Unregistered Bull, learn to debate then come back to GD

[andros]

Bigot.

[FinnAgain]

I have no idea why you’re fetishizing religion and culture, but it’s very unsettling.
I have no idea why you view people having different standards of value as a personal attack, but it’s paranoid.
I have no idea why you believe that someone thinking an animal should have protection under the law is a bigot, but it’s ever so slightly nuts.

@Unregistered Bull

I have no respect for them. They are my enemy.

I do know, however, that ‘they are’ takes a plural.
But I think that shows a bit of your mudthink too… you don’t understand that ‘your enemy’ is not a unified group, but a large number of people with varying motives, value judgements, and aesthetic outlooks who for many different reasons and in many different degress believe in animal rights.

But please, resume frothing and knee jerking.

[andros]

@FinnAgain

I do know, however, that ‘they are’ takes a plural.

(pssst . . . not with a collective noun, which “enemy” can be.)

[FinnAgain]

That was kinda my point Unless someone is busy fallaciously lumping every AR supporter into the same group, ‘they are’ will refer to the spectrum of people who support AR, and thus not be a collective noun.

Unless UB really is out of his gourd, in which case maybe he does believe all those rantings of his apply to all supporters of any animal rights.

[andros]

@FinnAgain

Unless UB really is out of his gourd, in which case maybe he does believe all those rantings of his apply to all supporters of any animal rights.

You think that’s in doubt?

[FinnAgain]

Of course not, I… well… everybody gets to have… no. No it’s not in doubt.

[Miller]

@Unregistered Bull

AR people are bigots because they feel that they are culturally superior to others that don’t adhere to their philosophy. They want to force their culture on others. They lack a tolerance of those that are different. Their desire, and success, at getting the government to implement their bigotry makes them not so nice people.

I am arguing that cultural / traditional / religous animal use is something that the State shouldn’t bother with in a free society. It is simply something that should not be used for official government discrimination. It’s this way because animals are not humans, and their treatment in no way harms humans. They in no way even approach being on same level as humans.

When a traditional / cultural / religous activity harms a non-consensual human being, it’s a different thing. And I’m pretty sure that I’ve stated something similar in GD.

You’re psychotic.

[The_Hook]

@Miller

You’re psychotic.

I withdraw from my current stance and allude to my former position: yes, he is batshit insane.

[Charlie_Tan]

@The Hook

I withdraw from my current stance and allude to my former position: yes, he is batshit insane.

What have bats done to deserve this?

[Miller]

@The Gaspode

What have bats done to deserve this?

Why are you so worried about how the bats feel, you fascist nazi bigot?

[Richard_Parker]

@Unregistered Bull

@Zhao Daoli

Unregistered Bull, you’ve piqued my curiosity with your tradition argument. I think you don’t even understand your own reasoning. I think that your mind is telling you something like this “traditions are important, and since protecting animals is not very important at all, it’s very offensive that people want to end these traditional practices.” Failing to realize that you’ve assumed the falsity of the premise you’re trying to disprove, you spout your vitriol about how AR people are immoral and the cause is evil for wanting to end traditional uses of animals. Is that about it?

Or are you really arguing that if something is traditional it cannot be unethical.

If I were you, I’d pick the first choice, it still makes you look stupid because it’s so circular, but it’s less embarrassing than admitting you’re arguing the latter.

AR people are bigots because they feel that they are culturally superior to others that don’t adhere to their philosophy. They want to force their culture on others. They lack a tolerance of those that are different. Their desire, and success, at getting the government to implement their bigotry makes them not so nice people.

I am arguing that cultural / traditional / religous animal use is something that the State shouldn’t bother with in a free society. It is simply something that should not be used for official government discrimination. It’s this way because animals are not humans, and their treatment in no way harms humans. They in no way even approach being on same level as humans.

When a traditional / cultural / religous activity harms a non-consensual human being, it’s a different thing. And I’m pretty sure that I’ve stated something similar in GD.

To be clear then, your position is on the issue of animal righs is: Animals don’t deserve rights.

Your argument for your position: Because animals don’t deserve rights, limiting traditions which involve animals is wrong because traditions are important.

So you’ve picked the first explanation of your reasoning. Good, I agree that picking the circular reasoning option was the best way to go. Embarassing? Yes, but not as bad as the second option (though I think you’re just digging yourself deeper with the whole bigotry angle to your circular argument). Stick with the poor reasoning and drop the hostility and people might actually want to help you learn to think. As a gesture of good will, I’ll give you the following link: circular reasoning. That is, of course, unless you think logic is also just the bigots forcing their philosophy on you.