No to Fake Meat

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course you can't see that humans are better than dogs because your world revolves around emotions not cognition. In some bizzare attempt to be "non judgmental" or to not offend dogs, the SPCA or PETA or whoever you not only cant bht refuse to see what is quite obvious. Just another example of the harm caused by functioning on emotions instead of cognition..

So what do it look like as per color and forms? What is it that you see?
If you and I were looking as e.g. a cat, we could describe what we see. Can you describe what it is that you see? Color, shape, form and can you use simple instruments to measure length, weight and so on.
Further for a cat the other external sense can also be in play. Is that the case with your claims?

 

[Ignatius A]

So what do it look like as per color and forms? What is it that you see?
If you and I were looking as e.g. a cat, we could describe what we see. Can you describe what it is that you see? Color, shape, form and can you use simple instruments to measure length, weight and so on.
Further for a cat the other external sense can also be in play. Is that the case with your claims?

And a cat, no matter how it's described, will never be superior to a human. I promise you the SPCA and PETA are not secretly listening to you to see if you they can catch you talking badly about animals. You won't get canceled.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And a cat, no matter how it's described, will never be superior to a human. I promise you the SPCA and PETA are not secretly listening to you to see if you they can catch you talking badly about animals. You won't get canceled.

Yeah, you didn't answer. What do you see as see through your eyes for the claim of being superior? What do you see when you see superior?

 

[Ignatius A]

Yeah, you didn't answer. What do you see as see through your eyes for the claim of being superior? What do you see when you see superior?

Goodness gracious this has been answered already. Look at the bright side though this might all be proof for your argument that humans arent superior to other animals. You're really driving home your point, i'll give you that.

 

[Kathryn]

Let's talk about less than cute animals - animals that are not pets for instance. Let's talk about flies and fleas. Non mammals. Do you, mikkel, honestly believe that fleas are worth as much or more than humans?

Because if so, I know who I'm calling on if my house is on fire!

 

[Ignatius A]

Let's talk about less than cute animals - animals that are not pets for instance. Let's talk about flies and fleas. Non mammals. Do you, mikkel, honestly believe that fleas are worth as much or more than humans?

Good question. I hope the answer is "No" but honestly I'm not so sure.

I have raised the same question in the past on another site and I used dung beetles. I was told if not for dung beetles the would be overrun with dung. So they werent prepared to say "No".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Goodness gracious this has been answered already. Look at the bright side though this might all be proof for your argument that humans arent superior to other animals. You're really driving home your point, i'll give you that.

Well, here is the relevant defintion of superior: higher in rank, status, or quality.
Then there is rank: a position in the hierarchy of the armed forces. That is not relevant.
Then status: relative social or professional position; standing. That is not relevant.
And finally quality, that is the one: the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.
So we are dealing with how to measure something as per excellence as seen through the eyes. So how do you measure something with your eyes?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let's talk about less than cute animals - animals that are not pets for instance. Let's talk about flies and fleas. Non mammals. Do you, mikkel, honestly believe that fleas are worth as much or more than humans?

Because if so, I know who I'm calling on if my house is on fire!

No, that is a straw. I state up thread that the value is relative to context. And context include the kind of animals in play for a given context.
So I get that if you go by another poster you could get that idea, but I have never claimed that someone is more worth that someone else as an absolute. Context is the point when it comes to value for someone like me.

 

[Ignatius A]

Well, here is the relevant defintion of superior: higher in rank, status, or quality.
Then there is rank: a position in the hierarchy of the armed forces. That is not relevant.
Then status: relative social or professional position; standing. That is not relevant.
And finally quality, that is the one: the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.
So we are dealing with how to measure something as per excellence as seen through the eyes. So how do you measure something with your eyes?

I look at a dog and I see they will eat cat poop and sniff each other's butts when they meet. They haven't created anything and sleep most of the day. By a measures they are not superior to humans.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I look at a dog and I see they will eat cat poop and sniff each other's butts when they meet. They haven't created anything and sleep most of the day. By a measures they are not superior to humans.

Yeah, you use a standard for behaviour and you then evaluate using that standard. That is what you are doing.

 

[Ignatius A]

No, that is a straw. I state up thread that the value is relative to context. And context include the kind of animals in play for a given context.
So I get that if you go by another poster you could get that idea, but I have never claimed that someone is more worth that someone else as an absolute. Context is the point when it comes to value for someone like me.

It's not straw man it's a fact. If your house is in fire who do you call? Fido?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's not straw man it's a fact. If your house is in fire who do you call? Fido?

Well, that is one context, but not all of reality unless your house is always on fire and it is all of reality.

 

[Ignatius A]

Yeah, you use a standard for behaviour and you then evaluate using that standard. That is what you are doing.

Right because YOU wanted to know what I "see". I told you and now you're unhappy. More emotions

 

[Ignatius A]

Well, that is one context, but not all of reality unless your house is always on fire and it is all of reality.

How many examples do you want of human superiority over dogs?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Right because YOU wanted to know what I "see". I told you and now you're unhappy. More emotions

Well, now you can't see, because you "see".

 

[Ignatius A]

Well, now you can't see, because you "see".

I see quite clearly that humans are superior to dogs and you only resist that reality because it makes you "uncomfortable" to use the word superior. We are afraid of words now.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see quite clearly that humans are superior to dogs and you only resist that reality because it makes you "uncomfortable" to use the word superior. We are afraid of words now.

Measure as relevant: assess the importance, effect, or value of (something).
That is what you do and you don't do that by seeing through your eyes or even "seeing".

 

[Kathryn]

Good question. I hope the answer is "No" but honestly I'm not so sure.

I have raised the same question in the past on another site and I used dung beetles. I was told if not for dung beetles the would be overrun with dung. So they werent prepared to say "No".

Goodness. As if humans, who also invented HVACs, couldn't figure out what to do with piles of dung if we had to. Which thankfully, we don't.

Look, I think all animals are valuable, I just think humans are the most valuable.

 

[Kathryn]

No, that is a straw. I state up thread that the value is relative to context. And context include the kind of animals in play for a given context.
So I get that if you go by another poster you could get that idea, but I have never claimed that someone is more worth that someone else as an absolute. Context is the point when it comes to value for someone like me.

So if a dog you know and love is in a house fire and you don't know the human who is also in the house fire, who would you save (pretty inconsistent in my book but whatever)?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So if a dog you know and love is in a house fire and you don't know the human who is also in the house fire, who would you save (pretty inconsistent in my book but whatever)?

The human for that context if no other information was avilable.
Now if it were a dog breeding place and I could save say a hundred dogs and the person was really really old, then it might be different.
On the other hand it was a baby, then it would be the baby.
See, context.