a fish.
When humans are classified as animals it is done because humans share ancestry with other things that are called animals.
This gets complicated when you consider things like mycelium which are not often considered animals but share close enough ancestry with humans that defining the category by ancestry mycelium would have to be considered animals.
With the question of morality and how that differentiates humans from animals the ways morality is expressed such as through law enforcement and warfare is shared with other animals making morality something that could create a subcategory of animals but not at the exclusion of everything except for humans.
Any other questions that require more effort to respond to than to pose in your dishonorable effort to assume you'll be correct if only you could just exhaust me?
On the matter of humans and feces both being considered in the same category there are categories in which humans and feces would both exist.
You admit as much in recognizing humans and feces share characteristics but feces fails to be categorized as a mammal, a subcategory of animals humans exist within, being that it doesn't have mammary glands.
Your entire basis for this argument rests upon acceptance of your arbitrary classification scheme. I will not accept this, and will require a valid argument that isn't simply "humans are animals because I say so." You can't really argue against this because you won't even accept commonly agreed upon conventions within the English language that actually do serve a purpose (facilitating communication).
fuck, now we have to get into normative ethics. I hate this.
Yes I use this classification scheme not because it is any more true than any other classification scheme but that it is the system I arbitrarily decide to use.
This is the case with all communication and all definitions.
Something that appears objective like mathematics rests upon many axioms that are arbitrary but we use mathematics because it's easiest to tempt people to believe it.
You take pride in being disabused of all temptation so realistically something like biology would be difficult for you to submit to.
I only pervert the english language to make specific points.
Were i to do it accidentally like you there would be less information.
The aesthetic principal of understanding the rules so that you can break them creatively rather than neglecting the rules because you're lazy.
you better not make me bring out the world as will and representation.
I know you will because that's how these conversations always go but fuck you in advance for being so predictable.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
fuck, now we have to get into normative ethics. I hate this.
Yes I use this classification scheme not because it is any more true than any other classification scheme but that it is the system I arbitrarily decide to use.
This is the case with all communication and all definitions.
Something that appears objective like mathematics rests upon many axioms that are arbitrary but we use mathematics because it's easiest to tempt people to believe it.
You take pride in being disabused of all temptation so realistically something like biology would be difficult for you to submit to.
I only pervert the english language to make specific points.
Were i to do it accidentally like you there would be less information.
The aesthetic principal of understanding the rules so that you can break them creatively rather than neglecting the rules because you're lazy.
So, you admit that I am correct, and that you're just making everything up. Great. I rest my case.
YOU FUCKING CUNT, I KNEW YOU WOULD DO THIS.
Ugh, ok so the nature of perception is that you can only interact with the world based on a representation of the world you create in your own mind.
Most of these are automatic and guided by hormones but in order to interact with the world collectively conscious frameworks are made that can be shared.
These systems are not any more true than any other systems because they originate from the mind and not reality but they work better than nothing.
Read Schopenhauer you daft fuck.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
YOU FUCKING CUNT, I KNEW YOU WOULD DO THIS.
Ugh, ok so the nature of perception is that you can only interact with the world based on a representation of the world you create in your own mind.
Most of these are automatic and guided by hormones but in order to interact with the world collectively conscious frameworks are made that can be shared.
These systems are not any more true than any other systems because they originate from the mind and not reality but they work better than nothing.
Read Schopenhauer you daft fuck.
We're not discussing perception, though. We're talking about the fiber of reality in regards to a particular topic. Perception is irrelevant. One should be able to explain one's own viewpoints in a way which is grounded in objective reality which everyone else can observe. Otherwise, there is no way to confirm the veracity of one's statements. Reality is not subjective, it is objective. The lens of perception is irrelevant in the face of the same plainly observable reality and that is the platform on which we must operate.
Very well then, you don't want me to consider your perspective so i won't.
Wait but if I was to respect your insecurity about your perception I would be treating it as real.
Your concern for exclusively objective reality means I have to say you're wrong even if I don't believe that myself.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
Very well then, you don't want me to consider your perspective so i won't.
No, you're failing to comprehend my post, likely due to a deficit in intellect. Perspective is not the topic nor is it the object of discussion. We aren't discussing perspective but rather the objective reality of the situation. In this case you are being asked to justify your statement "humans are animals" regardless of what my perspective is on the topic. In short, I am asking for the basis in objective reality for your perspective. It's clear that this is something which simply doesn't exist. You can't justify your statement because it's arbitrary, having no basis in reality. So, you're a simple cretin who can't explain his own viewpoints let alone arrive intentionally at a reasonable viewpoint.
Then don't say your perspective doesn't matter, it invalidates everything you say.
But if you say perspective matters all of the sudden guess I'm right.
For some reason you don't want to let that happen and you're willing to invalidate everything you've said to avoid letting me be right.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
Then don't say your perspective doesn't matter, it invalidates everything you say.
Once again, we are not discussing perspective. Never once did I say anything about perspective. It seems you're arguing in circles because you're too cowardly to bring the topic back to your defense of your viewpoint, as you are unable to defend it. I have won. You may have the last word as it seems that is very important to you, so long as you concede my victory and your defeat. Your viewpoints are baseless, arbitrary, and you are an animal with no morality. Trying to codify animalistic impulses and emotions is not morality.
- ‹ Previous First
-
unread43-62 of 72 posts
- Last Next ›
Copyright ยฉ MMXXV Esoteric Chat. Some rights reserved. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. ยง 230: All posts on this site are the sole responsibility of their posters.
4,758 posts - 1,411 conversations - 0 members online