Animal rights and freedom

[GStone]

Once again a sign of intelligence is being able to use a tool to your advantage.

Yes, I got that, but when referencing dogs, they don't have a physical structure to grasp things, like people, so they are stuck with using their mouths, nose or batting/rolling it with their paws. My point was that given their not having hands, the end result of what they are capable of doing with stuff with what they got is more important.

[PunkMaister]

• Wow, your arguments are so conclusive, I don't know, why I haven't seen this before. I don't know how I or one of the other professors could argue against such well founded theory. Theory? What the hell - that's not only a theory, it's fact. There is no doubt any more that your opinion reflects the truth. After all, if it wouldn't be the truth, the philosophical consequences for the status of mankind would be devastating - and that's not something we would want and reality has to adhere to our free will.
  I have no choice than to concede that I will never convince you and bow before you in humble adoration. Thank you that you have let me partake in your wisdom. Hallelujah, I'm enlightened.

Knock it off Wilga! He never said that it was conclusive but that it was you own choice. You see is all about choices. Now sonofccn and I choose yes choose to believe that we indeed do have free will (and let's face it it would not be a choice if we didn't), that we are indeed at the very least a ledge above animals and as such we are indeed the dominant species and as such we have a responsibility toward this planet not just to reign over it but to nurture and take care of it, the same fashion that one tenders a garden. Now again is up to you to choose what you want to believe in what amounts to irrelevancy go right ahead no one is stopping you, if believing that basically there is no difference between humans and snails is what makes you happy go for it.

[sonofccn]

• Wow, your arguments are so conclusive, I don't know, why I haven't seen this before. I don't know how I or one of the other professors could argue against such well founded theory. Theory? What the hell - that's not only a theory, it's fact. There is no doubt any more that your opinion reflects the truth. After all, if it wouldn't be the truth, the philosophical consequences for the status of mankind would be devastating - and that's not something we would want and reality has to adhere to our free will.
  I have no choice than to concede that I will never convince you and bow before you in humble adoration. Thank you that you have let me partake in your wisdom. Hallelujah, I'm enlightened.

1. As I said you can only answer if you have free will. Those experiments are inconclusive at best, and are no reason to simply assume that man, stated to be master of all he surveys by both Divine and evolutionary rights, is just a mere animal.

2.As I have stated I would rather be found out wrong and correct myself then sit on the fence worrying about choosing the wrong action. The evidence presented was insufficient to alter my perception of reality.

3. If you think a wide spread acceptence of there being no free will won't lead to massive culture upsets at best if not humanity extinction I would like to see your reasoning. I am curious how you think this belief can be carried to it's logical end and not end in a disaster.

4. I concede you could be correct regarding that you will never convert me. I find the concept of having no free will so alien...so sickening that it is like a hangman's noose. I am honest enough to admit that.

[Who is like God arbour]

To refuse to accept something because you don't like the consequences is not an argument.

Reality is reality and it does not adhere to your wishes. Yes, it may be terrible that there is no god and that mankind is not his creation but only a life form among many other different life forms, on a planet among many other planets, in a star system among many other star systems, in a galaxy among many other galaxies. It may be mortifying to learn that we have developed like all other life forms from a primitive protozoa and that our current appearance is nothing but happenstance and several billion years of evolution. But that you may think it is terrible does not change the facts.

The fact is that there is no evidence for the existence of such thing like free will. Furthermore, these tests are showing, that there are justified doubts if there is such thing like free will and that its existence can't be proven.

Why do have the tests to exclude all possibility of doubt while you have to prove nothing? You argue for free will. You should prove that there is a free will.

But let try it me another way. You have said, that you don't really understand the physical explanation from above.

Let me ask you a question:

• • Do you "believe" in momentum, in Newton's laws of motion or do you think that (outside of quantum physic) something can happen without a cause, that random, spontaneous, mysterious, or miraculous events can occur, which are objectively unexplainable?

[PunkMaister]

To refuse to accept something because you don't like the consequences is not an argument.

Reality is reality and it does not adhere to your wishes. Yes, it may be terrible that there is no god and that mankind is not his creation but only a life form among many other different life forms, on a planet among many other planets, in a star system among many other star systems, in a galaxy among many other galaxies. It may be mortifying to learn that we have developed like all other life forms from a primitive protozoa and that our current appearance is nothing but happenstance and several billion years of evolution. But that you may think it is terrible does not change the facts.

The fact is that there is no evidence for the existence of such thing like free will. Furthermore, these tests are showing, that there are justified doubts if there is such thing like free will and that its existence can't be proven.

Why do have the tests to exclude all possibility of doubt while you have to prove nothing? You argue for free will. You should prove that there is a free will.

But let try it me another way. You have said, that you don't really understand the physical explanation from above.

Let me ask you a question:

• • Do you "believe" in momentum, in Newton's laws of motion or do you think that (outside of quantum physic) something can happen without a cause, that random, spontaneous, mysterious, or miraculous events can occur, which are objectively unexplainable?

The very fact that you are writing this and arguing this proves wrong your assumption that is right assumption of the nonexistence of free will! As sonofccn put it earlier on! How Ironic is that! If you had no will of your own and simply moved downhill as a ball pulled by gravity. You would not be arguing at all because what we are saying is what most believe and this is where gravity if you will is pulling at the moment but you do not! Why? Because you, you have chosen to believe differently!

[Who is like God arbour]

Again you fail to answer a simple question.

And again you have no clue about what you are talking.

Furthermore it is not enough to simply say that A proves B.

Why does the fact that I'm arguing about free will proves that I have a free will, especially if I'm still questioning what free will is at all and insofar it is not even clear about what exactly I'm arguing?

Since when has the ability to talk about something, that one may not have, has something to do with free will?

And why would someone, who does not argue about free will or would not be able to talk about free will, has no free will?

If I read your postings, I see the writings of someone, who don't really talks about free will, of someone who is so afraid that it could be proven that he has no free will, that he is not only determined to not accept any argument but also determined to not really face up that problem.

You haven't answered one single question I have asked in the whole thread. Are you scared?

[PunkMaister]

Wilga you yourself have basically not answered any of our questions so why should we be compelled to answer yours which are mostly based on largely inconclusive evidence?

You keep talking about reality but those studies are not reality they are just a hypothesis of a few scientists and is all pretty inconclusive at best, yet you have chosen to take this inconclusive studies as being your abject reality and view of the world and for some unexplained sniglet of the universe you want to push this view down everyone's throats. Right now you are being more pedantic than a Jehova's witness ever hoped to be. But at least they have a bit of Charisma which you totally lack compadre...

As sonofccn pointed out you we will never convert to your point of view, your point of view does not represent reality just a skewed perception of it based on inconclusive studies and as I said before if the thought of you having the same value as cabbage fills your heart with joy somehow then the more power to you. Most of us do not and will not ever accept such a thing so stop trying and focus on something else more productive which in your case it could be doing a painting or committing suicide in the most horrendous way since is all irrelevant anyway, have a very nice (or not) day...

[Who is like God arbour]

That's all the questions you have asked in that thread:

• Tell me something Arbour since you broough this up. (Yes you were the one that created a whole new thread just about Animal right entirely) Do you feel personally that there is no difference between a composer like Mozart and a shrimp in the bottom of the river? Again just curious.

  Where is that you want to go with all this? Are you suggesting that Animals and plants should be entitled with the same rights as humans? Are you suggesting that Animals and plants should be given the right to pursue their happiness, give them what? Property? Farmland?

  Do you realize that all you are doing is pushing a Nihilistic point of view?
  Retract and what? Admit that somehow you are right and nobody, no one nothing has any intrinsic value and we might as well all go and commit suicide right now because everything is irrelevant and nothing really matters or ever did? Hmm.. Let me think about it... The answer is NO!
  
  I will never, ever accept your Nihilist point of view no matter how much you try to force it down my throat.
  
  
  Now I cannot speak for the rest but those that want to join your little Nihilist club are welcome to do so, that is what free will is all about after all. But I will never yield...

  Do plants or Animals question their place in the universe and the reason for them to even be around? To even exist? So far the evidence shows that they do not. Questions about one's own existence, the significance or relevance of our existence etc. We ask why! We are constantly asking the why of the natural order of things. No plant, no animal in this whole planet has been observed to question it's place in the scheme of things, only we do that. Tell me how do ask a dog what owner it would like? Or say we give dogs the same rights as we do as well as cats. How does that work? And yes I'm asking questions now. since you are so hellbent on somehow proving that there is no difference between humans and shrimp.

  Exactly what I've been trying to say in so many words! Wilga you claim that this thread has nothing to do with your personal opinions on this subject but I reckon it does! Why else bring this to the table if not to make a point?

  Your point seems to be that there is no difference whatsoever between Humans and Animals.That there is no way to distinguish between the 2! Well guess what? Shrimps are animals! So in your balance of things there is no difference between Humans and Shrimp in fact there is no difference between humans and Amoebas with your scale of things.

  You see in this world right now there's 2 mayor schools of thought one that says we are unique as a species on the face of the Earth, that as such we must have a purpose and a higher purpose at that. Then there those that believe in empty existentialism and that everything is irrelevant and has no intrinsic value. That there is no difference between a mass murderer and somebody that risks his or her life to save others day in and day out. The question now given the context of this thread is which are you?

  Can any of this animals othet than people do at the very least basic math, can any of them write or learn to write and do math?

  Navel of the world? Is that like center of the universe? It sure sounds like it and it is, neither sonofccn nor I have made such a claim, being a planet's dominant species is not same as being "The center of the universe"

  The very fact that you are writing this and arguing this proves wrong your assumption that is right assumption of the nonexistence of free will! As sonofccn put it earlier on! How Ironic is that! If you had no will of your own and simply moved downhill as a ball pulled by gravity. You would not be arguing at all because what we are saying is what most believe and this is where gravity if you will is pulling at the moment but you do not! Why? Because you, you have chosen to believe differently!

  Wilga you yourself have basically not answered any of our questions so why should we be compelled to answer yours which are mostly based on largely inconclusive evidence?

Which of these questions deserves an answer and was not answered?

On the other side, you fail again to answer any questions. Do you want that I repeat them for you?

[PunkMaister]

Which of these questions deserves an answer and was not answered?

On the other side, you fail again to answer any questions. Do you want that I repeat them for you?

Ah so somehow your questions are deserving of answers while sonofccn and mine are not? How convenient for you...

[Who is like God arbour]

• I think it would be the best to let that stay, unanswered and uncommented, a monument for the stupidity of Punkmaster, who is unable to see the qualitative difference between his rhetorical and purposeless questions and real questions.

[PunkMaister]

• I think it would be the best to let that stay, unanswered and uncommented, a monument for the stupidity of Punkmaster, who is unable to see the qualitative difference between his rhetorical and purposeless questions and real questions.

Not any more purposeless than yours and any way according to your logic we are no different than cabbage so why do you even care?