Can love prove God? What's wrong with this argument?

[1Sam15]

If you want to talk about biblical "slavery", start another thread.

Hey @Huggy Bear

Since I had no choice to exist or not and my existence was forced upon me…


Aren’t I a slave?

Think about it @Huggy Bear

[1Sam15]

Slavers be horrible. News at nine. None of this helps you meet your burden of proof.



What part of "Animals aren't human" are you having trouble with? Not sure if you're terminally thick or incurably dishonest. Possibly both.

*emphasis mine*


Are you all of a sudden a proponent of intelligent design? Where did humans come from? If you believe humans evolved from the animals, then how do you set them apart from animals? You do believe they share the same emotions after all...

Humans aren't horses, dogs aren't cats, cows aren't elephants, and hyenas aren't platypuses... but technically according to evolution, humans ARE indeed animals.

Do humans have the ability to not exist?

Why is it forced upon us @Huggy Bear?

[SaxonX]

Got to love Huggy's composition fallacy

[Paleophyte]

Slavers be horrible. News at nine. None of this helps you meet your burden of proof.



What part of "Animals aren't human" are you having trouble with? Not sure if you're terminally thick or incurably dishonest. Possibly both.

*emphasis mine*


Are you all of a sudden a proponent of intelligent design? Where did humans come from? If you believe humans evolved from the animals, then how do you set them apart from animals? You do believe they share the same emotions after all...

Humans aren't horses, dogs aren't cats, cows aren't elephants, and hyenas aren't platypuses... but technically according to evolution, humans ARE indeed animals.

Loud though the wind blows
     The hurricane lends no meaning
          This pond is empty

[Dānu]

[SaxonX]

[Paleophyte]

[Dānu]

[brewerb]

Are you all of a sudden a proponent of intelligent design? Where did humans come from? If you believe humans evolved from the animals, then how do you set them apart from animals? You do believe they share the same emotions after all...

Humans aren't horses, dogs aren't cats, cows aren't elephants, and hyenas aren't platypuses... but technically according to evolution, humans ARE indeed animals.

By phylogenetic designation.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phylo...inference/

Wait, don't tell me, you want peer review.

[Huggy Bear]

...and you realize that they're not human, yes?

Okay, so what’s your actual point?

[SaxonX]

Okay, so what’s your actual point?

    Point
B    B

[Rhythmcs]

...and you realize that they're not human, yes?

Okay, so what’s your actual point?

That a legal person is not necessarily a biological human.  That not every biological human is a legal person.  That animals are neither biological humans nor legal persons.  So, yes..people can in fact believe that humans are biological animals and that other biological animals can have a rich inner life and any number of other biological similarities but that this doesn't satisfy basis for legal personhood, and in fact has nothing to do with legal personhood.... as corporations have no biological similarities with any living thing and no inner life whatsoever.

Words. How do they work?

[Paleophyte]

[Deesse23]

Is he still on about this ? Jesus how many times can a guy step on the same rack ?

He is deperately trying to prove his ethics to be superior to atheists´, conveniently ignoring the fact that he has none. He is just a mindless soldier carrying out orders from his Don, without questioning. If he was ordered to discriminated against ggroups of people.....oh wait, he doenst need any orders for that. Also his Dons ethics are horrible, as demonstrated in Leviticus 25.

He thinks he has a silver bullet, but its actually made from poo.

[SaxonX]

Is he still on about this ? Jesus how many times can a guy step on the same rack ?

He is deperately trying to prove his ethics to be superior to atheists´, conveniently ignoring the fact that he has none. He is just a mindless soldier carrying out orders from his Don, without questioning. If he was ordered to discriminated against ggroups of people.....oh wait, he doenst need any orders for that. Also his Dons ethics are horrible, as demonstrated in Leviticus 25.

He thinks he has a silver bullet, but its actually made from poo.

If that's his goal he will get there through this line of reasoning

[Deesse23]

Is he really questioning Evolution (again)? Way to parade around ones´ ignorance. Some people have this kink about getting humiliated, and it seems to be insatiable.

[SaxonX]

What the hell does Huggy even contribute to this forum?

[brewerb]

What the hell does Huggy even contribute to this forum?

Chew toyness.

[Dānu]

[Rhythmcs]

From an evolutionary perspective....we're preying on these animals. It's an elaborate way to kill a bird - but it works. If we want to think of evolutionary biology and theory as a thing that ought to legally or morally compel us, then our duty would be to do that in the most productive way we can conceive of. If that meant the cruelest shit imaginable for the most survival gain that would be the right and proper and legal way to go. Fortunately for the animals, reality intervenes on our latent sadism. As it so happens, there's a literal cost-to-cruelty and neglect measured in reduced end product yield, quality, as well as excess mortality. The question is less whether evolutionary biology is true or legal reality is concordant with biological reality...and more of which planet we live on. Earth a, or earth b.

From a legal perspective.....there are state, county, and local regulations governing livestock production in the us, on top of federal minimums. These patchwork regimes means, incredibly, that there are laws which grant livestock de-facto rights to space and sustenance and care which no human being under those same jurisdictions possess. I'm not suggesting that the homeless ought to trade places with the chickens, merely pointing out that an animal we think we are a-okay to kill at any time for any reason can often hold enviable rights not afforded to actual or legal persons. On earth a, we have moral and financial incentives to effect better lives for the animals in our care for any purpose - even (and especially) if that purpose is meat. We have a social responsibility to prevent contamination and contagion we now know are produced by inferior practices. On earth a, it will fall to human beings who are empathetic and can be damaged by the realities of slaughter to do the work these products we demand require. Thus we have a legal responsibility to protect those workers from the effects that cruel or negligent production can have on them.

From a personal perspective. I think the weirdest and most uncomfortable thing I've ever done is sex chicks. It's relatively mild as far as killing animals go. It's thorough, though, and chicks are cute. Most cost effective way to do is is to just snap necks as you go. It's easy, their bones are little and brittle. There's no other way to run a heritage breed flock or hybridize for pasture and eggs. I wish the roosters were a better use of space or feed, but they aren't. I kept way too many of them as pets, justified it as having spares in case of that excess mortality shit up above. You know..save one or two roosters from each batch and let them run around and do rooster shit until a hawk or a fox or a coyote finally got em. I have to admit they always looked happier than the better kept ones..but their lives were brutal, thuggish, and short. TLDR, I'm a sympathizer - but on the other hand, chicken is delicious.

[Dānu]

I don't want to see the sausage being made.

[Rhythmcs]

Yet another factor. The consumer has a say in how the sausage is made even if they'd prefer not to see it made. It's not like cruel and negligent processors advertise on that fact (especially sausage, lol). Even without a legal regime or a productive reality there would still be the customers demands and conscience to deal with.

[Inkubus]

Cumberland sausages are made from British pork, rosemary, sage, parsley and thyme, with a little mixed spice and cracked black pepper.

[Huggy Bear]

Okay, so what’s your actual point?

That a legal person is not necessarily a biological human.  That not every biological human is a legal person.  That animals are neither biological humans nor legal persons.  So, yes..people can in fact believe that humans are biological animals and that other biological animals can have a rich inner life and any number of other biological similarities but that this doesn't satisfy basis for legal personhood, and in fact has nothing to do with legal personhood.... as corporations have no biological similarities with any living thing and no inner life whatsoever.

Words.  How do they work?

Slight problem, what's considered "legal", isn't universal.

[SaxonX]

So huggy brings up another non point. Again what the hell does Huggy even contribute to this forum? He's even sub par at being a chew toy.