Dumbass excuses

I’m not remotely interested in your opinions, nor should I be. (And vice versa.) I’m interested in arguments. Arguments are not the same as opinions. You establish a premises, which is supported by facts that support the premises. An argument that has a valid premises and sound logic is true. This isn’t really complicated. Surely, you must have reasons for supporting these ideas? If they are legitimate they can be proven to be so, this is not complicated.

 

He can't, even with a million intellectual quotes from others books....and apparantly if you read his rants and disagree and think they're dumb you'd be wrong because he qualifies as his own critic...

 

I think you should take care to really consider the implications of what you're saying. I don't think you actually believe this, however, so it may be a moot point. What you're implying is that either there is no such thing as truth, or that only that which can be physically measured is true. Not only are these bogus statements but they are paradoxical because if they are true, you are wrong, or everything you're saying is irrelevant.

I'll say it again, this isn't a popularity contest. I'm not interested in being everybody's friend, I'm interested in ideas, I'm interested in the truth. Now, language can be very complex and have many layers of meaning, but they do have meanings. If we're following the definition of the english word, "dumb", the statements in question do not fit the criteria. You can say they are wrong, which you'd have to be able to substantiate, you can say they are misguided, or upsetting, or dangerous, or whatever you think they are, provided you can substantiate it, but it's not 'dumb.' The word does have a meaning.
There's lots of people I disagree with, I think John Zerzan is horribly misguided and wrong, but I don't get to say he's dumb just because I dislike his ideas, or if I disliked him, personally. You don't get to create your own definitions.

 

I see. I tell you what, when you can prove to me that you actually exist, then get back to me.

Until then, all your 'truth' is subjective.

 

Well, this is all obvious, isn't it, to anyone with half a brain. We inherit through evolution, and some emotions like fear have been around for quite some time, before our species was roaming the planet, for sure. For fuck's sake, I thought the whole 'mechanical response' crap went out with the dark ages, but human arrogance and prejudice lives on, I suppose, and yeah, 'dumb' is a very fitting word for prejudice. Case rests.

 

“Individuals” in the sense of being one fish, or one prairie dog, yes. However, not an individual like you or I.

The word murder is sensationalistic, and, honestly, inapplicable.

Unfortunately, I fully concede animals have functioning nervous systems so about half of that is meaningless. However, we can agree fully that this is NOT a thread about animal rights. I’ve contributed over two dozen posts on this nonsense and, frankly, getting a little tired of repeating myself.

I’m aware of the limitations of human knowledge, but I have to wonder, what point do you THINK you’re making? Do you honestly believe this? If so, I don’t see how you could be an Anarchist, a nihilist, but not an Anarchist. Even if I were to accept this flawed proposition, it would invalidate everything you’re saying as well.

You obviously didn’t read what I wrote, or you didn’t understand it. I have no idea what you think you’re achieving. I NEVER questioned that animals have functioning nervous systems. While Cartesian rationalism contains some brilliant ideas that are still valuable, the idea that animals do not feel pain is obviously wrong. I never even implied otherwise.
You can argue against things I didn’t say for as long as you’d like, but I don’t see how this is productive. Again, you’re abusing the English language. Nothing I said could be construed as prejudiced. If this is the best you can do, you’re in no position to be criticizing other people’s arguments.

 

Rest snipped, as that was a reply to the other guy, not you. Yes, I do believe that all your truth is subjective, that is quite obvious. Even if you did believe that your truth was, in fact, universal truth, I would label you as some kind of nutter, since it would be unlikely that some omniscient being would choose to communicate in such a manner. I could be wrong in this, of course, I haven't actually met any, afaik. Since you ask, the point I was making is that everything you, or anyone, for that matter, believes, is an opinion, and no proof is possible. You might be able to convince me to believe something, but you can never prove it. Be wary of using such absolute terms, truth, proof, etc. It just makes you sound like a religious fanatic, and sorry, but while faith may move mountains, it's doesn't actually reveal truth - quite the opposite, in fact. You don't understand what I believe, well, no surprises there. Go read a few more books, maybe in time, you might get an original thought, though I wouldn't bet on it.

 

Ok. Fine.

I find it interesting that you refer to it as "my" truth, however, that's at least consistant with this dubious reasoning you're espousing. The paradox is that this is completely self-defeating, beyond everything else that's wrong with it. This also completely undermines any philosophy of animal rights or even the ability to promote such a philosophy. Even if I were to accept this, it's just one more reason NOT to subscribe to those ideas. This is also, as I was saying, completely at odds with the predominant ideas of Anarchism. 'Mainstream' Anarchism, if there can be said to be such a thing.

No, the socratic method, or the scientific method, whatever you want to call it, which is what I espouse, is the opposite of religious dogma or mysticism. Science and reason are based on facts, and logic, and critical analysis to reach conclusions. Religion starts with blanket assumptions which cannot be questioned under any circumstances (Because they don't hold up to the slightest critical examination.) and then seeks to impose this upon reality.

"Faith" is sort of a slippery word, like "spiritual", or "natural." However, it's meaning changes dramatically in the context of religion, in which case it essentially means 'total certitude in the absence of evidence.'

I don't think you have the slightest idea of what I believe either, although, that can be another contentious word, but I digress. What books are you recommending? I'm assuming you're referring to extremist 'animal rights' ideology? I'm aware of Singer, I haven't read "Animal Liberation" but I've read excerpts along with some ALF material and other stuff. I admit I'm not an expert on animal rights extremist ideology, but all that I've read seemed to echo the same ideas, including the same fallacies and dubious conclusions. If there is some radically different school of thought out there, I'd be willing to look at the material.

I'm not going to make a case here either way, but you might want to consider the very real possibility there is no such thing as an original idea. However, this is really just spiteful nonsense. You know, for all the condemnation I 've been the picture of restraint by comparison. I interpret this as; "I am absolutely incapable of producing cogent arguments." However, based on what little I have been able to observe, the voting thread for example, I'm not impressed.

 

Perhaps, but all philosophy is bullshit, isn't it. The study of questions that cannot be answered, that pretty much sums it up. I suppose it's ok for a bit of mental exorcise, maybe kills a bit of time, but frankly, I think I prefer a decent game of chess - far more productive. Anarchism, who cares, I believe what I believe, fit a name to it if that makes you feel more comfortable, but I don't really see the point.

The opposite, nah, not really. I'm a graduate of mathematics, so that might give you some insight into my idea of such notions as 'proof', yet even pure mathematics is based on assumptions - science more so (but philosophy, don't make me laugh). That a theory fits observation, and works, and is open to revision, yes, that is a great improvement over religion, but it's hardly the opposite. Yeah, that sounds like faith.

Nah, I was just taking the piss. In fact I have never read a book on animals rights, nor anarchism for that matter. I think the closest to philosophy was Nausea/Sartre. I don't really understand why anyone would want to. Well ok, I do understand, but it's not pretty. Oh, I could name 'names', but really, I would prefer that you think about it yourself? You know, use your brain for something apart from storing. sorting, and retrieving information?

Not sure if you are talking about yourself, or not. Whatever, wake up, please. Look in the mirror. This is like playing music to the deaf.

 

in an anarchist society oh wait, i'd ignore germs, getting nowhere fast, their perogative, controlling the conversation, naaa cya i've got stuff to do and life to live.

 

I find it interesting that a graduate of mathematics uses the (amongst others) Buddhist notion of subjective reality to counter the ideas of induction and deduction.
While in the same breath mentioning 'faith' and his own 'beliefs'. The former of which he seems to hate and the latter of which he seems to hold in high regard.
Oh and that other 'guy' isn't a guy

 

NGMN85 wrote: "I don't think you have the slightest idea of what I believe either, although, that can be another contentious word, but I digress. What books are you recommending? I'm assuming you're referring to extremist 'animal rights' ideology? I'm aware of Singer, I haven't read "Animal Liberation" but I've read excerpts along with some ALF material and other stuff. I admit I'm not an expert on animal rights extremist ideology, but all that I've read seemed to echo the same ideas, including the same fallacies and dubious conclusions. If there is some radically different school of thought out there, I'd be willing to look at the material."

So your saying you've never read any of the opposing literature to your whacked assed theories yet you say you espouse "the Scientific method"????????

Well sir, I say that any philosopher, scientist, teacher, debater worth his salt knows his opposing view like the back of his hand and will in fact base new theories on a mixture of the backs of the old theories. And you will be responsible of molding young minds? Scary to say the least.........

 

I have to agree with you on this one (I do a lot of agreeing, don't I?). At least on the opposing views bit, that one surprised me.
But I don't see a problem with his responsibility 'of molding young minds', as long as he teaches said young minds that there is more than one viewpoint and leaves them to make and assess their own ideas, opinions and standpoints.

 

I have three kids in school Rathryn, and I wouldn't want someone with such a narrow and shortsighted view as him anywhere near teaching them, he wouldn't lead them to make up their own opinions and I sight the example of his relentless anti-animal rights opinions without so much as giving serious study of its literature, not to mention his forming his opinions on music mainly on the opinions of others who wrote about it...Being their father I've never forced my views on them so why would I want anyone else to?

 

I for one am passionate about my opinions and viewpoints and work with the information I have, which usually means it's hopelessly one-sided and biased, to say the least.
That doesn't, personally, give me a right to impress those opinions onto minds to be moulded, though if you ask me.

 

What do you use to cut a babies hair and keep its head from growing at the same time?




A POTATO PEELER

 

Interesting... Whatever, there is a huge barrier between our minds and reality; perception, and it is far from perfect. So I really don't see how anyone's idea of reality can be anything but subjective. I am sure the universe is real enough, but the model we carry around in our heads, they one we use everyday, that is just some crap copy. I dunno if that is Buddhist or not, just seems obvious. So all belief is based on faith, to some degree, including my own, like it or not. My beliefs work for me, I hope yours work for you. Neither are 'right' or 'truth' but if they work, well, that's all that matters. So all this 'serious' debate about politics and shit, well ok, it might be interesting, but it's about as worthwhile as debating what the best punk band is. Which right now, is probably Oi Polloi, btw, and other stuff, cos it works for me, and you might think otherwise and I might say that's bullshit but what the fuck do I know, I'm not you, so who cares, really, though if people start invading my tiny little bit of the planet with their shit, well that's different, I guess. You try kill a chicken in my back yard, I'll kick your ass.

 

Nah, don't worry. Them young minds are just gonna think he's a twat.

 

First of all, my position on the subject is firmly grounded in logic and empirical facts, hardly a "whacked-ass-theory."

This is exhausting... I don't need to read the entire canon of Scientology literature to know that it's complete horseshit. I read most of Dianetics, I've read interviews, articles, etc., but honestly, I was able to reach that conclusion fairly quickly. One has to understand something in order to make an informed judgement, but some things require more understanding than others. The Hawking-Preskill debate over whether or nor radiation leaks out of a black hole required a deep and complex understanding of physics. If one were debating on whether some organism became extinct in the jurassic or triassic period, or the economics of the Roman empire, that would also require a much greater body of knowledge to draw from. However, the issue is an ideogy, not even the history of it, but simply the ideology itself. Anarchism or fascism, while they have substantial histories and various incarnations, are essentially reducible to core principles. Animal rights extremism is actually much narrower in scope. I also said I was open to any new formulation that I've never heard before. However, as I said, it all tends to boil down to the same erroneous core ideas.