Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

holding this thought for tomorrow :)

Expand Messages
  • theweebler2002
    ... **very briefly: I asked you to prove human supremacy as an absolute objective truth..or rather, to prove the standards of value used to determine that
    Message 1 of 36 , Jun 30 4:45 PM
      > > You aksed for an absolute objective argument. There is no such
      > thing.
      > > Absolute means exactly that, it cannot be questioned.

      **very briefly: I asked you to prove human supremacy as an absolute
      objective truth..or rather, to prove the standards of value used to
      determine that supremacy as an absolute objective truth. You conceded
      it cant be done--just as it is with the arguments and standards used
      to justify racial or gender or etc supremacy. And the standards you
      listed:(paraphrasing) "reason," "abstract concepts" "reciprocal
      morality" and "understanding one's moral worth," they are all
      subjective, non absolute--just like "skin colour," or a certain
      interpretation of scripture or "height" or "appearance." They are all
      "eye of the beholder" stuff. And you admitted it isnt the universe
      that says your standards of value are important, but humans.
      Specifically "some" humans. Just as some "other" humans say race or
      gender are more important (or as important) as species for determining
      moral worth. So fundamentally, you havent separated your
      discrimination policy from that of a racist or a religious supremacist
      etc. You view leaves a loophole for them. Its hard to attack a racist
      for doing what essentially, you yourself are doing--discriminating
      against others as a group according to subjective criteria/standards
      of value. My view doesnt leave the loophole, because I beleive one
      should try to be as a fair and as compassionate as possible to others
      as possible, as opposed to the alternative.

      > Hold that thought. I'm going out for the evening. Check ya tomorrow.

    • wclark1046
      ... against ... around ... make ... offer. ... believe or ... person ... You ve done that. Repeatedly. ... You ve done that too. Repeatedly. ... You do that
      Message 36 of 36 , Jul 3, 2002
        --- In animalrightsdebateclub@y..., "theweebler2002"
        <askweebler@h...> wrote:
        > Some time ago, when I started arguing on the net, and I was up
        > three, (or was it four?)antis..I found that they liked to throw
        > expressions and terms like non sequiter, Straw man, and ad hominem.
        > It didnt take me long to realize that these guys were doing it to
        > themselves look smart, as they didnt really have any argument to
        > So, as Ward asked, here is the definition of ad hominem:
        > Changing the Subject
        > The fallacies in this section change the subject by discussing the
        > person making the argument instead of discussing reasons to
        believe or
        > disbelieve the conclusion. While on some occasions it is useful to
        > cite authorities, it is almost never appropriate to discuss the
        > instead of the argument.
        > There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
        > (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
        > the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.

        You've done that. Repeatedly.

        > (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
        > assertion the author points to the relationship between the
        > person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.

        You've done that too. Repeatedly.

        > (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
        > person notes that a person does not practise what he
        > preaches.

        You do that on your Web site, in several places. You're a
        hypocrite, Weebs.

        > Right from the start Ward, you went into Attacking the Person 1)
        > attempted a switch to 3). You did not even attempt to answer my
        > question I asked. You promised you would too--which has me very
        > disappointed.

        I answered all your questions, Weebs. You haven't answered mine

        Where do you get your food, Weebs?

        > I, however, did not use ad hominem. While I certainly was
        > abusive(unless you love Leave it to beaver and were flattered by
        > references) I did present an argument.

        You used an ad hominem, Weebs. You used a stupid, juvenile personal
        comment to distract.

        >> A damn fine one in fact. So
        > fine you totally ignored it--despite your promise that you would
        > dispense with it quite readily. Well you did--by not answering
        it. :)

        I did answer it. Read the post again.

        > So when is Uncle Billy going to show?
        > Hell--I will even consider Larry Wortman or Clarence Rutherford!

        And there you go again. You're too easy.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.