Reply to Re: PETA KILLS ANIMALS?!?!
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Principle of charity I "made up"? Go put it in Google and see how much comes up.
As I said, I am not appealing to authority. The moral philosophers was an example not a source. I do not say who because it is such a basic idea I don't think it is attributable to anyone. It's not anonymous either: my point is that it is not an uncommon argument in moral philosophy among non-psychotics. Unfortunately, judging by your use of quotes in an earlier post, you don't even know the field of moral philosophy even exists.
Secondly, in regards to YOUR above argument, saying that "animals do not respect human morality" is little different than saying "Cars don't care if my kid dies...so I am going to blow up all cars I see!"
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".
Nothing in Skull's posts says that he enjoys torturing and killing animals. 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.
I am not saying the argument is sound or not, or whether I agree with it. I am just saying it does not indicate psychoticism.
"..it appears you are just interested in winning debates."
No...I try to lose as many debates as I can of course. I mean who doesn't? Obviously YOU are not so foolish as to be trying to win THIS debate now are you?
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. 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. 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.
I am not interested in a dick measuring contest. No I'm not scared of you. It is humorous that you are so confident to mock me here. A debate would be heavily biased in my favour since you are a newcomer. But you can say what you want. The only reason I entered this 'debate' is to defend Skull against the absurd notion that his argument is in any way indicative of psychoticism.
As I said, I am not appealing to authority. The moral philosophers was an example not a source. I do not say who because it is such a basic idea I don't think it is attributable to anyone. It's not anonymous either: my point is that it is not an uncommon argument in moral philosophy among non-psychotics. Unfortunately, judging by your use of quotes in an earlier post, you don't even know the field of moral philosophy even exists.
Secondly, in regards to YOUR above argument, saying that "animals do not respect human morality" is little different than saying "Cars don't care if my kid dies...so I am going to blow up all cars I see!"
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".
Nothing in Skull's posts says that he enjoys torturing and killing animals. 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.
I am not saying the argument is sound or not, or whether I agree with it. I am just saying it does not indicate psychoticism.
"..it appears you are just interested in winning debates."
No...I try to lose as many debates as I can of course. I mean who doesn't? Obviously YOU are not so foolish as to be trying to win THIS debate now are you?
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. 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. 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.
I am not interested in a dick measuring contest. No I'm not scared of you. It is humorous that you are so confident to mock me here. A debate would be heavily biased in my favour since you are a newcomer. But you can say what you want. The only reason I entered this 'debate' is to defend Skull against the absurd notion that his argument is in any way indicative of psychoticism.
