holding this thought for tomorrow :)
> > You aksed for an absolute objective argument. There is no such**very briefly: I asked you to prove human supremacy as an absolute
> > Absolute means exactly that, it cannot be questioned.
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.
- --- In animalrightsdebateclub@y..., "theweebler2002"
> Some time ago, when I started arguing on the net, and I was upagainst
> three, (or was it four?)antis..I found that they liked to throwaround
> expressions and terms like non sequiter, Straw man, and ad hominem.make
> It didnt take me long to realize that these guys were doing it to
> themselves look smart, as they didnt really have any argument tooffer.
> 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
> disbelieve the conclusion. While on some occasions it is useful toperson
> cite authorities, it is almost never appropriate to discuss the
> instead of the argument.You've done that. Repeatedly.
> 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.
> (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking anYou've done that too. Repeatedly.
> assertion the author points to the relationship between the
> person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
> (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on theYou do that on your Web site, in several places. You're a
> person notes that a person does not practise what he
> Right from the start Ward, you went into Attacking the Person 1)
> attempted a switch to 3). You did not even attempt to answer myI answered all your questions, Weebs. You haven't answered mine
> question I asked. You promised you would too--which has me very
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. Soit. :)
> fine you totally ignored it--despite your promise that you would
> dispense with it quite readily. Well you did--by not answering
I did answer it. Read the post again.
>And there you go again. You're too easy.
> So when is Uncle Billy going to show?
> Hell--I will even consider Larry Wortman or Clarence Rutherford!