His Shotgun is woefully out of reach...

[FindersKeepers]

You defined value as worth. Now your moving the definition to innate value. Or I’m assuming innate worth. What is the innate worth of a $#@!roach?

You continually refuse to answer simple, direct questions. Either you want to have a discussion or you don’t. Implying I hurt animals is simply bad faith posting and an attempt to deflect from your failing and mentally disturbed viewpoint.

Value is worth. But value is the term I've been using from the beginning, so no goalposts are being moved, and I never implied you hurt animals, I simply remember a post you made long ago where you were loathe to condemn someone who had hurt an animal.

From your posts, it's obvious you've elevated yourself above other species in value (or worth, choose your term). The day you can create even the simplest of animals, I may buy into your rant. But, until then, you're just a member of one of earth's many, many species. And the species you belong to has no more value to the whole than does any other species.

I don't make bad faith postings, so I'd appreciate it if you refrain from false allegations.

[Private Pickle]

Still refuse to simply answer a direct question I see.

Value is worth. But value is the term I've been using from the beginning, so no goalposts are being moved, and I never implied you hurt animals, I simply remember a post you made long ago where you were loathe to condemn someone who had hurt an animal.

You should quote me and not throw around allegations that are false.

From your posts, it's obvious you've elevated yourself above other species in value (or worth, choose your term). The day you can create even the simplest of animals, I may buy into your rant. But, until then, you're just a member of one of earth's many, many species. And the species you belong to has no more value to the whole than does any other species.

Seeing more value/worth in humans does not equate to create animals. I'm not equating myself to God. I'll ask again. What does "value to the whole" mean? Would you say humans are more valuable to protected species then the protected species are to humans?

I don't make bad faith postings, so I'd appreciate it if you refrain from false allegations.

You're the one throwing around false allegations. That is purely bad faith posting.

[Mister D]

FK, believing human beings are on a whole different level does not necessarily entail any lack of ethics or responsible stewardship. Perhaps this is getting lost in translation?

[FindersKeepers]

Still refuse to simply answer a direct question I see.
You should quote me and not throw around allegations that are false.

You're just itching for a fight. Sorry, not biting.

Seeing more value/worth in humans does not equate to create animals. I'm not equating myself to God. I'll ask again. What does "value to the whole" mean? Would you say humans are more valuable to protected species then the protected species are to humans?

I'm simply pointing out that humans are one of many species that inhabit this planet To think they are somehow more important to the whole is anti-intellectual. It's reactionary. As to your second question, no. As to the former, I'm not playing your circular, let's define terminology rather than debate the issue, game.

You're the one throwing around false allegations. That is purely bad faith posting.

We both know that's not true.

[Private Pickle]

You're just itching for a fight. Sorry, not biting.

How is asking you a direct question "itching for a fight". That is how discussion is had... If you don't want to discuss and rather lie about me and insult me then you can see your way out of the thread. You're simply trolling.

I'm simply pointing out that humans are one of many species that inhabit this planet To think they are somehow more important to the whole is anti-intellectual. It's reactionary. As to your second question, no. As to the former, I'm not playing your circular, let's define terminology rather than debate the issue, game.

How can we debate the issue if you think the terminology is something other than it actually is? You're the one playing games here. I'm just trying to understand what is going on in that thing you call a brain.

Do other animals protect endangered species? If not what "value to the whole" do they provide other than their own meet as food and their crap as fertilizer?

We both know that's not true.

Then prove your allegation or apologize. Then we will both know it's true. Until then you're nothing more than a lying troll to me.

[Safety]

I bet he moved his shotgun a little closer after the bear left.

[FindersKeepers]

FK, believing human beings are on a whole different level does not necessarily entail any lack of ethics or responsible stewardship. Perhaps this is getting lost in translation?

It is getting lost in translation.


My point is that intellectual or physical superiority (I admit there is superiority) does not equate with innate value. Might does not make right. It's that sort of attitude that is exhibited by trophy hunters who kill only for heads, hides, or antlers. Once someone makes the claim, "It's only an animal," in my opinion, they've already exhibited a less-evolved mentality. Of course, hunting to eat and survive will always be justified.

[Private Pickle]

It is getting lost in translation.


My point is that intellectual or physical superiority (I admit there is superiority) does not equate with innate value. Might does not make right. It's that sort of attitude that is exhibited by trophy hunters who kill only for heads, hides, or antlers. Once someone makes the claim, "It's only an animal," in my opinion, they've already exhibited a less-evolved mentality. Of course, hunting to eat and survive will always be justified.

You refuse to define innate value so your argument is meaningless.

[Mister D]

It is getting lost in translation.


My point is that intellectual or physical superiority (I admit there is superiority) does not equate with innate value. Might does not make right. It's that sort of attitude that is exhibited by trophy hunters who kill only for heads, hides, or antlers. Once someone makes the claim, "It's only an animal," in my opinion, they've already exhibited a less-evolved mentality. Of course, hunting to eat and survive will always be justified.

I agree that such attitudes are appalling but I would hesitate to speak in terms of evolution. As you are aware, I'm a religious man but if we're speaking strictly in naturalistic or materialistic terms evolution has no moral or ethical content. It has no goal. It's going no where. "It's only an animal" is different from a cat saying "it's only a mouse" only because cats are not capable of conceptualization or abstraction and they lack moral agency.

The human mind is qualitatively different. The difference between you and your dogs is not one of degree. That fact alone suggests men really are something different. I condemn cruelty precisely because men are not simply animals.