No to Fake Meat

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure have.

That is not how you demostrate something. It involves explain how it works, not just stating it.

So let us start with the basics - a proposition in form of an observation, e.g. I am looking as my cat and it is black and white.
Now you state that facts are in reality as indepedent of thoughts and feelings.
So if a human is superior to another living being then you should be able to explain how you observe that as an observation. But you haven't. What you have do, it is present in effect an attempt at a deduction in the form of this premise.
P1: Humans are better at technology than other living beings.
C: Therefore humans are superior to other living beings.
Now first of as you understand logic, you notice that it is not a valid deduction and the premise is not true as better is not based on an observation.

And here is how you refue this arguement. You present the observation of superior or better. You don't claim it, you show the actual observation since it is in reality as indepedent of thoughs and feelings.
You don't refure by claiming you have done so, you explain the actual observation. It is that simple.

Not that you evaluate humans to be better because that is not obective or any other claim to the effect of how you think/feel. You explain the observation!!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes I am distressed that humans can't accept reality

How do you know the bold one?

 

[Secret Chief]

That goes both ways ..

You reply to me. You're distressed. For some unknown reason you're averse to the idea that humans aren't superior to animals.

Sometimes you disagree with me. You must be distressed then.

 

[We Never Know]

Sometimes you disagree with me. You must be distressed then.

It fluctuates in some.
In post #811 they weren't distressed at all.
But in post #821 they are distressed.

 

[Secret Chief]

It fluctuates in some.
In post #811 they weren't distressed at all.
But in post #821 they are distressed.

I've calmed down now, I've taken some pills.

 

[Ignatius A]

That is not how you demostrate something. It involves explain how it works, not just stating it.

So let us start with the basics - a proposition in form of an observation, e.g. I am looking as my cat and it is black and white.
Now you state that fact are in reality as indepedent of thoughts and feelings.
So if a human is superior to another living being then you should be able to explain how you observe that as an observation. But you haven't. What you have do, it is present in effect an attempt at a deduction in the form of this premise.
P1: Humans are better at technology than other living beings.
C: Therefore humans are superior to other living beings.
Now first of as you understand logic, you notice that it is not a valid deduction and the premise is not true as better is not based on an observation.

And here is how you refue this arguement. You present the observation of superior or better. You don't claim it, you show the actual observation since it is in reality as indepedent of thoughs and feelings.
You don't refure by claiming you have done so, you explain the actual observation. It is that simple.

Not that you evaluate humans to be better because that is not obective or any other claim to the effect of how you think/feel. You explain the observation!!!

P1 is incomplete.

Humans are better which makes them superior.

 

[Ignatius A]

How do you know the bold one?

Lol I am me.

I do love your "How do you know..." questions. They amuse me

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

P1 is incomplete.

Humans are better which makes them superior.

That is not a premise as you state it. You don't seem to understand logical deduction.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Lol I am me.

I do love your "How do you know..." questions. They amuse me

How do you know the bold ones?

 

[Ignatius A]

That is not a premise as you state it. You don't seem to understand logical deduction.

I sure do but I don't need to state a premise about humans being superior to animals anymore then I need to state one that grass is green.

 

[Ignatius A]

How do you know the bold ones?

I see the problem. You don't pay attention.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I sure do but I don't need to state a premise about humans being superior to animals anymore then I need to state one that grass is green.

Well, you didn't in the below text. You are now in the above and yet you are using 2 different defintions of the verb be.

P1 is incomplete.

Humans are better which makes them superior.

So you still can't tell with you are using thoughts/feelings versus observations.

 

[We Never Know]

I sure do but I don't need to state a premise about humans being superior to animals anymore then I need to state one that grass is green.

Dead grass isn't green. Sorry. I couldn't help myself lol

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Dead grass isn't green. Sorry. I couldn't help myself lol

Unless you paint it green. lol

 

[We Never Know]

Unless you paint it green. lol

And they actually do that in several shades of green

 

[Ignatius A]

Well, you didn't in the below text. You are now in the above and yet you are using 2 different defintions of the verb be.


So you still can't tell with you are using thoughts/feelings versus observations.

It's not a feeling but a fact that humans are superior to animals. You haven't done anything in a week to show otherwise. .

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's not a feeling but a fact that humans are superior to animals. You haven't done anything in a week to show otherwise. .

Well, you really don't understand what an observation is. So again how do you observe that fact?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You haven't got the first clue about how much time i spend with dogs but you think yiundi based solely on the fact that I dont agree with you. You have the faulty belief that if i did spend more time with dogs id think like you. All I can say is lol

I'm judging that based on what you've said in your posts here, obviously. You don't think dogs can pretend. That's incorrect. You don't think dogs can love. That's inaccurate. You don't think dogs can feel shame. That's inaccurate too.

Everything you've claimed about dogs has been inaccurate thus far. What else am I to conclude from that?

Why are you so insistent humans aren't superior to animals?

Humans are animals.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's not a feeling but a fact that humans are superior to animals. You haven't done anything in a week to show otherwise. .

Nope, it's your feeling. Ironically.

 

[Ignatius A]

Well, you really don't understand what an observation is. So again how do you observe that fact?

Thanks are superior to animals. Offer anything that even remotely suggest otherwise.