3 ms·

The first is related to the third is related to the second is related to the first isn't an argument. It's trying to avoid the argument because you can accept t

by qiskit 4y ago

The first is related to the third is related to the second is related to the first isn't an argument. It's trying to avoid the argument because you can accept the truth. Why not just answer the difficult question I laid out? If an animal has rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, what do you do to the mama bear that kills a deer to feed her cubs? Animals don't have rights precisely because they are animals. Just like plants don't have rights because they are plants. Rights are a human invention for human societies. It does not exist in nature. Animals live in nature and must live under the laws of nature. If animal rights exist, then what are their inalienable rights? Try it and you'll see how absurd the notion is.

GPerson 4y ago
I don’t view this as us having an argument. “ The first is related to the third is related to the second is related to the first isn't an argument.” Do you think this is a generous interpretation of the ideas I put forward? “ Why not just answer the difficult question I laid out?” The way you framed it sounded like a rhetorical device and not a call for discussion and answer.
- qiskit 4y ago
  > I don’t view this as us having an argument. By argument, I don't mean a "fight". By argument, I meant a logical/rational/etc argument. My point is you didn't offer anything worth debating in response to my comment. > Do you think this is a generous interpretation of the ideas I put forward? Yes. Far more generous than I should be. > The way you framed it sounded like a rhetorical device and not a call for discussion and answer. No. It was a straightforward question. Nothing rhetorical about it.
  - GPerson 4y ago
    “ The first is related to the third is related to the second is related to the first isn't an argument. It's trying to avoid the argument because you can accept the truth.” “ Yes. Far more generous than I should be.” This sounds angry. I apologize for upsetting you. I hoped to equip you with some thoughtful feedback on your ideas. Please practice more generosity towards others.

by qiskit 4y ago

GPerson 4y ago

I don’t view this as us having an argument. “ The first is related to the third is related to the second is related to the first isn't an argument.” Do you think this is a generous interpretation of the ideas I put forward? “ Why not just answer the difficult question I laid out?” The way you framed it sounded like a rhetorical device and not a call for discussion and answer.

qiskit 4y ago
> I don’t view this as us having an argument. By argument, I don't mean a "fight". By argument, I meant a logical/rational/etc argument. My point is you didn't offer anything worth debating in response to my comment. > Do you think this is a generous interpretation of the ideas I put forward? Yes. Far more generous than I should be. > The way you framed it sounded like a rhetorical device and not a call for discussion and answer. No. It was a straightforward question. Nothing rhetorical about it.
- GPerson 4y ago
  “ The first is related to the third is related to the second is related to the first isn't an argument. It's trying to avoid the argument because you can accept the truth.” “ Yes. Far more generous than I should be.” This sounds angry. I apologize for upsetting you. I hoped to equip you with some thoughtful feedback on your ideas. Please practice more generosity towards others.