Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t

[Bad^Hat]

I like where this thread is going.




Wait... *gone.







Wait... *don't like.

 

[CptStern]

this thread has degenerated into a steaming pile of turd

 

[Bad^Hat]

steaming pile of turd

Irony!

*points suggestively at the thread title*

 

[CyberPitz]

When did the film section turn into politics.../takes down sign under door.

 

[Qonfused]

this thread has degenerated into a steaming pile of turd

Thanks a lot.

 

[-Psy-]

this thread has generated steam into a pile of turd

Fixed.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Fox, morals are relative to a society, in this society, it's not alright to hurt humans but it is alright to hurt other animals. So you live your happy little world where we treat humans and animals equally, but please don't go spreading your bullshit.

I support rights for cute animals. That's it. If an animal isn't cute, in my book, it doesn't have any rights. Can I justify it morally? Hell no. Is there a supreme law dictating how animals should be treated? Again, no. So it comes down to personal opinion. And I'd like to err on the side of good food. Cause I'm a selfish bastard of a homo sapien that eats alot.

Anyway, let's shut the **** up about animals and let's talk Penn and Teller.

So, how about that episode about 9/11/stupid workout shit/etc.?

 

[Gray Fox]

Fox, morals are relative to a society, in this society, it's not alright to hurt humans but it is alright to hurt other animals. So you live your happy little world where we treat humans and animals equally, but please don't go spreading your bullshit.

I support rights for cute animals. That's it. If an animal isn't cute, in my book, it doesn't have any rights. Can I justify it morally? Hell no. Is there a supreme law dictating how animals should be treated? Again, no. So it comes down to personal opinion. And I'd like to err on the side of good food. Cause I'm a selfish bastard of a homo sapien that eats alot.

Anyway, let's shut the **** up about animals and let's talk Penn and Teller.

So, how about that episode about 9/11/stupid workout shit/etc.?

<200 years ago>
Fox, morals are relative to a society, in this society, it's not alright to hurt white people but it is alright to hurt other races. So you live your happy little world where we treat whites and black equally, but please don't go spreading your bullshit.

I support rights for cute blacks. That's it. If a black isn't cute, in my book, it doesn't have any rights. Can I justify it morally? Hell no. Is there a supreme law dictating how blacks should be treated? Again, no. So it comes down to personal opinion. And I'd like to err on the side of slavery because it makes my life easier. Cause I'm a selfish bastard of a homo sapien that is lazy.

 

[Direwolf]

Coincidently, and sorta on topic, the reason I enjoy the show usually is because they show a better sense of perspective, common sense, and human nature than both sides of this argument seem to.

Philosophically this is at best a Gordian knot, and at worst completely unsolvable. So what is important is what steps can be made here and now realistically towards goals that everyone can support. Whats the best first step?

 

[Gray Fox]

Nonsense the show is shit, it delves in to important topics but doesn't even attempt to provide reasonable and objective arguments. It's popularity reflects that, in the same way Foxes popularity does. People do not want to take the time to sit trough both arguments and do actual research, they want bullshit and that is exactly what the show provides.

And this topic is far from a gordian knot, no one here has managed to provide arguments against mine. Any that have attempted have fallen back to social Darwinism.

No, what makes you say that is the sweet taste of meat that clouds your judgment in the same way that the sweet promise of eternal life in the heavens clouds the judgment of religious people, from what is supposed to be a very simply issue.

But to humor you I will pretend it's a gordian knot. Whats the best action to take them? Stop eating meat. The worst that could happen is you miss out on a nice snack, but still end up with full and healthy belly. Worst that could happen if we continue this line is you end up being a willing accessory to biggest genocide on sentient beings our planet has ever seen, albeit with a full belly of tasty flesh.

 

[MiccyNarc]

<200 years ago>
Fox, morals are relative to a society, in this society, it's not alright to hurt white people but it is alright to hurt other races. So you live your happy little world where we treat whites and black equally, but please don't go spreading your bullshit.

I support rights for cute blacks. That's it. If a black isn't cute, in my book, it doesn't have any rights. Can I justify it morally? Hell no. Is there a supreme law dictating how blacks should be treated? Again, no. So it comes down to personal opinion. And I'd like to err on the side of slavery because it makes my life easier. Cause I'm a selfish bastard of a homo sapien that is lazy.

Haha you just equated blacks with animals making yourself no better than the slave owners.

Sorry just couldn't let that slide.

 

[99.vikram]

And this topic is far from a gordian knot, no one here has managed to provide arguments against mine.

Here's one - maybe life isn't a special, fruity gift from the heavens but rather a phenomenon like everything else? In this context, the only reason we care for animals is so that -

* the species themselves are not threatened (the ecosystem needs them, and we need the diversity).
* the animals do not have to undergo needless pain (use alternatives where possible, like in cosmetics and drug testing).

Right now, as I see it, there is a huge demand for meat. Today there is no alternative to some nice tasty meat. Moreover, the demand can be easily met with no threat to the continued existence of animal species.

So, there is no reason why we shouldn't raise animals for meat except for, maybe, the amount of resources it consumes compared to raising crops. I personally do not see why I should feel guilty eating a chicken that was bred and raised for the sole purpose of being eaten...

 

[Kamikazie]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY[/youtube]

*runs*

 

[Gray Fox]

Haha you just equated blacks with animals making yourself no better than the slave owners.

Sorry just couldn't let that slide.

I did not. I used an analogy that explicitly draws attention and emotion, to expose your moronic argument for what it is.

Here's one - maybe life isn't a special, fruity gift from the heavens but rather a phenomenon like everything else? In this context, the only reason we care for animals is so that -

* the species themselves are not threatened (the ecosystem needs them, and we need the diversity).
* the animals do not have to undergo needless pain (use alternatives where possible, like in cosmetics and drug testing).

Right now, as I see it, there is a huge demand for meat. Today there is no alternative to some nice tasty meat. Moreover, the demand can be easily met with no threat to the continued existence of animal species.

So, there is no reason why we shouldn't raise animals for meat except for, maybe, the amount of resources it consumes compared to raising crops. I personally do not see why I should feel guilty eating a chicken that was bred and raised for the sole purpose of being eaten...

One could also say then:

I personally do not see why I should feel guilty eating a human that was bred and raised for the sole purpose of being eaten.
and

I personally do not see why I should feel guilty beating a human that was bred and raised for the sole purpose of being used as a slave.

Also the context you mentioned would only make live all that more precious, and all the more unique, not the other way around. in fact believe in that context is at the very hart of humanism.

The demand of meat is also irrelevant, there could be large demand for human meat, it still wouldn't justify killing humans.

Furthermore we should ask ourself why there is a huge demand, would people still eat it if they had to kill the animals themselves, if they were confronted with the consequences of their actions?
Is it morally right to cause such suffering and pain for your pleasure. Can you still differentiate yourself from animals if you relinquish everything you hold human to justify the meat industry?
Can you really justify the moral schizophrenia that the continues existence of the meat industry creates.

Also you did not actually go in to any my arguments. Because my arguments go in to all the assumptions you based your arguments off.

 

[MiccyNarc]

I did not. I used an analogy that explicitly draws attention and emotion, to expose your moronic argument for what it is.

But you replaced "animals" with "blacks" for everytime that word appeared in my post implying that they are synonymous. And you say you didn't equate them?


Next you'll be saying the killing of animals is as bad as the holocaust.

 

[99.vikram]

I did not. I used an analogy that explicitly draws attention and emotion, to expose your moronic argument for what it is.

Blacks, whites, asians and hispanics all have the same basic human rights because they can also perform fundamental duties - collective decision making through voting, paying taxes to improve society, have opinions on public issues etc.

Animals don't do any of that stuff, and never will. That's the fundamental difference, and the reason why your analogy is just a straw man.

 

[Qonfused]

So I'm watching the breast hysteria episode right now. Pretty good. But then again, how can you argue against breasts?

 

[MiccyNarc]

Blacks, whites, asians and hispanics all have the same basic human rights because they can also perform fundamental duties - collective decision making through voting, paying taxes to improve society, have opinions on public issues etc.

Animals don't do any of that stuff, and never will. That's the fundamental difference, and the reason why your analogy is just a straw man.

Are you implying that PETArds use logical fallacies?!

 

[Gray Fox]

Blacks, whites, asians and hispanics all have the same basic human rights because they can also perform fundamental duties - collective decision making through voting, paying taxes to improve society, have opinions on public issues etc.

Animals don't do any of that stuff, and never will. That's the fundamental difference, and the reason why your analogy is just a straw man.

My analogy is not a strawman, once more I did not equate black humans with other animals. I simply but his argument in a context that no one can ignore to expose it's stupidity.

Second again your argument does not actually address any of mine. All that you said justifies why animals do not get a vote, do not get drivers license. It does justify why they do not even get basic rights.

Furthermore your arguments also only covers one approach to animals rights, there is also the utilitarian principle of equal consideration of interests. To quote what Peter singer says in his book, animal liberation:

the1975 book argues that humans grant moral consideration to other humans not on the basis of intelligence (in the instance of children, or the mentally disabled), on the ability to moralize (criminals and the insane), or on any other attribute that is inherently human, but rather on their ability to experience suffering.[29] As animals also experience suffering, he argues, excluding animals from such consideration is a form of discrimination known as "speciesism."

 

[CptStern]

Are you implying that PETArds use logical fallacies?!

man shut up, I generally like you but in this instance you add nothing to this debate

 

[<RJMC>]

so the new fashion here is

animals must be kill anyone who denies is a retard?

 

[99.vikram]

excluding animals from such consideration is a form of discrimination known as "speciesism."

BULLSHIT.

1. Animals are significantly, demonstrably, less intelligent than humans.

2. They show little to no concern for the suffering of their brethren, except when instinct takes over (as parents or members of a small herd).

3. The value of animals, to humans, lie ONLY in the diversity factor and in practical roles as companions or seeing-eye dogs and such. No matter how much you love an animal does not change the fact that an animal is replaceable, whereas humans are not. No human can do everything another human can do.

That's why fundamental rights are not fundamental to animals. If, and ONLY IF, an animal becomes intelligent enough to put species before self, does it deserve ANY rights. Until then, the animal has neither right nor claim to depend on anything but the owner's love, respect and/or pity.

 

[CptStern]

oh I just love how life's worth is measured by intelligence ...well I'm off to club the mentally handicapped to death, cya, dont wait up

 

[-Psy-]

Lock this thread. It's going nowhere.

 

[Gray Fox]

BULLSHIT.

1. Animals are significantly, demonstrably, less intelligent than humans.

2. They show little to no concern for the suffering of their brethren, except when instinct takes over (as parents or members of a small herd).

3. The value of animals, to humans, lie ONLY in the diversity factor and in practical roles as companions or seeing-eye dogs and such. No matter how much you love an animal does not change the fact that an animal is replaceable, whereas humans are not. No human can do everything another human can do.

That's why fundamental rights are not fundamental to animals. If, and ONLY IF, an animal becomes intelligent enough to put species before self, does it deserve ANY rights. Until then, the animal has neither right nor claim to depend on anything but the owner's love, respect and/or pity.

1. I know they are
2. same for most us
3.

The value of animals, to humans, lie ONLY in the diversity factor and in practical roles as companions or seeing-eye dogs and such.

that differs per human, for many humans the value of animal lies in different ares. Besides one could have argued 200 years ago that the value of black people to white people only lie in the practical roles as slave labours.
Hell you could argue now that the value of other people to you and vice verso only lies in the diversity factor and in the practical roles as companions and help.

No matter how much you love an animal does not change the fact that an animal is replaceable, whereas humans are not. No human can do everything another human can do.

that depends on your standards, I could argue that a lot of humans could be replaced by other in every aspect of their existence. But with enough scrutiny this would pe proven untrue and the same holds for animals, any oet owner can tell you that their particular pets are individual being with their own personalities.

That's why fundamental rights are not fundamental to animals. If, and ONLY IF, an animal becomes intelligent enough to put species before self, does it deserve ANY rights. Until then, the animal has neither right nor claim to depend on anything but the owner's love, respect and/or pity.

That is simply a statement, you have to actually provide a basis for it. I have already provided arguments against this point of view, you have failed to address them. All you do is make statements, with the believe that the arguments they rest upon are eternal and absolutely justifying. Arguments which I have sought to refute, arguments you have failed to counter.

 

[99.vikram]

oh I just love how life's worth is measured by intelligence ...well I'm off to club the mentally handicapped to death, cya, dont wait up

The mentally handicapped have only the most basic human rights. They are unable to drive, work, etc. unless they prove themselves capable of doing it. So the "all life has equal rights" argument is invalid. The reason they have these basic rights is not because they feel "fear, pain and loneliness", but because they are our mothers, brothers and sisters. It comes out of this uniquely human need to put species before self.

Any vertebrate can feel fear, pain and loneliness. Rights are NOT awarded to anything that can feel these primal emotions. They are awarded on the basis of whether a creature can appreciate those rights. Mentally handicapped folk are given rights because they have the capacity to use them in a productive way, if only as relatives of healthy members.

That is simply a statement, you have to actually provide a basis for it. I have already provided arguments against this point of view, you have failed to address them.

What I believe is not the absolute truth - it's just what I think makes sense. I tried to show you my line of thinking. Also, you have provided no compelling reason why an animal has rights. You just kept saying, 'NO U R'.

In nature, rights belong to the strong. As I said before, the only reason we don't torture animals for pleasure is that humans have a wider capacity for empathy than animals. We earned the rights we have, by virtue of power.

 

[Gray Fox]

The mentally handicapped have only the most basic human rights. They are unable to drive, work, etc. unless they prove themselves capable of doing it. So the "all life has equal rights" argument is invalid. The reason they have these basic rights is not because they feel "fear, pain and loneliness", but because they are our mothers, brothers and sisters. It comes out of this uniquely human need to put species before self.

Any vertebrate can feel fear, pain and loneliness. Rights are NOT awarded to anything that can feel these primal emotions. They are awarded on the basis of whether a creature can appreciate those rights. Mentally handicapped folk are given rights because they have the capacity to use them in a productive way, if only as relatives of healthy members.

The reasons for granting rights are different per culture and even different per right. There are many rights that are there to prevent hurt and to prevent pain. They are there solely because we feel pain. And the amount of pain to the victim is also a measure in the punishment it recieves.

Plus Vikrim again you have not provided arguments for the basis of that statement, You just made a statement. Thats not enough in itself, you have to actually argue why rights should not be based of the suffering a being feels.

What I believe is not the absolute truth - it's just what I think makes sense. I tried to show you my line of thinking. Also, you have provided no compelling reason why an animal has rights. You just kept saying, 'NO U R'.

Yes, yes I have, I have done it numerous times and below I am going to repeated the same ****ing argument I used against Miccy to you, since you failed to read my posts.

In nature, rights belong to the strong.

This kind of reasoning would invalidate most our laws, like killing, like rape. And would undermining the very reasons why we chose to live in a society based on justice ,based on what is right by reason and feeling, and not nature.

As I said before, the only reason we don't torture animals for pleasure is that humans have a wider capacity for empathy than animals. We earned the rights we have, by virtue of power.

Actually we do torture animals, and kill them. That is exactly the reason for this debate.
Your arguing that because we have the capacity to empathize we should not empathize. So because we can empathize more then a cow or lion, because we have the mental capacity to empathize and reason against killing for pleasure, we should not do it.

Also how we earned the right does not matter for the debate.

 

[PvtRyan]

-snip-

Lets start over again because this answering of posts quote by quote waters down the entire argument and obviously confuses everyone. That's what I hate about forum discussions, you always lose track of everything and end up talking about nothing or menial things like what the law is.

In the beginning I made a claim, which I will restate here:
There is nothing wrong with the killing of an animal for consumption, there is only something wrong with causing it unnecessary suffering during its live.

And let me make clear that this argument has nothing to do with justifying the meat industry. This is purely the concept of killing an animal for consumption, in an ideal world where it can live a worthy live and its death is instantaneous and painless. I cannot stress that enough, in each of your responses you refer to the injustice of the meat industry, which is completely irrelevant to my argument.

When you kill an animal, what kind of effect does it have on the animal? Obviously, it loses all awareness of this world. So therefor death is not suffering because the animal can't suffer any more.

What about its "right to live" then? The animal is simply not aware of such a thing and when the time comes for it, it doesn't contemplate its existence or cry injustice. You are aware of that, you are aware of the loss that dying would be to you. It's a completely different awareness of death When you kill a human, you take away more than his life, you rob him of his ideas, plans for the future, hopes and dreams, bla bla. A cow's experience of life is much more superficial. An animal should have the right to be free from unnecessary suffering because it is aware of that.

Then why can't we kill the retards and the comatose? They're nor aware of much and I'm sure they'd make fine hamburgers, but that's where the value thing comes in. The coma patient has value to someone, he or she is loved by someone. Even if he didn't have anyone, the nurses taking care of her/him have established a sense of empathy for him/her. The only way for someone to have no one at all is to live in a complete social vacuum, and then you are better off dead.

That is why it also wrong to kill someone's pet, it's an animal that like most is not as conscious about being alive as most humans are, but his owner loves it. Whatever reason he has for that, is not relevant, only the fact that taking it away from him will cause suffering. The same goes for things like gifts received from loved ones, while its material value may be very little, it's actual value is high. But it doesn't mean anyone would care if an identical object was destroyed. If someone has a pet cow, it wouldn't cross my mind to eat it, but I have no objection to eat another cow.

And you're right that someone given the choice of killing his animals or becoming a vegetarian (why a vegetarian? They still cause animal suffering, do it well and become a vegan I would say) would choose to be a vegetarian. That's sort of my point, he values his own animals. I love my dog and would never be able to kill it, but I'm not gonna cry about the Koreans eating dogs "aww but dogs are cute", but I would about how they treat them. If anyone would try to kill my dog however, I wouldn't hesitate to kill them if needed.

I can fully sympathize with being a vegetarian because of the suffering the meat industry causes during the life of an animal. But being a vegetarian because you object to the concept of killing animals for consumption, even in an ideal world free of suffering during life is plain silly to be honest. And where do you draw the line? If eating fish OK? And if so, why? While beef and pork might be largely redundant in terms of nutritional value, fish is a very healthy thing to eat. What about chicken? Because they're not much "higher" than fish. Also, I believe you stated before that the killing of animals was justified by people who live in the wilderness, but not any more because we don't need meat in this modern society. But why is that? Our "equal rights" suddenly go away when people do depend on the meat?

I completely disagree with Vikram by the way.

 

[99.vikram]

This kind of reasoning would invalidate most our laws, like killing, like rape. And would undermining the very reasons why we chose to live in a society based on justice ,based on what is right by reason and feeling, and not nature.

You talk as if the rules of nature are some evil force to be overcome. But nature runs on pure logic. We have laws against rape and murder not because we cry when people get hurt (we do cry, but that's not the main reason), it's because WE do not want to get hurt ourselves.

I hope I'm making myself clear: we make laws to protect our kind from harm, not as some emotional tribute towards those who already got hurt.
Laws exist so society can run, not because of vague compassionate reasons.

 

[Direwolf]

Okay, ignoring the high level of belligerent insanity already in this thread (6.5 Gary-Busey Units so far) from ALL SIDES, maybe there can be a rational conversation here.

A couple of tips:
-Referring to the opposition as brain-washed idiots is not a useful argument tactic. They're obviously saying something here because they care about it enough to post, which means they probably care enough to listen. If they still don't agree with you afterwards, its probably because they were not convinced by the opposing argument.

-No matter how loud or forcefully you state your opinion, this is a tough topic. A trip to your library should make it clear thats the theres hundreds (if not thousands) of years of philosophical thought on the subject, with multiple schools and lines of reasoning, and a lot of them arrive at different conclusions.

-Ignore all social, political, and economic parts of the issue at your peril, or at least be sure to make clear that your statements are hypothetical or abstract. We're talking about a fundamental part of human society and its construction, ignoring the implications of what will happen if EITHER side gets its way is at best foolhardy, and at worst dangerous.

 

[Gray Fox]

You talk as if the rules of nature are some evil force to be overcome. But nature runs on pure logic. We have laws against rape and murder not because we cry when people get hurt (we do cry, but that's not the main reason), it's because WE do not want to get hurt ourselves.

I believe there are many rules of nature that are evil and should be overcome, because they allow murder and rape. You cannot justify something by nature, but at the same time be against rape or murder. When we make laws against actions we would not want ourselves to be subjected to, we are going against nature and basing our laws around moral justice and reasoning.

I also disagree with your comment about logic. Simply because there is no one logic, there are many different logics. You and me clearly have a different logic. Nature isn't any more or less logical then you, or a religious fanatic, or Hans Von Gruben

I hope I'm making myself clear: we make laws to protect our kind from harm, not as some emotional tribute towards those who already got hurt.
Laws exist so society can run, not because of vague compassionate reasons.

Well I say we have laws from far more reason then that. Also I do not agree that peter singers argument is a tribute towards those who already got hurt, it is simply extending the reasoning that drives our societies laws to include animals because he and people like him believe the innate characteristics of animal makes them deserving of such basic rights.

Okay, ignoring the high level of belligerent insanity already in this thread (6.5 Gary-Busey Units so far) from ALL SIDES, maybe there can be a rational conversation here.

A couple of tips:
-Referring to the opposition as brain-washed idiots is not a useful argument tactic. They're obviously saying something here because they care about it enough to post, which means they probably care enough to listen. If they still don't agree with you afterwards, its probably because they were not convinced by the opposing argument.

-No matter how loud or forcefully you state your opinion, this is a tough topic. A trip to your library should make it clear thats the theres hundreds (if not thousands) of years of philosophical thought on the subject, with multiple schools and lines of reasoning, and a lot of them arrive at different conclusions.

-Ignore all social, political, and economic parts of the issue at your peril, or at least be sure to make clear that your statements are hypothetical or abstract. We're talking about a fundamental part of human society and its construction, ignoring the implications of what will happen if EITHER side gets its way is at best foolhardy, and at worst dangerous.

First your insulting the people here without providing a reason for it, which makes you look like an arrogant ****.

Second, the contribution of your argument is worthless to the topic since it could be applied to every discussion.
There are a lot of books written about all kinds of subjects, with all kinds of different conclusions, simply stating that doesn't add anything. Why not go state it in every political thread?

Plus you have to look at the issue why there are so many different opinions, so many different books. Is the subject really so complex, or is it just obfuscated by interest of the individuals involved, be it economic, honor bound, or labor bound.
Religion would be a good example of a simple issue obfuscated by the interest of people.

Third, we weren't ignoring social, economical and political. Many arguments are of a social and political nature.
As far as economics go, I already addressed the nutrition issue.

If you had a problem why I did not address all the economic issues you should have just brought it up, and discussed it. Not just assumed we are idiots that can't think of it.

For the record it was mainly because we were trying to focus on different issues of the subject the economics, we can't discuss everything at the same time.

edit: oh and I'm surprised you actually like Penn & Teller, seeing your post I would think the same that you said about this thread could be applied to them, hell even more so.

 

[CptStern]

The mentally handicapped have only the most basic human rights.

not even close, there is no distinction between normal and mentally handicapped rights ..human rights covers all humans, that's why they're called human rights ...oh and the ability to drive is NOT a right

 

[Geogaddi]

So I'm watching the breast hysteria episode right now. Pretty good. But then again, how can you argue against breasts?

Titties! they come in all shapes and sizes,
Each bitch with her own surprises!

 

[MiccyNarc]

man shut up, I generally like you but in this instance you add nothing to this debate

I'm sorry Stern, but equating humans and animals just reeks of "I didn't think this through enough and I'm only talking based on emotions"

Besides, I don't think there's anything I can say that would detract from this now thoroughly raped thread.

Oh, and Fox, how do we punish animals that kill and eat other animals?
Or are humans the only ones that lose rights in this deal.

 

[Stigmata]

So I'm watching the breast hysteria episode right now. Pretty good. But then again, how can you argue against breasts?

Haven't seen that one. I can guess what it's about though, :naughty:

What does it actually deal with, though?

 

[Qonfused]

The social stigma (oh lawd) over breasts. Just more of the liberal, "I should be free to do whatever I want" bias that I love.

 

[Absinthe]

OMG that horrible liberal bias!

 

[Qonfused]

OMG that horrible liberal bias!

The social stigma (oh lawd) over breasts. Just more of the liberal, "I should be free to do whatever I want" bias that I love.

Just more of the liberal, "I should be free to do whatever I want" bias that I love.

"I should be free to do whatever I want" bias that I love.

bias that I love.

 

[Absinthe]

I do not follow. D:

 

[Qonfused]

You're sarcastic in your post? I hate trying to decipher sarcasm from text.