Who should make policy the courts or the legislators?

[PunkMaister]

The logical conclusion of which argument?

• Show me where I have made an argument from which one could only conclude to what you have said?

The argument that you make that humans have no more more value than animals and animals is a really broad sense can only be taken to the the logical conclusion that since we have no more value than snails or microbes, we therefor have thus no more value than cabbage. Since we do not have any intrinsic value whatsoever is all irrelevant. That's what can be surmised from your argument. And is something Id rather never, ever adopt or believe in...

[Who is like God arbour]

And where exactly did I have made such an argument?

Have you read my last post at all?

Because what you write now shows that you either haven't read it or haven't understood it.

[PunkMaister]

And where exactly did I have made such an argument?

Have you read my last post at all?

Because what you write now shows that you either haven't read it or haven't understood it.

Again this is a quote from you:

If I would argue that animals have the same rights as humans - and because humans have rights, animals would also have rights bla bla

That's just it! If by definition humans have by such argument no more value than animals be it snails or protozoa then also by definition that makes worthless and irrelevant again something I refuse to believe.

[Who is like God arbour]

And where exactly did I have made such an argument?

Have you read my last post at all?

Because what you write now shows that you either haven't read it or haven't understood it.

Again this is a quote from you:

If I would argue that animals have the same rights as humans - and because humans have rights, animals would also have rights bla bla

That's just it! If by definition humans have by such argument no more value than animals be it snails or protozoa then also by definition that makes worthless and irrelevant again something I refuse to believe.

1. What is the meaning of the Word 'if'?
   (I have also bolded and underlined it in your quotation of me)
2. And why would it mean that, if humans have no more value than animals (assuming I would argue such thing at all), humans are worthless and irrelevant?
3. Why could it not mean, that animals have the same worth and relevance you are granting humans?
4. One could argue (I'm not saying that this is my opinion) that it is your degradation of animals you don't want for humans. Because we humans tread animals bad, you fear that, if we would accept that humans have no more value than animals, humans are also treated as bad as animals.
   But would it not be a more sensible conclusion to stop to degrade animals and treat them as you wish to be treated?

[PunkMaister]

1. What is the meaning of the Word 'if'?
   (I have also bolded and underlined it in your quotation of me)
2. And why would it mean that, if humans have no more value than animals (assuming I would argue such thing at all), humans are worthless and irrelevant?
3. Why could it not mean, that animals have the same worth and relevance you are granting humans?
4. One could argue (I'm not saying that this is my opinion) that it is your degradation of animals you don't want for humans. Because we humans tread animals bad, you fear that, if we would accept that humans have no more value than animals, humans are also treated as bad as animals.
   But would it not be a more sensible conclusion to stop to degrade animals and treat them as you wish to be treated?

Since you have been defending nail and tooth this argument I would say that is hardly hypothetical.

Because a Snail and Protozoa cannot have the same exact worth as a human life if we place it in the same scale we are just as worthless is as simple as that.

And since we are right back at it again let me now ask you the following:

1. How do you provide freedom of speech to a snail or protozoa.

2. How do you provide the right to property to said animals...

3. Since by your argument all animals should be afforded the exact same rights as humans does that also means that we should stop using medicines to combat disease as viruses and bacterias since they also have an irrefutable right to live and have to be afforded the same exact rights as well, according to your hypothetical (but defended nail & tooth by you) argument

4. Should we allow roaches and all pests to infect our homes and cause disease and death as it is their right to do so as they irrefutably have the same rights as we do?


And before you go mouthing around that I degrade animals again I remind you that I'm virtually an honorary member of the ASPCA and have rescued quite a number of dogs and cats. What have you done to protect or save any animal other than posting that they should be granted the same exact rights as we are because we have just the same worth as Protozoa?

[GStone]

Can this thread get back on topic?

[PunkMaister]

Can this thread get back on topic?

I'd love too, in fact Arbour make another damn thread about the subject you want and leave this one alone...

[Who is like God arbour]

Again this is a quote from you: That's just it! If by definition humans have by such argument no more value than animals be it snails or protozoa then also by definition that makes worthless and irrelevant again something I refuse to believe.

1. What is the meaning of the Word 'if'?
   (I have also bolded and underlined it in your quotation of me)
2. And why would it mean that, if humans have no more value than animals (assuming I would argue such thing at all), humans are worthless and irrelevant?
3. Why could it not mean, that animals have the same worth and relevance you are granting humans?
4. One could argue (I'm not saying that this is my opinion) that it is your degradation of animals you don't want for humans. Because we humans tread animals bad, you fear that, if we would accept that humans have no more value than animals, humans are also treated as bad as animals.
   But would it not be a more sensible conclusion to stop to degrade animals and treat them as you wish to be treated?

Since you have been defending nail and tooth this argument I would say that is hardly hypothetical.

Just answer the following questions:

1. What exactly do you think is my argument?
2. Where do you think have I written anything that would allow you to conclude to whatever you think is my argument?
3. Why would be your conclusion the only logical conclusion and another interpretation of what I have said would be an illogical conclusion?
4. Where have I defended this argument with nail and tooth?

For several posts [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] I have tried to make you understand that I have nowhere stated my own opinion let alone defended it.

But regardless of all theses explanations and statements, you are claiming again and again and again that you know my own opinion, that I have stated it and have defended it with nail an tooth and that it would show that I'm a Nihilist.

And you use this alleged opinion of me to refuse to answer questions, which have nothing to do with this alleged opinion of me [6], [7].

Now I demand that you answer the questions above because we won't go further until your misconception is resolved.

[Who is like God arbour]

Can this thread get back on topic?

The thread has started to derail as PunkMaister has claimed that Europeans have never cared much about anything, that they have ignored the problem of Axis powers were storming around, hoping it would go away and blame others such as the jews etc [1].

Then Kane Starkiller has pointed out that Racism was hardly unique to Europe at the time and US was certainly in no hurry to help the jews not to mention involved in it's own eugenics programs [2].

This has started a debate between both, if the American Eugenics program rivals the Nazis [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], where Punkmaster in his haste to defend America again has (deliberately [?]) misunderstood, what Kane Starkiller actually has wanted to say.

I have used this as an occasion to ask, how one does differentiate between crimes like genocide, slavery or eugenics at all? By counting the victims? [9], [10].

Punkmaster has refused to answer this question because he thinks that I'm the opinion that humans have no more value than cabbage [11] and that I'm a Nihilist [12].

In the following debate I have tried to convince him that this is neither my opinion nor am I a Nihilist. I have demanded that Punkmaster shows me, where I have stated anything that would allow such a concluison.

But as usual, Punkmaster has ignored each direct question and has unperturbed repeated again and again his claims without providing only one single evidence or explanation.

I'm still waiting that ha answers the question how he differentiate between crimes like genocide, slavery or eugenics at all?

[Who is like God arbour]

Can this thread get back on topic?

I'd love too, in fact Arbour make another damn thread about the subject you want and leave this one alone...

The last time, I have made a separate thread entirely, you have complained [1], [2], [3].

Now you complain because I have not made a separate thread entirely.

What is it?

[GStone]

I'm still waiting that ha answers the question how he differentiate between crimes like genocide, slavery or eugenics at all?

Can we then have a mod to split this off into its own thread?

[sonofccn]

For several posts [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] I have tried to make you understand that I have nowhere stated my own opinion let alone defended it.

I want to know. Just what is your position, beliefs etc. You say your playing devils advocate but you have never indicated that to one extent or another you don't believe in it.

I have used this as an occasion to ask, how one does differentiate between crimes like genocide, slavery or eugenics at all? By counting the victims? [9], [10].

So that I may understand you correctly. You are asking how to rate genocide in order to compare NAZI genocide compared to the eugenics movment in the US?

Just answer the following questions:

1. What exactly do you think is my argument?

2. Where do you think have I written anything that would allow you to conclude to whatever you think is my argument?

3. Why would be your conclusion the only logical conclusion and another interpretation of what I have said would be an illogical conclusion?

4. Where have I defended this argument with nail and tooth?

1. The argument, regardless of if you truly believe or not, has been that there is no special difference between say a human and a dog. That a human is not instinctively more valuable regardless of any other conditions.

2.The aformentioned argument, the only debate is if you actually believe it or enjoy defending stupid arguments

3. To even reach the point to consider if animals deserve rights points to a pretty nihilistic world view. You have to hold all of man's accomplishment and animals zero accomplishment in equal regard.

4.You started the post on the subject and was the primary supporter, regardless if you believe in it by playing devil's advocate you are defending and supporting it.

[PunkMaister]

I'm still waiting that ha answers the question how he differentiate between crimes like genocide, slavery or eugenics at all?

Can we then have a mod to split this off into its own thread?

Do we even have mods here? I think so far only Starfleet Jedi himself is acting as sole moderator as well as Adm.

But I'm going to start a separate thread on my own just for whatever arguments Arbour want to raise.

On that note who voted for option 2?

[PunkMaister]

OK Arbour is now officially out of the picture when it comes to this or any of my threads so we can most certainly get back on track now...