Zoos Locking up Animals Just isn't Right (specifically referring to birds)

[Colibri]

@DrFidelius

There is much more to it than just asking “Why?” like a confused owl.

Who?

[Speaker_for_the_Dead]

My point stands. The Socratic Method is at root a method of teaching others by forcing them to articulate their views and reflect on why they think what they do. Apply it to yourself before you presume to teach others.

[R3d_Anonymous]

@DrFidelius

Socrates knew what questions to ask, and how to phrase the question to elicit the response he wanted. There is much more to it than just asking “Why?” like a confused owl.

Well I know that. You are right. It would be pretty ineffective to just ask “why” all the time. You are trying to also get the opponent to contradict themselves. There are some pretty good articles online about this and I have one of them saved on my computer.

EDIT: I am not trying to teach anyone anything. Instead I am just using the method as a tool to argue.

[Speaker_for_the_Dead]

@Anonymous User

Well I know that. You are right. It would be pretty ineffective to just ask “why” all the time. You are trying to also get the opponent to contradict themselves. There are some pretty good articles online about this and I have one of them saved on my computer.

EDIT: I am not trying to teach anyone anything. Instead I am just using the method as a tool to argue.

You basically just said “I’m doing this to be annoying.” Socrates at least pretended to try to educate people. He said he only “argued” in order to correct. It isn’t supposed to replace having an actual argument or thoughts of your own, which it sounds like you’re doing.

[Marley23]

It probably also works best when you try to apply it near the beginning of a thread - not after 200 posts, many of which already addressed the issue you’re asking about, and three or four days after the OP has stopped posting anyway.

[pancakes3]

I don’t have a problem with AU’s line of ambiguous questioning per se. Lots of other dopers use the “define x” and “how do you measure y” approach. I’ll agree that he’s not using it effectively and it destroys what little credibility he has when instead of engaging in an argument with counterpoints he descends into a string of questions.

It’d probably work better in GQ if he had a legitimate question but not in GD where people are looking for arguments.

[R3d_Anonymous]

@pancakes3

I don’t have a problem with AU’s line of ambiguous questioning per se. Lots of other dopers use the “define x” and “how do you measure y” approach. I’ll agree that he’s not using it effectively and it destroys what little credibility he has when instead of engaging in an argument with counterpoints he descends into a string of questions.

It’d probably work better in GQ if he had a legitimate question but not in GD where people are looking for arguments.

Well yes, I just started learning how to question effectively so obviously I have a lot of learning to do, and it probably won’t work well the first few times.

[BrassyPhrase]

@Fenris

Look–I’m sick of all you tards picking on Anonymous User. Your constantly abuse and lying to him is appalling. Yeah, he’s young, but he’s clearly as smart as…say…BigT and therefore deserves to know the truth.

Anonymous User: Don’t buy their bullshit. You’ve stumbled onto a truth that isn’t revealed to most people and those few let in on it are much older…and never talk about it

Here’s the facts.
[ol]
[li]All birds in zoos, most birds in cages, and all of those stuffed birds in museums have indeed had their wings amputated. In the case of museums and pets, the wings have been replaced with fake, prosthetic “wings”. Totally non-functional, they’re there only for purposes of appearance…and deceit.[/li][li]“Why are they doing this?” you ask. It’s because about 500 years ago, it was determined that the wings of most birds, because they have to flap so quickly to keep them airborne, have a unique chemical property that, when ingested by humans, add to the human lifespan. Considerably. [/li][li]This was first discovered when people began eating Dodo wings–the demand for them was so high, that they extincted the Dodo quickly and soon found birds with wings with more of this property. The Passenger Pigeon, for one. Some remaining bird’s wings have extreme longevity properties. A single parrot wing, lightly battered and deep-fried can extend a human’s life span by like 50 years! A bald eagle? 75![/li][li]It soon became clear that there weren’t enough birds to go around, so the secret was quickly covered up. Only small groups of wealthy and powerful people get access to effective birds wings. The rest of us have been conditioned to eat chicken wings–this started in about 1980. Of course, chickens, being flightless, don’t have any of the stuff that extends life. But it was an ideal way for these cabals to muddy the trail.[/li][/ol]

The first rule of the bird lottery is that YOU DON’T TALK ABOUT THE BIRD LOTTERY!
That’s also the second rule