The Art of Killing--for Kids

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spencelo said:
Yes, it’s clear you don’t understand my views, so it’s no surprise that you distort them. I can only hope that my posts here have been somewhat educational.
Click to expand...
Clearly they haven’t. So perhaps you should attempt explaining your view in a different way? Because the way you’ve explained it already has lead me to believe of you what I now believe of you. 🤷
 
spencelo said:
Are you against animal cruelty? You have to say ‘no’ if you think hunting is okay.
Click to expand...
Asking a open question and then setting the grounds for answering that question is a indication of intellectual dishonesty.😦
 
nickybr38 said:
Clearly they haven’t. So perhaps you should attempt explaining your view in a different way? Because the way you’ve explained it already has lead me to believe of you what I now believe of you. 🤷
Click to expand...
That’s certainly a possibility, and I always strive to be a clear as possible. But it’s also quite possible that your lack of understanding is due to an inherent resistance to consider what I say charitably. As I evidence of this, you dismiss the work of Professor David N. Cassuto, believing that his law school web page was actually a hoax, the work of a teenager. That mental immaturity, obviously, is not my responsibility – I suggest you make it yours.
 
Guys, Spence is telling us to digest what I had said earlier.
I find it funny that the stuff I said is truly indigestible. 😃
(Sorry for the bad attempt at humor.)
 
DCNBILL said:
Asking a open question and then setting the grounds for answering that question is a indication of intellectual dishonesty.😦
Click to expand...
Essentially the only way is spencelo’s way, if you don’t agree you are an advocate for animal cruelty and are completely immoral.
 
spencelo said:
That’s certainly a possibility, and I always strive to be a clear as possible. But it’s also quite possible that your lack of understanding is due to an inherent resistance to consider what I say charitably. As I evidence of this, you dismiss the work of Professor David N. Cassuto, believing that his law school web page was actually a hoax, the work of a teenager. That mental immaturity, obviously, is not my responsibility – I suggest you make it yours.
Click to expand...
Oh come Spence, I was joking with you there. 🙂 Just poking a little fun.

I do want to understand your viewpoint. I really do. I’m not interested in articles or even studies. I’m interested in how YOU interpret those studies and articles. I mean I can find articles and studies that counter your point. So what? It means nothing. What does matter is how YOU interpret it.

So tell me. VERY CLEARLY. What IS your view on killing predators? This is your opportunity to set the record straight.
 
DCNBILL said:
Asking a open question and then setting the grounds for answering that question is a indication of intellectual dishonesty.😦
Click to expand...
I’m simply stating what I believe logically follows from a certain proposition. That you would characterize that as “intellectual dishonesty” is a tremendous distortion of the notion, rendering it meaningless. According to you, I’m intellectually dishonest because I dare claim what I believe to be the case as a matter of logic, and if that’s all it takes for me to be intellectually dishonest, then I suppose I should have failed all of my classes.
 
SamH said:
Essentially the only way is spencelo’s way, if you don’t agree you are an advocate for animal cruelty and are completely immoral.
Click to expand...
And/or are in so much denial that you can’t see truth.
 
SamH said:
Essentially the only way is spencelo’s way, if you don’t agree you are an advocate for animal cruelty and are completely immoral.
Click to expand...
Of course, the same thing could be said about Catholics on the abortion issue–their way is the only way. Abortion is wrong and pro-choice supporters who disagree with Catholics are completely immoral.
 
spencelo said:
Of course, the same thing could be said about Catholics on the abortion issue–their way is the only way. Abortion is wrong and pro-choice supporters who disagree with Catholics are completely immoral.
Click to expand...
So what’s the middle ground between life and death?
 
spencelo said:
I’m simply stating what I believe logically follows from a certain proposition. That you would characterize that as “intellectual dishonesty” is a tremendous distortion of the notion, rendering it meaningless. According to you, I’m intellectually dishonest because I dare claim what I believe to be the case as a matter of logic, and if that’s all it takes for me to be intellectually dishonest, then I suppose I should have failed all of my classes.
Click to expand...
No distortion and do not evade a fact. If you were actually stating what you believe then that is one thing but you stated;

Originally Posted by spencelo
Are you against animal cruelty? You** have** to say ‘no’ if you think hunting is okay. (my emphasis)

If you had stated.

Are you against animal cruelty? I believe that you should say ‘no’ if you think hunting is okay.

Then that would be honest and be characterized by your statement above.

By initially making that statement and then trying to defend it rather than apologizing for the breach in discussion conduct you are rapidly losing, I am sorry to say, any credibility that you may have had.
 
spencelo said:
Of course, the same thing could be said about Catholics on the abortion issue–their way is the only way. Abortion is wrong and pro-choice supporters who disagree with Catholics are completely immoral.
Click to expand...
Way to change the subject. 😛

But I don’t actually believe pro-choice supporters are completely immoral so this doesn’t apply to me. 🤷 I just believe their morality comes from a different place and perhaps is not fully developed. This doesn’t mean THEY are immoral. They could only be immoral if they recognized the action AS wrong and acted on it anyway. Most pro-choice advocates believe their position is CORRECT and they believe they ARE acting morally… they are, therefore, not immoral. Perhaps their morality is ill-formed but that doesn’t mean they lack it completely.
 
DCNBILL said:
No distortion and do not evade a fact. If you were actually stating what you believe then that is one thing but you stated;

Originally Posted by spencelo
Are you against animal cruelty? You have to say ‘no’ if you think hunting is okay.

If you had stated.

Are you against animal cruelty? I believe that you should say ‘no’ if you think hunting is okay.

Then that would be honest and be characterized by your statement above.

By initially making that statement and then trying to defend it rather than apologizing for the breach in discussion conduct you are rapidly losing, I am sorry to say, any credibility that you may have had.
Click to expand...
No evasion on my part, and you are still distorting the notion of “intellectual dishonesty.” There is no meaningful distinction between my original statement and the statement that “I believe that you should say ‘no.’” Obviously, by virtue of me saying “you have to say ‘no’,” I am asserting what I believe to be the case: that you should say ‘no’ as a matter of logical necessity. Your ridiculous charge comes down to me being too concise, not stating things in a manner to your stylistic liking. Well, too bad – I’m sorry for causing offense to your aesthetic sensibilities. Maybe you’d like to write up a writing style guide, with examples, that details the types of phrases you find so offensive. Honestly, I didn’t realize I was engaging such an ultra-sensitive crowd.
 
spencelo said:
No evasion on my part, and you are still distorting the notion of “intellectual dishonesty.” There is no meaningful distinction between my original statement and the statement that “I believe that you should say ‘no.’” Obviously, by virtue of me saying “you have to say ‘no’,” I am asserting what I believe to be the case: that you should say ‘no’ as a matter of logical necessity. Your ridiculous charge comes down to me being too concise, not stating things in a manner to your liking. Well, too bad – I’m sorry for causing offense to your aesthetic sensibilities. Maybe you’d like to write up a writing style guide, with examples, that details the types of phrases you find so offensive. Honestly, I didn’t realize I was engaging such an ultra-sensitive crowd.
Click to expand...
If this were the case then you would have presented a logical set of statements that ends with this conclusion. The more that you argue this point the more you seem to be trying to justify yourself, the more credibility you loose.

I thought that you for real at first and had good intentions despite your intensity, I am sorry that I was wrong.
 
Animals are for eating and consumption, thank God for steak!

And if the belief that some people hold are that humans are just animals, then it is completely within the laws of the animal kingdom and completely natural and uncruel that humans wipe out entire species for game, food, or just for the simple fact that we are eliminating rival predators.
 
nickybr38 said:
Hey! I said I’d be back. You totally aren’t reading my posts at all. 😦
Click to expand...
Not true! I have been reading every one. You are making a dent, friend! Have at it!

I’m just relaxing after my delicious lunch of air and diet coke. That is all that is left to ingest. Stupid canine teeth and molars…good for nothing!
 
Armor_of_Light said:
Not true! I have been reading every one. You are making a dent, friend! Have at it!

I’m just relaxing after my delicious lunch of air and diet coke. That is all that is left to ingest. Stupid canine teeth and molars…good for nothing!
Click to expand...
So, what do you think of what Spence said to my latest reply to him? O:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top