SkeleTony's Profile
Someone:
"Principle of charity I "made up"? Go put it in Google and see how much comes up."
Don't have to. I am familiar with what you are talking about(and I don't use Google for my own personal reasons), though I admit my wording and rush to snap at you was poor.
And still, this principle does not apply to what Skull posted since the Principle of Charity only applies when one can (more or less equally) infer either a rational Or an irrational interpretation. Skull did not try to adopt YOUR take until he started cheer leading for you because you were defending him. If he had wrote something similar to what YOU wrote in your most recent replies then I would have far less a problem with it.
"No it isn't. It's more akin to saying "cars don't care about morality, so I see nothing wrong with sending my car to the compactor when I am done with it".
No because sending a mechanical object which is no longer usable to the junk pile is not an act of malice/cruelty. Killing or torturing a sentient creature because you believe that if they were capable they would hate you...that is just nonsense!
"Nothing in Skull's posts says that he enjoys torturing and killing animals."
And...? What does that have to do with my positions here?
"The issue is whether morals should constrain us in how we treat animals. Even if someone had absolutely no respect for the life of animals does not mean they would enjoy killing them, or kill them. It would just mean, if they had some other reason to kill them (e.g. for food), they would not feel restrained in doing so.
Agreed. Unfortunately for you though, that is not what Skull was advocating for. His assertions were that we SHOULD mistreat/abuse/kill animals and his reason was not for food, it was because he believes that animals would do the same to us if only they had opposable thumbs and bigger brains.
"It appears my insult was too subtle for you. Since you insist to make this all personal, I am suggesting that you only have the shell of an intellectual."
Why are you assuming I am making this all personal? Above you even admit that you were insulting me(but for some reason you believe your insult was "too subtle"?!) and in the same breath you accuse ME of getting too personal?
Not saying that I have not taken jabs as well but it does bear noting that I am not the one who started down that road...
"The principle of charity as you naively mock is what you apply when you actually want to learn from people and try to counter your own confirmatory biases."
Agreed and I have been doing exactly that for many years guy. But the principle does not apply to just ANY claim or argument one might state. Applying that principle to the grand Wizard's speech at a KKK rally for example is ill advised.
"Instead, you seem motivated to misinterpret other people's arguments, and hold onto the misinterpretations even when corrected. Your posts are full of emotional appeals and vitriolic attacks."
Well, my ability to convince you otherwise is constrained by your own willingness to consider you may have me all wrong here. So I think we will just have to agree to disagree here...
"I am not interested in a dick measuring contest."
And I am even less interested in such than you, I assure you.
" No I'm not scared of you."
That is good since if I were inspiring fear in people I had discussions with then that would mean I was doing something horribly wrong.
"It is humorous that you are so confident to mock me here."
Yeah...sorry but I am not in the habit of fearing people I debate either. And I also do not base my decision on whether to mock or challenge someone on how important or established they feel they are at a particular forum.
"A debate would be heavily biased in my favour since you are a newcomer."
Oh F***! I forgot all about the "newcomer" rule in debates! $#!T! I would never have disagreed with you if I remembered that rule that I cannot be at all correct in any debate until I have established myself for a certain length of time at a forum!
(/Sarcasm)
Seriously guy, I have nothing against you and you seem to be more rational than some of your positions here would indicate. I think you felt compelled to defend someone you are familiar with against a "newcomer" and that is what is at the heart of our disagreement.
I apologize for mocking or insulting you.
"Principle of charity I "made up"? Go put it in Google and see how much comes up."
Don't have to. I am familiar with what you are talking about(and I don't use Google for my own personal reasons), though I admit my wording and rush to snap at you was poor.
And still, this principle does not apply to what Skull posted since the Principle of Charity only applies when one can (more or less equally) infer either a rational Or an irrational interpretation. Skull did not try to adopt YOUR take until he started cheer leading for you because you were defending him. If he had wrote something similar to what YOU wrote in your most recent replies then I would have far less a problem with it.
"No it isn't. It's more akin to saying "cars don't care about morality, so I see nothing wrong with sending my car to the compactor when I am done with it".
No because sending a mechanical object which is no longer usable to the junk pile is not an act of malice/cruelty. Killing or torturing a sentient creature because you believe that if they were capable they would hate you...that is just nonsense!
"Nothing in Skull's posts says that he enjoys torturing and killing animals."
And...? What does that have to do with my positions here?
"The issue is whether morals should constrain us in how we treat animals. Even if someone had absolutely no respect for the life of animals does not mean they would enjoy killing them, or kill them. It would just mean, if they had some other reason to kill them (e.g. for food), they would not feel restrained in doing so.
Agreed. Unfortunately for you though, that is not what Skull was advocating for. His assertions were that we SHOULD mistreat/abuse/kill animals and his reason was not for food, it was because he believes that animals would do the same to us if only they had opposable thumbs and bigger brains.
"It appears my insult was too subtle for you. Since you insist to make this all personal, I am suggesting that you only have the shell of an intellectual."
Why are you assuming I am making this all personal? Above you even admit that you were insulting me(but for some reason you believe your insult was "too subtle"?!) and in the same breath you accuse ME of getting too personal?
Not saying that I have not taken jabs as well but it does bear noting that I am not the one who started down that road...
"The principle of charity as you naively mock is what you apply when you actually want to learn from people and try to counter your own confirmatory biases."
Agreed and I have been doing exactly that for many years guy. But the principle does not apply to just ANY claim or argument one might state. Applying that principle to the grand Wizard's speech at a KKK rally for example is ill advised.
"Instead, you seem motivated to misinterpret other people's arguments, and hold onto the misinterpretations even when corrected. Your posts are full of emotional appeals and vitriolic attacks."
Well, my ability to convince you otherwise is constrained by your own willingness to consider you may have me all wrong here. So I think we will just have to agree to disagree here...
"I am not interested in a dick measuring contest."
And I am even less interested in such than you, I assure you.
" No I'm not scared of you."
That is good since if I were inspiring fear in people I had discussions with then that would mean I was doing something horribly wrong.
"It is humorous that you are so confident to mock me here."
Yeah...sorry but I am not in the habit of fearing people I debate either. And I also do not base my decision on whether to mock or challenge someone on how important or established they feel they are at a particular forum.
"A debate would be heavily biased in my favour since you are a newcomer."
Oh F***! I forgot all about the "newcomer" rule in debates! $#!T! I would never have disagreed with you if I remembered that rule that I cannot be at all correct in any debate until I have established myself for a certain length of time at a forum!
(/Sarcasm)
Seriously guy, I have nothing against you and you seem to be more rational than some of your positions here would indicate. I think you felt compelled to defend someone you are familiar with against a "newcomer" and that is what is at the heart of our disagreement.
I apologize for mocking or insulting you.
