View previous topic | View next topic

Jungle -Bad Logic

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


It is bad logic to say, If an animal does x, then it is alright for humans to also do x?
Agree
100%
 100%  [ 4 ]
Disagree
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 4

Quibbler
964534.  Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:28 am Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
Are we saying homosexuality is a human behaviour, and when we observe other animals having sex with their own gender we are merely projecting our human views on them?

You may not be able to articulate a coherent argument, so you resort to using an offensive word, you therefore lose the argument, It may be difficult, but try thinking.

I might as well say that eating and shitting is a human behaviour and that when I see my cat doing it I'm really projecting my human behaviour onto him.


If I use the metaphor of diet you may hopefully understand what it is that I am trying to convey.

If one argues that the human diet should be vegetarian because monkeys eat fruit, and another argues that humans should be carnivores because cats can only live on a carnivorous diet. I should point out that monkeys can eat fruit which is unripe, and is poisonous to humans, and leopards can eat carrion (meat that has gone bad) that is also poisonous to humans.

Humans themselves cook food, which no other species on Earth as far as anyone knows does. To say that the human diet should be vegetarian, or carnivorous based on what another species diet is meaningless, we are a different species. If I went to china and proved that Giant Pandas live entirely on bamboo, that is no reason for any human to change to a bamboo diet.

If humans can eat certain foods it does not mean that you can feed your dog them. You should not feed your dog grapes, raisins, onions, chocolate, coffee, tea, tomatoes, apples, peaches, or cherries.

 
Quibbler
964535.  Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:31 am Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
Are we saying homosexuality is a human behaviour, and when we observe other animals having sex with their own gender we are merely projecting our human views on them?

I might as well say that eating and shitting is a human behaviour and that when I see my cat doing it I'm really projecting my human behaviour onto him.


You may not be able to articulate a coherent argument, so you resort to using an offensive word, how clever, you therefore lose the argument, It may be difficult, but try thinking.

If I use the metaphor of diet you may hopefully understand what it is that I am trying to convey.

If one argues that the human diet should be vegetarian because monkeys eat fruit, and another argues that humans should be carnivores because cats can only live on a carnivorous diet. I should point out that monkeys can eat fruit which is unripe, and is poisonous to humans, and leopards can eat carrion (meat that has gone bad) that is also poisonous to humans.

Humans themselves cook food, which no other species on Earth as far as anyone knows does. To say that the human diet should be vegetarian, or carnivorous based on what another species diet is meaningless, we are a different species. If I went to china and proved that Giant Pandas live entirely on bamboo, that is no reason for any human to change to a bamboo diet.

If humans can eat certain foods it does not mean that you can feed your dog them. You should not feed your dog grapes, raisins, onions, chocolate, coffee, tea, tomatoes, apples, peaches, or cherries.

 
PDR
964536.  Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:35 am Reply with quote

The question isn't one of whether homosexuality is "right or wrong". FWIW I would suggest it's neither; it just IS - you could no more argue that snow, sun or earthquakes were right or wrong.

The "question" was whether homosexuality was unique to humans. If it IS then we can possibly suggest that it is related to higher brain functions, greater social organisation etc and the subject would be "quite interesting" because it's a singularity (all singularities are potentially interesting and enlightening). But if it isn't a singularity then it's not at all interesting - it just IS.

PDR

 
PDR
964537.  Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:37 am Reply with quote

The trouble with being evangelical rather than intellectual is that it often causes you to repeat yourself...

:-)

PDR

 
Posital
964548.  Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:07 am Reply with quote

Tas wrote:
At which point would animals cease being seen as animals, and seen as 'another intelligent species'?
Given human history, it doesn't take much for us to consider other people to be "animals" - and treat them poorly. I suspect allowing another species into that "circle of trust" would be very slow in coming. They'd probably have to prove they're more human than humans - if the fight for sexual equality is anything to go by.

To drift into pop-culture the film I, Robot:
Spooner: Even dogs have dreams, but not you, you are just a machine. An imitation of life. Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a... canvas into a beautiful masterpiece?
Sonny: Can you?

PS: It may surprise some, but QI has been hosted by an animal for its entire run - and all the panellists have been too. /pedantry

 
RLDavies
964576.  Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:51 am Reply with quote

Quibbler wrote:
dr.bob wrote:
RLDavies wrote:
The anti-gay campaigners (mostly on the US religious far-right) have always claimed as one of their major arguments that animals -- living in God's innocent grace -- never engage in homosexual behaviour, and therefore it's obviously an unnatural perversion.

So, following Stephen's logic, homosexuality is perfectly natural and it's homophobia that's the unnatural perversion.

Whether homosexuallity is right or wrong has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Nothing to do with the point I was making, either. Apparently nobody here bothered to read my post (quoted above) as far as the third paragraph, where I made my particular point:

RLDavies wrote:
Nobody was arguing that "anything animals do is OK for humans". The argument is a completely different one, namely a rebuttal of one of the planks of anti-gay campaigns.

 
CB27
964690.  Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:05 pm Reply with quote

Quibbler wrote:
CB27 wrote:
You may not be able to articulate a coherent argument, so you resort to using an offensive word, you therefore lose the argument, It may be difficult, but try thinking.

I'm a little confused here because it seems you're quoting me and it's sandwiched between two paragraphs I did write, but I cannot find that I wrote this.

If this was an error of "placement" and it's your remark for my use of the word "shitting", then this is not an offensive word when describing the action, and I was talking about a basic function, not swearing or trying to be shocking. "I find you rude and you lose the argument" is not a convincing argument when no offence was meant.

Besides the point, I thought this was a discussion, not some competition to see who wins the internet.


Last edited by CB27 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:15 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
CB27
964695.  Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:15 pm Reply with quote

Quibbler wrote:
Whether homosexuallity is right or wrong has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Actually it has everything wrong with it.

There is nothing physically or emotionally wrong with homosexuality, as displayed by the fact that other animals apart from humans also have homosexual activity.

The objection people have is that it's "unnatural" and against God, etc. The argument about it being against God is a different argument because that's a discussion on religion itself and the teachings of various books, but the idea that homosexuality is unnatural is wrong.

Similarly, some people think anyone having sex apart from the act of procreation, or outside marriage, is morally wrong, but it's rarely held up as unnatural. Some people think eating certain foods is against their religion, but they don't hold it up as unnatural.

Some people find certain acts more repulsive than others, and homosexuality is one of them, so they look for an explanation other than moral to explain why it's wrong.

 
CB27
964696.  Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:21 pm Reply with quote

The example of diet is wrong as well.

If some animals are vegetarian, or eat particular foods, no one is advocating that humans eat those same foods "because those animals do". What is being argued (and I mentioned it before in a previous post) is that just as other mammals need to eat to survive, so do humans, it's not about the diet they have, it's about the fact that there's nothing unnatural in humans or animals eating whichever foods that's not harmful to them.

How many people would baulk at eating insects, testicles, snails, etc, but we wouldn't call it unnatural because we know that humans can (and some do).

 
Quibbler
965726.  Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:47 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
The question isn't one of whether homosexuality is "right or wrong". FWIW I would suggest it's neither; it just IS - you could no more argue that snow, sun or earthquakes were right or wrong.
PDR


I do not know why any of you are discussing whether homosexuality is right or wrong, or religion. That was not my point. I pointed out that humans are UNIQUE (hence the cooking example) and should NOT be compared to other species. The metaphor of poisonous food was refering to paedophiles, not homosexuals.

I think this proves why it so so dangerous to compare human behaviour with other speices. People jump to the wrong conclusion. Make the wrong inferences.

There is a certain political party in Holland that would like every to make the same mistake. And it is their views that I find abhorent.

 
Quibbler
965727.  Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:56 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
The example of diet is wrong as well.

If some animals are vegetarian, or eat particular foods, no one is advocating that humans eat those same foods "because those animals do". What is being argued (and I mentioned it before in a previous post) is that just as other mammals need to eat to survive, so do humans, it's not about the diet they have, it's about the fact that there's nothing unnatural in humans or animals eating whichever foods that's not harmful to them.

How many people would baulk at eating insects, testicles, snails, etc, but we wouldn't call it unnatural because we know that humans can (and some do).


I was using food as a metaphore for behaviour, and poisonous food was refering to paedophiles, not homosexuals. Humans should be seen as unique (eg. the only speceis that cooks), otherwise you could be endorsing something you did not realise.

 
Quibbler
965729.  Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:00 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
The trouble with being evangelical rather than intellectual is that it often causes you to repeat yourself...

:-)

PDR


You have the wrong end of the stick. I am an antheist.

 
Quibbler
965745.  Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:52 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
It's difficult to define "rape" for a non-sentient species (lions, tigers, estate agents etc) because our usual definition requires "informed consent". How can anyone be sure that these creatures give informed consent?

PDR


It is only humans that write laws to be followed. They are how humans should treat other humans, or how humans should treat other species, not how other species should treat each other, so they are not breaking any legal law.

I am deliberatly ignoring medieval laws to do with witches and their familiars, where there were animals put on trial. That is a whole other topic.

Here is a side trip into philosophy.
Consent requires volition, which in turn requies free will. You cannot even be sure that humans have free will. Here is a simplified version of how philosophers argue is that free will is an illusion.

There are several lines of argument. You may think you have free will but if you base your actions on what you feel, and you have no control of how you feel, then free will is an illusion. Example you cannot will yourself to stop feeling thirsty. The feeling causes you to perform an action- to drink, only once the action has occurred can you stop feeling thirsty. Someone else forcing you to drink is not you willing it, the action still has to occur.

According to determinism everything you do is caused by previous events that were inturn cause to event prior to them, that go back to before you were born, so how can you be the cause? But, if determinism is false by introducing some form of randomness that does not help, that just makes it luck or chance, it is not really you either. So you are caught if determinism is true, AND if determinism is false, and that is called pessimism.

Hence most philosopher think free will is an illusion.

 
Sadurian Mike
965755.  Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:11 pm Reply with quote

Which just goes to show how much bollocks they talk.

I wrote that of my own free will.

 
Posital
965758.  Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:20 pm Reply with quote

Quibbler wrote:
You may think you have free will but if you base your actions on what you feel, and you have no control of how you feel, then free will is an illusion.
Kompleat Bollox.

I felt like saying that - and I stand by it.

Free will is about actions, not temptations.

We can all rise above temptation.

Hmmm... feel like a beer...

Laterz


Last edited by Posital on Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:24 pm; edited 1 time in total

 

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group