thehomer:

All you're doing is just committing the naturalistic fallacy. The fact [size=16pt]that animals do it doesn't make it appropriate for humans to.[/size]

This gets more and more hilarious. He writes the above and turns about to insist that humans are animals. Men, it really cant get any funnier that this! Just read the bold, and then reflect on the fact that this same man says humans are animals!

Humans commit these actions everyday? Everyday do you have humans eating their partners after copulation?

O, to each his own. Spiders may eat partners, they are animals. No wrong there. Lions may kill cubs, they are animals, no wrong there. Humans may murder, r.ape and plunder. They are animals, no wrong there.

Capisce?

thehomer:
Yes. Is there a contradiction? I know what it means. You're using the word in a strange way.

Please explain how I am using the word in a strange way.

Your comment didn't say anything about it.

What do you think I said? Explain what you understood from my comment so I know if you read me correctly.

Yes. Taking care of babies for fun is more moral than torturing them for fun. Now is there a spectrum of right and wrong answers to the question of 2 + 2?

But taking care of babies for fun is an entirely different moral activity from torturing babies for fun. In the same way that 3+3 is greater than 2+2 but 3+3 and 2+2 are entirely different mathematical exercises.

Deep Sight:

This gets more and more hilarious. He writes the above and turns about to insist that humans are animals. Men, it really cant get any funnier that this! Just read the bold, and then reflect on the fact that this same man says humans are animals!



O, to each his own. Spiders may eat partners, they are animals. No wrong there. Lions may kill cubs, they are animals, no wrong there. Humans may murder, r.ape and plunder. They are animals, no wrong there.

Capisce?

This is just ridiculous. Humans are animals. They're not plants or bacteria, they belong to a certain taxonomic kingdom. You just seem unable to see past the error in your reasoning.

Deep Sight:

This gets more and more hilarious. He writes the above and turns about to insist that humans are animals. Men, it really cant get any funnier that this! Just read the bold, and then reflect on the fact that this same man says humans are animals!



O, to each his own. Spiders may eat partners, they are animals. No wrong there. Lions may kill cubs, they are animals, no wrong there. Humans may murder, r.ape and plunder. They are animals, no wrong there.

Capisce?

thehomer:

Humans don't derive their moral precepts from other animals so comparing what animals do with respect to trying to discover moral ideas is a waste of time.

thehomer:

This is just ridiculous. Humans are animals. They're not plants or bacteria, they belong to a certain taxonomic kingdom. You just seem unable to see past the error in your reasoning.

.........[size=13pt]The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts[/size].......

- GK Chesterton (1908)

Mr anony:
@DeepSight. . . .and here is what I think a good description of Pastor AIO

"We know that we know nothing," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge --
"There are no absolutes," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute --
"You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious," they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, or a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

[size=20pt]! ! ! ! ! ! ! ![/size]

Pasitor, you hia? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I HOPE YOU SEE THE POINT!

Mr anony:
Please explain how I am using the word in a strange way.

That's just it. I don't know how you're using it.

Mr anony:
What do you think I said? Explain what you understood from my comment so I know if you read me correctly.

You said:

Mr anony:
What you are failing to realize is that in the exact same context, the exact same moral principles apply regardless of societal or individual bias,

That means if two people come to you and ask for a drink, it is fine to give them both milk irrespective of the individual feature of someone being lactose intolerant.

Mr anony:
But taking care of babies for fun is an entirely different moral activity from torturing babies for fun. In the same way that 3+3 is greater than 2+2 but 3+3 and 2+2 are entirely different mathematical exercises.

Okay how about taking care of babies for fun and taking care of babies for money. Which is more moral?

Mr anony:

.........[size=13pt]The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts[/size].......

GK Chesterton

[size=20pt]! ! ! ! ! ! ! ![/size]

Thehomher, you hia?

Its actually rib-cracking funny that you dont see the point here clearly! LOL! I really cant stop laughing.

Humans are animals, and yet it is wrong for them to do as animals do, just smarter. You positively cant be serious.

Read Chesterton's words above again!

Joker!

Mr anony:





.........[size=13pt]The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts[/size].......

GK Chesterton

Still don't see your point here. Does the man of this school go to the scientific meeting to beat up his colleagues and take their land?

The general point of the quote is pretty clear. When you start splitting it up, you'll just be destroying his point.

Deep Sight:

[size=20pt]! ! ! ! ! ! ! ![/size]

Thehomher, you hia?

Its actually rib-cracking funny that you dont see the point here clearly! LOL! I really cant stop laughing.

Humans are animals, and yet it is wrong for them to do as animals do, just smarter. You positively cant be serious.

Read Chesterton's words above again!

Joker!

You do know that there are many different species of animals out there.

thehomer:

You do know that there are many different species of animals out there.

O yes of course, that they can and do have different habits and methods of killing and plundering. Particularly predatory territorial animals - which we certainly are - according to your othordoxy. Why would you say that is ok for some predatory territorial animals (Such as Lions or Hyenas) to kill and plunder but is wrong or evil for another set of predatory territorial animals(such as humans) to kill or plunder?

Cos there are smarter? Since they are smarter, why is it wrong for them to use their smarts to get better in terms of their predatory territorial nature?

LOL.

You're making my sunday with comedy. Pure unadulterated COMEDY!

thehomer:
That's just it. I don't know how you're using it.

too bad. Perhaps if you told me what you know the word sacred to mean, I might be able to help you

You said:

That means if two people come to you and ask for a drink, it is fine to give them both milk irrespective of the individual feature of someone being lactose intolerant.

But then you wouldn't be giving them milk in the same context. To one you would be giving him milk knowing that it he is lactose intolerant and to another you would be giving milk knowing that he isn't

Okay how about taking care of babies for fun and taking care of babies for money. Which is more moral?

Again you have presented two different moral contexts

Deep Sight:

O yes of course, that they can and do have different habits and methods of killing and plundering. Particularly predatory territorial animals - which we certainly are - according to your othordoxy. Why would you say that is ok for some predatory territorial animals (Such as Lions or Hyenas) to kill and plunder but is wrong or evil for another set of predatory territorial animals(such as humans) to kill or plunder?

Cos there are smarter? Since they are smarter, why is it wrong for them to use their smarts to get better in terms of their predatory territorial nature?

LOL.

You're making my sunday with comedy. Pure unadulterated COMEDY!

Do you think that the fact that humans are "smarter" and can exercise judgement is something significantly different?

thehomer:

Still don't see your point here. Does the man of this school go to the scientific meeting to beat up his colleagues and take their land?

The general point of the quote is pretty clear. When you start splitting it up, you'll just be destroying his point.

Lol, as I said, I never expected you to get the point.

thehomer:

Still don't see your point here. Does the man of this school go to the scientific meeting to beat up his colleagues and take their land?

The general point of the quote is pretty clear. When you start splitting it up, you'll just be destroying his point.

Let me translate from English to English to suit your unfortunate situation:

[size=14pt]The man of this school goes to a forum and argues that humans should not be considered as animals in terms of their morals. He then picks his hat and umbrella and proceeds to a scientific meeting where he argues forcefully that human are animals.[/size]

LWKMD! ! !

Honestly? As, in, really? Tell me you don't work with a travelling circus!

Hahahahahahahaaha! Joker!

thehomer:

You do know that there are many different species of animals out there.

Lololololol..........does this mean that there might be some species of animals we can derive moral precepts from?

Mr anony:
too bad. Perhaps if you told me what you know the word sacred to mean, I might be able to help you

Wiktionary:
Set apart by solemn religious ceremony; especially, in a good sense, made holy; set apart to religious use; consecrated; not profane or common; as, a sacred place; a sacred day; sacred service.

Mr anony:
But then you wouldn't be giving them milk in the same context. To one you would be giving him milk knowing that it he is lactose intolerant and to another you would be giving milk knowing that he isn't

So is it objectively wrong to give someone with lactose intolerance milk or not?

Mr anony:
Again you have presented two different moral contexts

How do you determine which is more moral? And is this determination objective?

thehomer:

Do you think that the fact that humans are "smarter" and can exercise judgement is something significantly different?

If you think that animals cannot and do not excercise VERY KEEN AND SPECIFIC judgment, then you need to start watching Natgeo Wild and Animal Planet a little more, son. You are not well acquainted with the ways of animals.

Now, I asked, and I keep asking:

1. You agree that we are animals

2. You agree that we are predatory and territorial animals.

Why on earth would it then be wrong for a predatory territorial animal to use its bigger brain and smarter sense to perfect its predatory and territorial arts?

Mr anony:
Lol, as I said, I never expected you to get the point.

But I see how apt it is when it comes to religious orthodoxy.

Deep Sight:

Let me translate from English to English to suit your unfortunate situation:

[size=14pt]The man of this school goes to a forum and argues that humans should not be considered as animals in terms of their morals. He then picks his hat and umbrella and proceeds to a scientific meeting where he argues forcefully that human are animals.[/size]

LWKMD! ! !

Honestly? As, in, really? Tell me you don't work with a travelling circus!

Hahahahahahahaaha! Joker!

Abeg DeepSight, no use laugh wound me this morning. It still amuses me that he really can't see it

Deep Sight:

Let me translate from English to English to suit your unfortunate situation:

[size=14pt]The man of this school goes to a forum and argues that humans should not be considered as animals in terms of their morals. He then picks his hat and umbrella and proceeds to a scientific meeting where he argues forcefully that human are animals.[/size]

LWKMD! ! !

Honestly? As, in, really? Tell me you don't work with a travelling circus!

Hahahahahahahaaha! Joker!

You're simply confused but I'm sure you can still see the light. I already asked you:

thehomer:
Do you think that the fact that humans are "smarter" and can exercise judgement is something significantly different?

thehomer:

But I see how apt it is when it comes to religious orthodoxy.

Nah, Orthodoxy is the name of the book itself, that passage was in reference irrational skepticism it (is believed GK Chesterton was criticizing George Bernard Shaw for his politics and two-way criticisms on both the church of england and those who criticized the church). You might want to read the book, it is quite a good read.

If I asked you how it aptly describes religious orthodoxy I am sure you would be able to tell me. Would you mind doing the honors good sir.

thehomer:

You're simply confused but I'm sure you can still see the light. I already asked you:

Honestly, i wish you could see me in my study right now. I'm literally rolling over with laughter. Unbelievable comedy! I hope my houseboy wont think oga has gone mad, laughing all by himself in his "office" as he calls my study!

LOL, thehomer, BIG LOL!

Abeg here's ya answer -

Deep Sight:

If you think that animals cannot and do not excercise VERY KEEN AND SPECIFIC judgment, then you need to start watching Natgeo Wild and Animal Planet a little more, son. You are not well acquainted with the ways of animals.

Now, I asked, and I keep asking:

1. You agree that we are animals

2. You agree that we are predatory and territorial animals.

Why on earth would it then be wrong for a predatory territorial animal to use its bigger brain and smarter sense to perfect its predatory and territorial arts?

Deep Sight:

If you think that animals cannot and do not excercise VERY KEEN AND SPECIFIC judgment, then you need to start watching Natgeo Wild and Animal Planet a little more, son. You are not well acquainted with the ways of animals.

Now, I asked, and I keep asking:

1. You agree that we are animals

2. You agree that we are predatory and territorial animals.

Why on earth would it then be wrong for a predatory territorial animal to use its bigger brain and smarter sense to perfect its predatory and territorial arts?

This is not an answer to the question I asked you but I'll answer yours. I hope you'll answer mine.

It is wrong when it comes to moral considerations.

Mr anony:
Nah, Orthodoxy is the name of the book itself, that passage was in reference irrational skepticism it (is believed GK Chesterton was criticizing George Bernard Shaw for his politics and two-way criticisms on both the church of england and those who criticized the church). You might want to read the book, it is quite a good read.

That still doesn't stop it from showing what religious orthodoxy is.

thehomer:

Do you think that the fact that humans are "smarter" and can exercise judgement is something significantly different?

Don't you also think that they can use their smartness and better judgment to come up with more effective ways of raping women and torturing babies for fun?

thehomer:

That still doesn't stop it from showing what religious orthodoxy is.

If I asked you how it aptly describes religious orthodoxy I am sure you would be able to tell me. Would you mind doing the honors good sir.

Mr anony:
Don't you also think that they can use their smartness and better judgment to come up with more effective ways of torturing babies for fun?

Sure they could but is that a significant difference when it comes to comparing humans to e.g a preying mantis?

thehomer:

This is not an answer to the question I asked you but I'll answer yours. I hope you'll answer mine.

It is wrong when it comes to moral considerations.

What are these moral considerations if I may ask?

thehomer:

This is not an answer to the question I asked you but I'll answer yours. I hope you'll answer mine.

It is wrong when it comes to moral considerations.

What is the meaning of this? ? ? ? ? ? Abeg I don tire reading arrant NANSENSE this morning.

Go the the ward for pathological comedians and tell the Director there that I highly recommend you. He will gladly receive you.

Morning!

thehomer:

Sure they could but is that a significant difference when it comes to comparing humans to e.g a preying mantis?

Why a praying mantis, why not a chicken, a gorrilla, a dog, a shark or an ant. What exactly is this "significant" difference that prescribes what moral actions a man ought to take?

Mr anony:
If I asked you how it aptly describes religious orthodoxy I am sure you would be able to tell me. Would you mind doing the honors good sir.

I'll do that using simple examples.

God is perfectly fine with slavery.

God is also perfectly fine with genocide.

So what we see is that books of religious orthodoxy say something that is argued for and justified in church but then chose church people go out and protest against the acts they defended in church.

Mr anony:
What are these moral considerations if I may ask?

Whether or not it is appropriate for humans to treat each other in that way.