What philosophy offends you most?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7089
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GE Morton wrote: August 7th, 2022, 11:47 am
Sculptor1 wrote: August 7th, 2022, 4:45 am
Infants and comatose persons are humans and not animals and enjoy the same categorical rights as other humans.
Well, no, they don't. They have rights to life (as do all other animals), but no rights to liberty, for instance. The actions of infants, young children, and comatose persons are mostly controlled by other persons.
Wrong.
Animals do not have any right to life. Hang on let me finish my Ribeyes... chomp...
Um lovely.
Prey continue... (pun intended)
They are not animals.
Huh? Are they plants?
Such obtuseness does not do you any favours in the argument.
Are you implying that animals have the same rights as humans?
No. They, like humans, have rights to whatever they have first possessed. And keep in mind that the moral question is not what rights they have, which is a factual question, but what obligations moral agents have to respect their rights.
No animal "first possessed" any rights at all. And neither do humans have (what you seem to be referring to) Natural Rights.

Animals might enjoy rights, but only at the whim of some humans, Dogs do much better than sheep; and dolphins seem to do better than tuna. But that would also depend on locality , history and other contingencies.
Humans having the ability to express the concept "Rights", which is of rather recent historical origin, have only enjoyed what is laughingly called "universal" in the 20thCentury.
Animals are not included.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by GE Morton »

Sculptor1 wrote: August 7th, 2022, 4:58 pm
Animals do not have any right to life. Hang on let me finish my Ribeyes... chomp...
Um lovely.
Prey continue... (pun intended)
:-)
No animal "first possessed" any rights at all. And neither do humans have (what you seem to be referring to) Natural Rights.
No one first possesses rights. What they first possess is whatever thing to which they're claiming a right. When someone claims a right to X, he is saying, "I acquired X righteously, that is, without inflicting any loss or injury on anyone else" (perhaps be cause he made X, or discovered it). If someone is the first possessor of something, that means he did not acquire it by stealing it from someone, and that taking it from him would inflict loss or injury on him.

Animals, like humans, are the first possessors of their lives; hence they acquired them without inflicting loss or injury on anyone else. Hence, by definition, they have rights to them.

You also don't seem to understand what is a "natural right." Those are simply rights to thing you naturally possess, which you brought with you into the world, such as your life, your body, etc. You are also the first possessor of those.

Whether someone has a right to something is a factual matter. Whether moral agents are bound to respect rights --- when and whose --- are the moral questions.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7089
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GE Morton wrote: August 7th, 2022, 6:54 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: August 7th, 2022, 4:58 pm
Animals do not have any right to life. Hang on let me finish my Ribeyes... chomp...
Um lovely.
Prey continue... (pun intended)
:-)
No animal "first possessed" any rights at all. And neither do humans have (what you seem to be referring to) Natural Rights.
No one first possesses rights. What they first possess is whatever thing to which they're claiming a right.
When you change your mind, it is polite to say why.
When someone claims a right to X, he is saying, "I acquired X righteously, that is, without inflicting any loss or injury on anyone else" (perhaps be cause he made X, or discovered it). If someone is the first possessor of something, that means he did not acquire it by stealing it from someone, and that taking it from him would inflict loss or injury on him.

Animals, like humans, are the first possessors of their lives; hence they acquired them without inflicting loss or injury on anyone else. Hence, by definition, they have rights to them.
I never heard such flim-flam!! Does planet earth has a right to its core? This is ansurdity.

You also don't seem to understand what is a "natural right." Those are simply rights to thing you naturally possess, which you brought with you into the world, such as your life, your body, etc. You are also the first possessor of those.
I understand ridiculous claims as well as good ones.
Natural Rights are silly.
Do you think there is a god?

Whether someone has a right to something is a factual matter. Whether moral agents are bound to respect rights --- when and whose --- are the moral questions.
Rights are ideas invented by people. You can declare as many rights as you like, but they are nothing more than hot air unless you are willing to resource their enforcement.
Every time you buy a coffee you are transgressing the rights of the people who work in the plantations, and all the natural plants that have been displaced by planting the coffee bean plants.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

GE Morton wrote: August 7th, 2022, 1:39 pm We're just quibbling here about the use of that phrase.
Yes, not about the words, or the phrase, but its use, as you say. 👍 The phrase asserts the existence of knowledge, claims to which need not be justified, nor do they need to be declared as an assumption or axiom, because truth somehow exudes from it in such a way that it is obvious to all? This is utter tosh, is it not? [I ask this question in a scientific/philosophical context; everyday parlance/vocabulary is different.]

GE Morton wrote: August 7th, 2022, 1:39 pm
They are honestly declared as "axioms" or as "assumptions", making it clear that these are things we believe to be true, but which might not actually be true, because we have no conclusive proof to offer or present.
Yes, the axioms of a theory might not have been true. But the evidence that they are true is so pervasive and consistent that there is no room for doubt about it --- we simply cannot doubt them (just try to doubt that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West --- and don't confuse doubting that it does with imagining it being otherwise).
This looks like more of the same: utter tosh. And let's be clear: no-one denies that the Sun has, in the past, risen in the East and set in the West. It has already happened, many times, and been observed. There is no room for doubt there, and no need for it, as we have empirical observational evidence. But the past is one thing, and the future another. If your conjecture is 'self-evident', it would allow us to predict — without doubt — that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow, and into the future.

The power of science, for example, is in its ability to predict the future, as well as to describe the present, and maybe the past. The means that science uses to predict things is testable and tested, many times. Those aspects that are not tested are clearly and honestly declared as axioms or assumptions: guesses. "Self-evident" is a deception that denies these things. It's like an axiom, in that it is to be accepted without any justification, but it is some kind of special case that need not be declared a guess either, as it has some magical property that makes its truth clear to any/all who look.

So, in the case of your Sun example, where and what is this magic? Where is the magic that predicts without doubt that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow? I would be surprised to find this magic, given that science already knows of the possibility that the Sun will get bigger at some point, and swallow the Earth instead of 'rising'. Maybe tomorrow?

You claim that there is "evidence" to support your 'self-evident' dogmas, but I see none. Self-evidence is a lie and a deception; there is no such thing. There are things we know, backed up by evidence, and there are things we think are so, that we openly declare as axioms. There is no other valid and logical category, no 'self-evidence'.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 7th, 2022, 12:34 pm I have in mind the spectrum of meanings, starting from 'absolute and mind-independent correspondence with that which actually is', and ending up with meanings like "detached", "unbiased", or 'we tried our best not to be too emotional'. These are the meanings that, in philosophy, are used almost exclusively.
GE Morton wrote: August 7th, 2022, 2:22 pm Ah, yes, the term is used that way, by some speculative metaphysicians who have no idea "what actually is," and thus no idea how well their claims "correspond" to it. That use of "objective" is presumptuous.
I quite agree. I think it's OK to refer to the existence of 'that which actually is', but no more than that can be justified. References to the nature or structure of 'that which actually is' are preposterous, and presumptuous, as you say. References to its existence are permissible because the idea is self-correcting: if there is not something that 'actually is', these words do not exist, and neither does their writer, so there can be no contradiction or misunderstanding. 😉

I must admit, it wasn't metaphysicians that first occurred to me, though. It was Objectivists of the generally-Analytic persuasion — not Ayn Rand's nonsense, but a belief that Objective Reality can be known, and that Objective Truths can be discovered and verified as such. Still, whoever the culprits are, they are mistaken fantasists; on that we agree.

And so my original point still stands, I think. Your definition of 'objective' to mean 'testable' is unusual and unexpected, especially in a philosophical/scientific context.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by GE Morton »

Sculptor1 wrote: August 8th, 2022, 6:00 am
GE Morton wrote: August 7th, 2022, 6:54 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: August 7th, 2022, 4:58 pm
Animals do not have any right to life. Hang on let me finish my Ribeyes... chomp...
Um lovely.
Prey continue... (pun intended)
:-)
No animal "first possessed" any rights at all. And neither do humans have (what you seem to be referring to) Natural Rights.
No one first possesses rights. What they first possess is whatever thing to which they're claiming a right.
When you change your mind, it is polite to say why.
There was no change of mind. I'd said,

"They, like humans, have rights to whatever they have first possessed."

To which you replied,

"No animal "first possessed" any rights at all. And neither do humans have (what you seem to be referring to) Natural Rights."

First possessing something to which one claims a right is not "first possessing a right." You might try reading statements more carefully before challenging them.
I never heard such flim-flam!!
Sorry for that gap in your education. Perhaps this will help:

https://www.sfu.ca/~allen/1st%20poss%20 ... lgrave.doc
Does planet earth has a right to its core? This is ansurdity.
It sure is. You seem not to understand that concept at all. "Rights" only apply to sentient creatures.
You also don't seem to understand what is a "natural right." Those are simply rights to thing you naturally possess, which you brought with you into the world, such as your life, your body, etc. You are also the first possessor of those.
I understand ridiculous claims as well as good ones.
Natural Rights are silly.
Er, is that supposed to be a rebuttal of my statement?
Do you think there is a god?
???
Whether someone has a right to something is a factual matter. Whether moral agents are bound to respect rights --- when and whose --- are the moral questions.
Rights are ideas invented by people. You can declare as many rights as you like, but they are nothing more than hot air unless you are willing to resource their enforcement.
Yes, all ideas are invented by people. And you need the idea before you can decide what to enforce. So not "hot air."
Every time you buy a coffee you are transgressing the rights of the people who work in the plantations . . .
Oh? Which rights, and in what way?
. . . and all the natural plants that have been displaced by planting the coffee bean plants.
Go back to the comment about "sentient creatures."
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Consul »

Sy Borg wrote: August 6th, 2022, 4:41 pmIf we are to resist the rise of the far right, I would think it best to avoid focusing on trivial philosophical trinkets presented by the right wing media, which are designed to divide opinions to weaken the masses. Divide and rule.
A big problem is that the far-left woke friends of inclusion are themselves highly divisive and exlusionary toward the liberal & moderate Leftists and Centrists who disagree with their "critical theories".
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7089
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GE Morton wrote: August 8th, 2022, 11:44 am
Sculptor1 wrote: August 8th, 2022, 6:00 am
GE Morton wrote: August 7th, 2022, 6:54 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: August 7th, 2022, 4:58 pm
Animals do not have any right to life. Hang on let me finish my Ribeyes... chomp...
Um lovely.
Prey continue... (pun intended)
:-)
No animal "first possessed" any rights at all. And neither do humans have (what you seem to be referring to) Natural Rights.
No one first possesses rights. What they first possess is whatever thing to which they're claiming a right.
When you change your mind, it is polite to say why.
There was no change of mind. I'd said,

"They, like humans, have rights to whatever they have first possessed."
Make up your mind do animals "claim" a right or not? I've never heard one do that.

To which you replied,

"No animal "first possessed" any rights at all. And neither do humans have (what you seem to be referring to) Natural Rights."

First possessing something to which one claims a right is not "first possessing a right." You might try reading statements more carefully before challenging them.
I never heard such flim-flam!!
Sorry for that gap in your education. Perhaps this will help:

https://www.sfu.ca/~allen/1st%20poss%20 ... lgrave.doc
I have a Master's in Intellectual History and the fake belief in Natural Rights was one concept we discussed.
Run along!
Does planet earth has a right to its core? This is ansurdity.
It sure is. You seem not to understand that concept at all. "Rights" only apply to sentient creatures.
Says who?
Some say the earth and the universe is sentient. Some say animals are not sentient. Others say that rights are not natural.
If rights are natural then who decided that? Who polices it?
You also don't seem to understand what is a "natural right." Those are simply rights to thing you naturally possess, which you brought with you into the world, such as your life, your body, etc. You are also the first possessor of those.
I understand ridiculous claims as well as good ones.
Natural Rights are silly.
Er, is that supposed to be a rebuttal of my statement?
Do you think there is a god?
???
Well - DO YOU?
Because "Natural Rights" is a concept offered by theists, because God decides. I should also warn you that the people that invented Natural Rights did not include all animals.

Whether someone has a right to something is a factual matter. Whether moral agents are bound to respect rights --- when and whose --- are the moral questions.
Rights are ideas invented by people. You can declare as many rights as you like, but they are nothing more than hot air unless you are willing to resource their enforcement.
Yes, all ideas are invented by people. And you need the idea before you can decide what to enforce. So not "hot air."
But you are claiming that animals "claim" rights. That is absurd.
Every time you buy a coffee you are transgressing the rights of the people who work in the plantations . . .
Oh? Which rights, and in what way?
I am sorry you can't see that. Maybe you should think about it sometime?
. . . and all the natural plants that have been displaced by planting the coffee bean plants.
Go back to the comment about "sentient creatures."
Millions of acres of coffee beans have denied the (ahem!) "rights" of the natural ecosystem.
Do you eat cheese, or meat, or eggs.
Or are you pure?
Even if you are a Vegan human cultivation has denied rights to the natural "sentient" creatures that once inhabited that land.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Sy Borg »

Consul wrote: August 8th, 2022, 11:44 am
Sy Borg wrote: August 6th, 2022, 4:41 pmIf we are to resist the rise of the far right, I would think it best to avoid focusing on trivial philosophical trinkets presented by the right wing media, which are designed to divide opinions to weaken the masses. Divide and rule.
A big problem is that the far-left woke friends of inclusion are themselves highly divisive and exlusionary toward the liberal & moderate Leftists and Centrists who disagree with their "critical theories".
So you feel that the New Right are more inclined to fairness, reason and objectivity? Has there been a time in history when extremists were known for such qualities?

Image
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by GE Morton »

Sculptor1 wrote: August 8th, 2022, 2:32 pm
Make up your mind do animals "claim" a right or not? I've never heard one do that.
I've never said they CLAIMED them. I said they HAVE them. They don't claim to have eyes, either, but they have them.
I have a Master's in Intellectual History and the fake belief in Natural Rights was one concept we discussed.
Run along!
"Fake belief"? I didn't know beliefs could be faked. Lied about, perhaps, but not faked. The definition I gave you wasn't clear? Was your prof a leftist, perhaps, or a post-modernist?
Does planet earth has a right to its core? This is ansurdity.
It sure is. You seem not to understand that concept at all. "Rights" only apply to sentient creatures.
Says who?
Some say the earth and the universe is sentient. Some say animals are not sentient. Others say that rights are not natural.
If rights are natural then who decided that? Who polices it?
Sure. Some say the Earth is flat, and the moon is made of green cheese. Do you take those folks seriously? As for who "decided," I suppose the same people who "decided" that "the sun" refers to that big yellow disk seen in the sky on a clear day. And what is there about the concept that requires "policing"?
Because "Natural Rights" is a concept offered by theists, because God decides. I should also warn you that the people that invented Natural Rights did not include all animals.
I gave you the definition of "natural rights." It makes no mention of "God."
But you are claiming that animals "claim" rights. That is absurd.
Er, no. I never said they claimed them. I said they HAVE them. Please read what is written more carefully before responding.
Oh? Which rights, and in what way?
I am sorry you can't see that. Maybe you should think about it sometime?
Ah. No answer, eh?
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by GE Morton »

Consul wrote: August 8th, 2022, 11:44 am
Sy Borg wrote: August 6th, 2022, 4:41 pmIf we are to resist the rise of the far right, I would think it best to avoid focusing on trivial philosophical trinkets presented by the right wing media, which are designed to divide opinions to weaken the masses. Divide and rule.
A big problem is that the far-left woke friends of inclusion are themselves highly divisive and exlusionary toward the liberal & moderate Leftists and Centrists who disagree with their "critical theories".
The ideologies of leftists and rightists alike derive from a common assumption and envision a common goal --- the assumption that modern human societies are "organic unities" in which individuals are subordinate parts and ought be pursuing the "good of the whole," and the goal being to transform it into one, by "re-education" and social ostracism if possible, and via gulags and genocide if not. Both arise from the atavistic longing for the unity, conformity, "brotherhood," and intimacy of tribal societies.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Sy Borg »

GE Morton wrote: August 8th, 2022, 7:34 pm
Consul wrote: August 8th, 2022, 11:44 am
Sy Borg wrote: August 6th, 2022, 4:41 pmIf we are to resist the rise of the far right, I would think it best to avoid focusing on trivial philosophical trinkets presented by the right wing media, which are designed to divide opinions to weaken the masses. Divide and rule.
A big problem is that the far-left woke friends of inclusion are themselves highly divisive and exlusionary toward the liberal & moderate Leftists and Centrists who disagree with their "critical theories".
The ideologies of leftists and rightists alike derive from a common assumption and envision a common goal --- the assumption that modern human societies are "organic unities" in which individuals are subordinate parts and ought be pursuing the "good of the whole," and the goal being to transform it into one, by "re-education" and social ostracism if possible, and via gulags and genocide if not. Both arise from the atavistic longing for the unity, conformity, "brotherhood," and intimacy of tribal societies.
Both the left and the right believe that morality is objective, and that they are keepers of The Truth, and they assume that the other extreme is too ignorant and/or wicked to accept their "truth". In truth, each side is too ignorant, blinkered or deranged to understand their delusions. Many extremists tend to be young people, with a lack of life experience coupled with a lack of humility. For many, life will beat sense into them in time, and their children will be largely left to carry the flag of unrealistic idealism.

BTW, Consul, "moderates" who disagree with critical theories do not go hard at vulnerable minorities like transpeople. Only extremists do that. You are not as moderate as you imagine.

Moderates tend to focus on practical issues like women's sports, rather than entirely dismissing transsexuals per se as mere delusion that must be challenged at every opportunity. That is an extreme stance that falsely assumes a complete understanding the transsexual journey and their motivations, rather than accepting that people are different and that the differences should be respected, not dismissed as madness. As I said, sex role changes are hardly postmodern given that they were happening since prehistoric times. The current anti-trans movement shares much with the flat-Earth movement, in that it completely ignores all prior learning and starts with "a fresh slate" that is based on superficialities.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by GE Morton »

Sy Borg wrote: August 8th, 2022, 9:27 pm
Both the left and the right believe that morality is objective, and that they are keepers of The Truth, and they assume that the other extreme is too ignorant and/or wicked to accept their "truth".
Not sure whether, or which, if any, ideologues believe their views are objective. PMers obviously could not so claim, because they deny there is such a thing as "objective truth."

But in any case whether someone believes a proposition is true or objective has no bearing on whether it IS true or objective.
BTW, Consul, "moderates" who disagree with critical theories do not go hard at vulnerable minorities like transpeople.
Surprised you can't tell the difference between "going hard" at an ideology, and "going hard" at people.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Sy Borg »

GE Morton wrote: August 8th, 2022, 10:18 pm
Sy Borg wrote: August 8th, 2022, 9:27 pm
Both the left and the right believe that morality is objective, and that they are keepers of The Truth, and they assume that the other extreme is too ignorant and/or wicked to accept their "truth".
Not sure whether, or which, if any, ideologues believe their views are objective. PMers obviously could not so claim, because they deny there is such a thing as "objective truth."

But in any case whether someone believes a proposition is true or objective has no bearing on whether it IS true or objective.
PMists obviously do believe they are right, otherwise they would not criticise modernist conventions.

Extremists on both sides are obviously misguided in their conceptions of reality, inevitably driven by hyper focus on some aspects at the expense of the whole. That is, they are blinkered, with a necessarily biased and skewed view of reality. There's a lot of not-very-bright people out there making much noise in their extremist echo chambers, and they cannot see how much less reliable they are than, say, scientists.
GE Morton wrote: August 8th, 2022, 10:18 pm
BTW, Consul, "moderates" who disagree with critical theories do not go hard at vulnerable minorities like transpeople.
Surprised you can't tell the difference between "going hard" at an ideology, and "going hard" at people.
[/quote]
That's because, in this instance, there is no difference. I see no criticisms of postmodernism per se, just transpeople. As stated multiple times (to no avail so far), transpeople are not a postmodernism phenomenon, having been around since prehistoric times. Indigenous people often had separate genders for in-betweeners. Instead, as with flat-Earthism, there is a denial of all prior studies and the subject is approach as a (false) blank slate. There are reasons why homosexuality and transsexualism have been accepted and no longer treated as a mental illness. Everything has been tried to "cure" such people - to cure them of being themselves.

I have seen precious little criticisms of postmodernism per se here, just denigration of the weakest people, who have been falsely flagged as postmodern poster children.

It's a shame. A discussion about actual postmodernism would be much more interesting that this re-hash of mainstream media fetishes, but I think you guys prefer to sink the slipper into the vulnerable.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7089
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GE Morton wrote: August 8th, 2022, 7:16 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: August 8th, 2022, 2:32 pm
Make up your mind do animals "claim" a right or not? I've never heard one do that.
I've never said they CLAIMED them. I said they HAVE them. They don't claim to have eyes, either, but they have them.
You absolutely did, quite literally.
You ought to take more care with your words.
I have a Master's in Intellectual History and the fake belief in Natural Rights was one concept we discussed.
Run along!
"Fake belief"? I didn't know beliefs could be faked. Lied about, perhaps, but not faked. The definition I gave you wasn't clear? Was your prof a leftist, perhaps, or a post-modernist?
Yes, fake like other religious beliefs. Natural Rights requires a divine hand.
Does planet earth has a right to its core? This is ansurdity.
It sure is. You seem not to understand that concept at all. "Rights" only apply to sentient creatures.
Says who?
Some say the earth and the universe is sentient. Some say animals are not sentient. Others say that rights are not natural.
If rights are natural then who decided that? Who polices it?
Sure. Some say the Earth is flat, and the moon is made of green cheese. Do you take those folks seriously?
No - and I do not take you seriously when you say a mouse has rights. LOL
As for who "decided," I suppose the same people who "decided" that "the sun" refers to that big yellow disk seen in the sky on a clear day. And what is there about the concept that requires "policing"?
Nominating an object of perception is a million miles away from attributing that object qualities. Attributing a mouse rights is like saying the sun is a deity.
Because "Natural Rights" is a concept offered by theists, because God decides. I should also warn you that the people that invented Natural Rights did not include all animals.
I gave you the definition of "natural rights." It makes no mention of "God."
Your definition is wrong. But then people who employ belief rather than knowledge tend to be solipsistic enough to define words in their own way.
You definition is not recognisable, and is absurd in its own right.
But you are claiming that animals "claim" rights. That is absurd.
Er, no. I never said they claimed them. I said they HAVE them. Please read what is written more carefully before responding.
You absolutely did, quite literally.
You ought to take more care with your words.
Oh? Which rights, and in what way?
I am sorry you can't see that. Maybe you should think about it sometime?
Ah. No answer, eh?
You have an idiosyncratic belief about the meaning of a word whose definitions, yours and others' are absurd.

You have a right to your belief but you do not have a right to your own reason or facts.
Your naive idealism requires a bit of self criticism.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021