logic and compassion aren't polar enemies

Post Reply New Topic

I am certain that the ire of many soldiers has won many wars against a foe and this can create progress and counterbalance other forms of emotion that in the current state would be against progress. I never said that ignorance is progressive and do not defend it, however, hatred is not against progress and one man's hate can be a driving force leading them to create or at least destroy forces against stability necessary for creation, just look at the technological improvement that occurs during wars or BATMAN!! !!(ok, there are better fictional examples, but mere dislike cannot drive a man to spend all of that time honing fighting skills, criminology techniques, and risking his life daily, although, it really depends on the batman interpretation as some go from light to dark) As well, I would argue that brutality and progress are not foes, in fact, through brutal testing methods we have gained much progress and can maintain stability necessary for future progress, after all, animal testing is argued to be brutal but improves the quality of life for the majority and certain theories of criminal punishment argue that crime is meant to be punished harshly in order to disincentize people from committing future crime. Really though, the heart of my argument is how logic opposes hate and brutality necessarily, by that same thread we can also justly claim that love should also be logically attacked based upon its illogic and the problems it can lead to as it can lead individuals towards self-destructive ends or even any emotion in question.

In the case of lab animals, we're getting something from that. We're not just torturing them because we're bloodthirsty psychopaths. We get knowledge, which helps us fight illnesses and disease. Yeah, it did help some soldiers fight harder in wars.... But honestly if people didn't always think like this we wouldn't have to have wars.

So, does it matter why we torture them? Pleasure is pleasure and some individuals might value the freedom to watch dogfights as highly as they'd value longer life expectancy, perhaps even higher. As well, all it takes for a war is the rise of an opponent, after all, one cannot stop a determined enemy no matter how many appeasements are made so abolishing inter-human conflict is impossible, unless we want to take a Gandhi approach and let our enemies kill us and therefore hate will always have a place in our hearts and can in some cases be rational to instill either by the self as hatred, due to its drive can push a man to great lengths and heights or by governing powers.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 07 Jan 2007, 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, because expirementing on animals isn't done for the sick-willed want to hurt innocent beings, it's done for medical advancements. And my point about the war thing, yeah, if everyone thinks that way, we will always have wars. Granted, I know that NT earth is too caveman and barbaric to put these differences aside. But my point still stands, common since tells you, unless your a complete dumbass, that injuring the innocent for the sheer sake of bloodlust isn't progressive.

So what? It is done to give human beings pleasure. War will always exist because there will always be opponents who want war. The common sense argument is BS, I dealt with common sense in a previous post pointing out that what was common sense has varied in past societies. As well, there is nothing against progress about letting individuals treat animals how they desire to in the recognition of differing moralities and the view of human society existing to promote humanity. This has everything to do with respecting the individual and I would argue that your point of view is too totalitarian to be progressive and progress and freedom should go hand in hand.

Dude use all the big words and book smarts you want to, it doesn't make a difference. I don't care how intelligent you might try to sound, if you were to condone the halucaust your wrong, deal with it. To me you just seem like your too much of a p**** to challenge your inner animal and try to be a better person.

So "respecting an individual" is beating the s**t out of them for no apparent reason other than bloodlust? And YOUR calling ME totalitarian?

I see.... So if I wanna go out and create mass murder, eat unborn fetuses, rape children, burn down villiages, and blow up the white house, I'm not out of line because morality is a myth (yes I'm being sarcastic)

It most certainly does make a difference. I maintain logical consistency and try to make my points with as much validity as possible. The big issue is that you don't choose to deal with logic, you claim that I am by default wrong without proving it, and that is a steaming load of bs. No point is wrong unless it is wrong empirically or logically, and you have proven neither instead pointing to your beliefs on "common sense" which really only reflects individual biases, a point I referenced with an Einstein quote and with references to what made sense for past cultures. I really don't care if I am a "p****" by your idiotic ideas, you have not shown any quality thought with your attacks and frankly I have been rather kind for not calling you a s**t head and ruthlessly mocking your intellectual inability to argue or comprehend.

No, respecting an individual is allowing them to make their own moral choices in issues where no human life or health is at stake. Yes, I do call you totalitarian because you do not seem capable of drawing the distinction between your morality and how others should be allowed to act. I stated that to offset your emotional BS and get to the point that there is another moral argument going counter to your point of view which conflicts with your idea of objective morality, which is somehow something you derive from mid-air without any regard for reason.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 07 Jan 2007, 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, you are braindead. If you do such things to me, I will kill you, and man is back in his natural state. The fact is that human society is set up by other beings to prevent them from doing those things to each other. You are out of line because it conflicts with my self-interest and with the rules we have set up to maximize human utility, this means that other people will destroy you because it is in their interest to do so, not because some objective morality tells them to.

And exactly how does it benefit humanity for you to beat your dog?

I "derived it" out of thin air? Dude, I'm willing to bet most people would agree with me on this. I know what your trying to say, but your so logical your illogical. This sounds alot more like psycho dictator s**t to me dude. That f*****g dog did nothing to warrant getting beat, and if your not gaining anything from it that'll help your survival, your just doing it to be mean spirited. And yes, I'd say the same thing if you were to torture a lobster out of bloodlust.

Or if it were a person, I'd still say the same thing. Point is, if there's a victim, there's a crime.

Let's see, all of those who want to do so benefit, as well, new forms of entertainment and possible sources of income become available such as dog-fights and cock-fights, this also means that this income is taxable allowing for more infrastructure to be built, or more tax cuts which will help everybody, not only that but individuals either using animals on their own time or perusing these fights will gain.
Yes, you derived it out of thin air and frankly, I don't care what the average person would think, the average person is full of s**t and has absolutely no idea about anything. I care about the logical foundations for such a belief. I am "so logical I am illogical"? Let me ask you a question, how the hell is that even possible? Is that like how in mathematics if you have n --> infinity that n becomes less than 0? WAIT! That never happens!! Instead the only reason why you make such a ridiculous and illogical claim is because you have some emotionally based opinion and you hate the idea that some form of logic gets in the way so now you label this logic "illogical" despite no proof to claim such. Logic by its definition is not illogical just like A != not A.

Psycho-dictator s**t to me sounds more like imposing beliefs upon other people because that is what dictators DO!! !! I do not impose my beliefs but rather leave an open question for individualistic evaluation and my beliefs fit more in the eccentric category and are more acceptable from anti-government extremist than that of a dictator, you however, argue that your beliefs should be imposed upon other people who don't believe them, so the guy who wants to see dogfights cannot see them because the dictator snake321 has banned them because he dislikes them. That sounds more authoritarian to me. My argument if anything rejects moral-authoritarianism which is something picked at by plenty of other people.

I will improve my quality of life though, which is what a lot of our dealings with animals work towards and in fact, just because something can be lumped in the survival category means nothing, I might be willing to trade 7 years of my life if I can see dog-fights for all of the rest. Why on earth should your moral issues with dog-fights get in the way of my freedom to do what I choose and act on my own conscience rather than yours?

ok so you said it yourself, morality is a myth, so I could toss you into a pit with a mountain lion and watch you fight for your life for my sheer f---ing emusement. Obviosuly I'd pull for the mountain lion, it's probably a thousand times more human than you could ever be.
And for your information, logic becomes illogical when sacrifices logical compassion. Something your small brain obviously can't comprehend. So your really no more "evolved"" or "logical" than a stupid hillbilly witch burner in the salem trials. Everything that lives deserves a chance for a decent life, I'm sure you'd agree if you were defenseless and getting beat down by something 3 times your size. Screw your stupid f---ing tribal dominance BS, that is why you are a coward. You try to take your frustration out on those who can't fight back and justify it because your "just a big dumb ape, pity me". You make no effort to rise above this destructive selfish evil nature, instead, you hide behind it. Quite frankly, I'm done talking to you too, and I hope you get your head ripped off by a grizzly bear or something.

You technically could. The only aspect is that law enforcement in our society dictates, quite rationally, that killing other individuals is a threat to the greater whole of society based upon rule utilitarianism to some extent, political philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that all man would do is kill other man without powers intervening to prevent this and that the rise of the state was out of the natural desire for self-preservation and a rise above the "nasty, short and brutish" life that we would have without a power to prevent our destructive behavrios. Technically though, the lion isn't more human as I have the human genes, not only that but I have the greatest quality man has ever had, which is reason, not emotion as you imply.

The only thing is that you haven't proven this compassion to be logical. As well, to call my brain small is only a reflection on your latent stupidity as you have shown no mental reasoning beyond my own and even that less than my own. I am not more "evolved" than a stupid hillbilly witch burner by the standard of evolution, I am possibly less as I have not mated to date, I am more evolved intellectually though as the stupid hillbilly witch burner has little conceptualization of logic and does not recognize the foolishness and wrongheadedness of his witch burning. You also keep on stating the same goddamn statement without a proof. I would not agree with that claim even if I was being beat down by something 3 times my size, I would instead appeal to reason and self-interest because something that is 3 times my size and beating me down for no apparent reason isn't going to respond to that. I am also not a goddamn coward, YOU are the f*****g coward for not even daring to think! If I was the f*****g coward I would never even dare to speak on this matter in the tone I did, I would sycophantically go with you if only to appease the idiocy that you represent that goes rampant through mankind. I don't have to make an effort to appease YOUR beliefs like a coward would, and I don't care if I express views conflicting with the standard moral dogma if I find it to be just plain dogma, like the cowards of the world would, I live fine according to my own standards and my own moral beliefs and as such, don't give a s**t about yours. I hope you die brutally, painfully, and slowly for your complete inability to discuss this issue reasonably and in my eyes it is YOU who show imperfection for this inability.