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

[Dānu]

What characteristics of an organism determine whether it has rights? If having the ability to feel love is a criteria, do we know that fetuses should have rights?

I think the bridging of the gap of rights for black Americans has suggested that like things should have like rights. But are animals truly like things? And is likeness the basis of rights?

[Rhythmcs]

I believe my point is arguing that animals share the same emotions as humans is going too far, no one making that argument really believes that or they'd act accordingly.

Look at how we act towards each other and then rethink your response.

[Huggy Bear]

I believe my point is arguing that animals share the same emotions as humans is going too far, no one making that argument really believes that or they'd act accordingly.

Look at how we act towards each other and then rethink your response.

Don’t see how that changes anything, if you claim to respect something, you’d treat it accordingly.

[Rhythmcs]

We claim to respect each other. Human life in general. Do we treat each other and human life in general accordingly? No. If we believed that animals had experiences like ours would we treat them differently? Well....we do...even when our belief that the animal has an emotional experience like ours is utterly false. Peruse the laws about abuse and use of pet animals...or just remember the past few weeks where "they're eating cats and dogs" became a campaign slogan.

However, we also commonly act in a way different to how we feel, and/or report feeling a way not evidenced by our actions. You report having thought this through, for example, and not seeing any way that your statement was ridiculous on it's face. There's no evidence to indicate you did any such thing.

[Huggy Bear]

We claim to respect each other.  Human life in general.  Do we treat each other and human life in general accordingly?

Speak for yourself… But in general, people overwhelmingly do tend to be law abiding citizens, able to function in society.

  No.  If we believed that animals had experiences like ours would we treat them differently?  Well....we do...even when our belief that the animal has an emotional experience like ours is utterly false.  Peruse the laws about abuse and use of pet animals...or just remember the past few weeks where "they're eating cats and dogs" became a campaign slogan.

Abuse to animals imo is less about the animal and more about the person doing the abusing, it tends to be a precursor that leads to other things. In short it’s a way to get certain people who may become a danger, away from society.

Nevertheless, we do realize that animals do suffer and we shouldn’t cause needless suffering, still we don’t put animals on the same level as humans.

However, we also commonly act in a way different to how we feel, and/or report feeling a way not evidenced by our actions.  You report having thought this through, for example, and not seeing any way that your statement was ridiculous on its face.  There's no evidence to indicate you did any such thing.

*emphasis mine*

That’s called hypocrisy.

[Rhythmcs]

Speak for yourself… But in general, people overwhelmingly do tend to be law abiding citizens, able to function in society.

I can confidently speak for us all on this count.  Why would you, as a christian, even want to bicker over this point...btw?  Your bar for treating other people as such as being "law abiding" is fucking damning, lol.  I'm sure we both realize that what is legal and what is moral are not the same.  People can and do fuck people over in completely immoral but also completely legal ways.

Abuse to animals imo is less about the animal and more about the person doing the abusing, it tends to be a precursor that leads to other things. In short it’s a way to get certain people who may become a danger, away from society.

Nevertheless, we do realize that animals do suffer and we shouldn’t cause needless suffering, still we don’t put animals on the same level as humans.

We realize that animals suffer..and so we act like it...sometimes.  We realize that people suffer..and so we act like it....sometimes.  Sometime, we just think that animals are suffering or people are suffering... and act on it...sometimes. Looks like we're on the same level™ on this particular item to me.

That’s called hypocrisy.

People can be hypocritical, and water is also wet.  If you believe that people can be hypocritical then you understand at least one reason why your claim was false on it's face. OFC, every other reason for saying (or believing) one thing and doing another will not reduce to hypocrisy - and each of those specific reasons and examples will be even more direct and irrefutable evidence that your claim was so false..as to be ridiculous. You're telling us only that people disappoint you. Not expounding on some binding rule of how people will or can act given some belief.

[SaxonX]

At this point, it's gotten sad that can't see there is no contradiction of belief. You can accept animals have the same emotions as humans and act like they have said emotions, while at the same time believing they should not have the same rights as humans and acting in accordance to that, and it's not bigotry or slavery or whatever other fucking nonsense he keeps pretending it is. There is no logical contradiction between these two position, nor any hypocrisy. Honestly, he's just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

[Rhythmcs]

It wouldn't matter if there were. An appeal to hypocrisy is an explicit concession that the offerors opponent has won the argument.

"What I said was false, what you said was true...... and that's bad."

[Paleophyte]

Ok, so the question should be asked; do you feel that animals should have rights like the people you mentioned were granted?

No. Having emotions doesn't make them human. You'll want to add a few other traits in there.

You’re going to have to elaborate on why you believe that, because not to long ago a slave owner would have said the same about slaves.

The slaves were clearly human. The animals clearly aren't. You're clearly dodging the issue.

[Paleophyte]

First of all, my question was to Paleophyte, because he made the comparison between how animals and humans are treated.

No I didn't. I mentioned that in reply to you trying to draw piss poor analogies. It's like saying that my calculator from the '80s has solar cells, and the ISS has solar cells, so my calculator from the '80s must be the ISS.

[Paleophyte]

Don’t see how that changes anything, if you claim to respect something, you’d treat it accordingly.

I'll tell Netenyahu to start killing kittens in Gaza.

[Huggy Bear]

Ok, so the question should be asked; do you feel that animals should have rights like the people you mentioned were granted?

No. Having emotions doesn't make them human. You'll want to add a few other traits in there.

You’re going to have to elaborate on why you believe that, because not to long ago a slave owner would have said the same about slaves.

The slaves were clearly human. The animals clearly aren't. You're clearly dodging the issue.

The question isn’t "were the slaves human?" The question is "did the slavers believe they were human?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/eth...ions.shtml

Slaves are inferior beings

This argument says that even if slavery is cruel and degrading, slaves are not fully human and so their suffering is as ethically important or unimportant as the suffering of domestic animals and they do not have any rights that would justify the abolition of slavery.

This kinda makes you and SaxonX worse, because in order to enslave or genocide a group of people one has to ‘other’ them, they have to think of them as different from themselves… you and SaxonX believe animals are on the same emotional level with humans, yet still deserve zero rights…

So what are the other traits animals have that cause them to be denied rights?

[SaxonX]

Once there is nothing illogical or immoral about accepting that animals have emotions and saying they shouldn't have the same rights as humans. No matter how much Huggy wants to keep equating it to slavery or genocide or bigotry or whatever other horseshit he keeps trying in vain to equate it with. As I said it's reached a point he's just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point because he desperately needs his  One-upmanship,


Homo fragilis est utcumque stultam faciat aspectum vincere

[Deesse23]

No the fact animals have feelings does not automatically mean they should have the same rights as humans. This is a non sequitur.

You’re going to have to elaborate on why you believe that, because not to long ago a slave owner would have said the same about slaves.

You are a christian, right? Why dont you elaborate why you dont think salves should have the same rights as salve owners, as clearly described in the Bible. As we all, including you, know your god gave clear instructions on how to properly enslave people. How to treat jewish slaves better than heathens and how to treat males better than females, how to buy them, pass them down to your children, because they are your property*, and nowhere in the Bible does your god actually say that slavery is wrong.

Civilized and enlightened people are past that point. You cant be, if you are honest with yourself and true to the Bible. So, why do you think slaves should not be treated like slave owners?

* I dont have to mention the "beat them up..." part, do i?

[Paleophyte]

The question isn’t "were the slaves human?" The question is "did the slavers believe they were human?"

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

This kinda makes you and SaxonX worse, because in order to enslave or genocide a group of people one has to ‘other’ them, they have to think of them as different from themselves… you and SaxonX believe animals are on the same emotional level with humans, yet still deserve zero rights…

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

[Rhythmcs]

We still don't think that all humans have the same rights as other humans....so we're probably a ways away from amending the constitution to afford the ground vole legal personhood and equal rights. It's not because they don't have an inner life, or because we believe they don't. We know they do. We prey on them and domesticate them using strategies that assume as much and they're productive. We bait them, manipulate them, fool them, anger them, drive them with terror, we take hostages, we show them kindness, we prevent them from being stressed, we acclimate them.

I'm not personally against greater rights for animals in general. There's a patchwork already that makes it illegal to run a dog fighting ring but not for a dog to kill a coyote. I do think we ought to secure the rights of human beings first, social contract and all. Coyotes never signed it, show no interest, and can't be expected to uphold it.

[Huggy Bear]

You’re going to have to elaborate on why you believe that, because not to long ago a slave owner would have said the same about slaves.

You are a christian, right? Why dont you elaborate why you dont think salves should have the same rights as salve owners, as clearly described in the Bible. As we all, including you, know your god gave clear instructions on how to properly enslave people. How to treat jewish slaves better than heathens and how to treat males better than females, how to buy them, pass them down to your children, because they are your property*, and nowhere in the Bible does your god actually say that slavery is wrong.

Civilized and enlightened people are past that point. You cant be, if you are honest with yourself and true to the Bible. So, why do you think slaves should not be treated like slave owners?

* I dont have to mention the "beat them up..." part, do i?

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

[Huggy Bear]

The question isn’t "were the slaves human?" The question is "did the slavers believe they were human?"

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

This kinda makes you and SaxonX worse, because in order to enslave or genocide a group of people one has to ‘other’ them, they have to think of them as different from themselves… you and SaxonX believe animals are on the same emotional level with humans, yet still deserve zero rights…

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.

[Deesse23]

You are a christian, right? Why dont you elaborate why you dont think salves should have the same rights as salve owners, as clearly described in the Bible. As we all, including you, know your god gave clear instructions on how to properly enslave people. How to treat jewish slaves better than heathens and how to treat males better than females, how to buy them, pass them down to your children, because they are your property*, and nowhere in the Bible does your god actually say that slavery is wrong.

Civilized and enlightened people are past that point. You cant be, if you are honest with yourself and true to the Bible. So, why do you think slaves should not be treated like slave owners?

* I dont have to mention the "beat them up..." part, do i?

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

You do not command this forum. Answer my question: Why dont have slaves the same rights as slave owners, according to the bible? Or do you believe otherwise and be a heathen?

[Rhythmcs]

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.

Legal personhood or humanity is not a biological classification.  You know..like gender...or race.

[Huggy Bear]

*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.

Legal personhood or humanity is not a biological classification.  You know..like gender...or race.

Okay... corporations have legal personhood, what's your point?

[Rhythmcs]

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

[SaxonX]

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

[Inkubus]

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.

And the Chiwawas. Don't forget the Chiwawas.

And the the lambs
And sloths and carp
and anchovies
And orangutans 
and breakfast Cereals
and fruit bats
and large chi -

[SaxonX]

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.

And the Chiwawas. Don't forget the Chiwawas.

And the the lambs
And sloths and carp
and anchovies
And orangutans 
and breakfast Cereals
and fruit bats
and large chi -

Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less.