So could you. — Artemis

Ah, but I am. Let me repeat:

"People usually need someone to make intelligent arguments, from experience, pointing out flaws in order to see those flaws. When those arguments are missing, it's understandable they continue to roll omni."

and

"Nevertheless, an absence of argument does a position no good."

So far, crickets.

Maybe... but I lose interest even attempting the debate when I think my interlocutors aren't actually open to seeing the other side. — Artemis

If you could maintain interest and look a little deeper, you might find your interlocutors have been on the other side, yet progressed with experience.

If you look through the archives here — Artemis

No thanks. I want my interlocutors to argue on their own two feet, thus maintaining their status as interlocutor.

but I lost hope when it turned out that people would rather bite the bullet every. single. time. and make claims, like... oh, they'd eat a disabled person, rather than admit they're making mistakes somehow somewhere in their thinking. — Artemis

Hmmm. I don't think I've ever made that claim. But I confess I don't know what you are talking about, so there's that.

I dunno... my personal experience ( :wink: ) is that people's psychologies get in the way of this debate. I mean, something they do every day, something they enjoy, something that bonds them to other people is at stake and I find that is a real obstacle to being open-minded and resolving cognitive dissonance.

Same issue that inhibits real conversation with theists. — Artemis

I think we are 100% in agreement on what you just said. Nevertheless, an absence of argument does a position no good. That cognitive dissonance is the blindness I referenced when I said "Another sickness brought on by our distance from who we are is the illogical conflation of disparate things, like hunting and serial killers. It's sad to watch the blind stumble around so. They actually think food comes from the grocery store."

Sometimes I wonder if the occasional omni reads these animal rights threads and.... though s/he is perhaps not yet convinced about animal rights... realizes that everything being said on the omni side is irredeemably flawed — Artemis

Probably not. People usually need someone to make intelligent arguments, from experience, pointing out flaws in order to see those flaws. When those arguments are missing, it's understandable they continue to roll omni.

Except that they've been doing that before humans came into existence. — Caldwell

They've diversified their palate. Probably got bored with the same old healthy stuff.

Though I should have qualified my statement of will as that of animals, vertebrate, some invertebrate are also considered here. But let's stay close to vertebrate. — Caldwell

Well, as I intimated above, just as the tooth of the wolf chisels the leg of the deer, so too, the leg of the deer chisels the tooth of the wolf. They are farming and breeding each other into what they are. They just have better techniques, producing a better end product. Not some fat, bawling, shit-smeared, lazy piece of meat that is easy to kill and provides no incentive to work for it. (I'm talking about homo sap here. :wink: )

Not really. — Caldwell

Yes, really. If you don't think conscious deliberate mindfulness is hunting then you've never hunted. Maybe you tried doing what most people I've seen do, and called it hunting. :sad:

Do animals farm and breed animals? — Caldwell

Well, some do. Some folks say plants and fungi are farming us, giving us oxygen until we eventually expire and turn into mulch which they can consume. I've also heard of some insects doing something similar to other insects.

But I'm just funnin' you. I know what you mean, and the answer is emphatically no. Animals don't treat other animals with so much disrespect, lack of consideration, lack of mindfulness, lack of conscious deliberation. Rather, they live in the now, and hunt with conscious deliberate mindfulness.

But conscious deliberate mindfulness. — Caldwell

I think you just described hunting.

So do we hunt like animals? — Caldwell

Not even close. In fact, most people I've seen who "hunt" don't hunt anything like an animal.

Or farm and breed animals? — Caldwell

Yeah, mostly that.

How are you so sure? — Shawn

Because we are animals. We just aren't real good at it.

And does this extend to the argument that we can therefore hunt like animals do? — Caldwell

Yes. We are animals. Omnivores, so I'm told.

I just said it is not the only perspective. — Caldwell

I agree with you. However, it's not an either/or situation. It's a both/and situation.

I've likened it to the U.S. Constitution. It provides that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. Thus, rather than get all wrapped up in BS arguments about whether some Indians "deserve" it or not, or the whataboutism of the stupid people, we should simply honor our treaties with Indians because it is us to do so. It's supposed to be who we are, irrespective of what some individual Indians may have done in derogation of the treaty which they may not have, individually, agreed to.

However, we don't have to be so stupid as to think that is the only way to look at it: as if our perspective is the only perspective we can possibly appreciate or assume to exist, and then proceeding from there. For instance, we stipulate that we don't have a sovereign status over another like, say, the U.S. does with China or Russia, or, better yet, some tiny county we could stomp if we wanted to. We could realize that we are not "all that", and that we are dependent upon, subordinate to nature, and respectful of another. In the instant case, animals and the biodiversity of which they are a part.

Those who think they are better than animals are like whites who think they are better than Indians or blacks. They think whites should do right by nonwhites because that is who whites are: people who do right. But history proves otherwise. That is not who whites are. It's the same with animals. We are not better than them and we should not do right by them simply because we think we are "right-kind-of-people." We should do right by them because they are us and we are all one.

It's also stupid to think anthropomorphically. That ends up with some people imputing one feeling to prey and another feeling to predators. It pulls us back into that "right" vs "wrong" mentality. There is nothing wrong with killing and eating. There is nothing wrong with being killed and eaten. There is nothing wrong with resisting. In fact, a failure to resist does no good for either side. The natural order of things demands mutual improvement through evolutionary processes. But once we leave off of that, the improvement stops. Like the high school football team, up 106 to 0, running it in for 2 instead of kicking for 1. WTF?

Then nature comes along for a reset as part of a process from which we thought we were exempt, just like whites thought they were better than blacks and Indians. Oops!

Picking the "us = good" mentality alone is absent grace, gratitude and humble regard.

To think that mankind can only see through mankind's eyes is to see mankind as alone, isolated, separate from the world. He becomes insecure and afraid, devaluing and marginalizing all that is not him. To see himself as one with All is to see more.

Incorrect. — Caldwell

:100:

I don't think it is a stretch from philosophy to say this (do they call it realism? Not sure. Maybe I can be schooled on that). But let's just cut to the nut: We are taking other's money against their will under threat of force. If they don't like it, they can get the fuck out. The door is open, they are free to leave. It's not like we captured them, chained them, threw them on a ship and brought them here against their will. It's not like they were living here, minding their own business on their land, and we invaded their land, threw them on a reservation and stole all their shit. Oh, and if they are not Americans, living in America, and think this analysis doesn't apply to them? It does. We don't care where they live. It applies there too. Just ask those who tax.

P.S. In the mean time, they can quit using our shit. That would be hypocrisy, would it not?

I wouldn't know no how. Ain't never took one of them there things. I did get unlimited call-backs in the Marine Corps (was them IQ tests?), but they might just been trying to figure how's I could walk; what with being so stupid an all.

I mean I could be wrong, — Mr Bee

But you are not wrong.

I never made it a secret I wasn't interested in a scientific debate. I outright stated it. — Tzeentch

Then why did you tell me I couldn't find the scientific experts? Are you digging again? :lol:

I don't keep any political company. — Tzeentch

Ah, but you do. Just look around at who agrees with you. You remind me of the guy at the "Unite the Right" rally who was simply concerned about freedom. :roll:

A few pages back I asked you on two seperate occassions whether you'd be in favor of treating unvaccinated people in a similar manner to how Israel treats Palestinians. Why didn't you answer that? — Tzeentch

Because I don't live in Israel and don't know how they are treating Palestinians with regard to the vaccine. I'd look up their relative Covid death and hospitalization rates but I'm in the United States. We have our own problems. Maybe the U.S. should see what Israel is doing. How are their death and hospitalization rates over there? Never mind. Don't tell me, Doctor Tzeentch: just call your peers at the CDC and explain it to them.

unless I missed their appeals to human rights. — Tzeentch

6 democrats voted against the bill. Kudos to them for standing their ground. — Xtrix

My google fu sucks. Do you know where I can find out who those six were?

Edit to add: Found it: https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2021/roll368.xml

And what's this I hear about a $2t tax cut for the rich getting tossed in there?

I'm just having fun and so's he I'm sure. Who gives a shit. — Xtrix

That's a good way to look at it. I outed him so he won't have fun with me any more. :cry: :roll:

Well he's read Dan Everett, so there goes Chomsky! — Xtrix

I would say "I can't believe this guy" (meaning the audacity; I never did believe his crap) but I actually can believe it. His type are a dime a dozen and he has a future with Faux News Network. His efforts work on the confused who don't want to invest the time in spotting a charlatan. But for him to think he's special the way he obviously does is just so Trumpian. A chip off the old block. :roll:

Chomsky can't even get linguistics right, to think he can get politics right. — StreetlightX

I recently outed you as a Trump/Putin supporter, but this post of yours reminds me of when I outed you quite some time ago as the guy who thinks being a critic must mean he has critical thinking skills. :lol: I think you are both a Trump chump and a guy who thinks he's all that.

You also support destroyers of the environment. — StreetlightX

So do you, StreetlightX. You are all about that land raping.

:100:

one only needs to be accused of child molestation, — boagie

They don't even need to be accused. They only need to be threatened with being accused and that will get them to shut up and stay home like a good little citizen.

Street says no because both parties are corrupt and that is supporting the system, — John McMannis

I must have missed that. It could be that is his position. I have missed things in the past. But notwithstanding my best efforts, I can't get him to say anything bad about the Trump (used to be Republican) Party. So far it's been all "Democrats bad. Democrats help Republicans." I don't think he's saying "don't vote" but even if he is, that is what Republicans want. That is why Republicans try to stop the vote in blue areas while encouraging it in red areas. The Democrat's don't do that. Democrats are all about getting out the vote, all votes. They both gerrymander, but Democrats want everyone to vote. Because the majority of Americans are Democrats. The will of the people is undermined by Republicans and their shills.

As distinct from literally supporting the two-party system. — StreetlightX

Yes, you want a one party system. We get that. Fascists white nationalist want a one party system. You know, like your boy Putin has.

Seems like none of you guys really like each other much, so I don't want to get in the middle. — John McMannis

He doesn't like me because I've outed him and exposed his cover. I don't like him because he's a shill for the Republican party, trying to sew division and hatred among Americans. People like him are doing a good job, and here we are.

I just choose not to suppport the party that staves off all efforts to stop this from happening. — StreetlightX

What efforts? DOH! :rofl: What single thing have you done to stop the Republican party from getting into office? What party (if not the Democrats) has done anything to stop the Republican party from getting into office? You've walked yourself into a corner and slapped yourself. Your shill is showing.

Maybe not. Maybe not vote for Joe "we need a strong Republican party" Biden. — StreetlightX

Yeah, vote for Putin's bitch, Trump. :lol: How does it feel to be so transparent? Like the Republican party? The scary part is, it works with the stupid people and there are a lot of them. Proud, even! :roll:

You are a nobody to me whose existence I will forget in about half a minute, I could not care less. — StreetlightX

And there you have it, folks. StreetlightX is a Republican shill and has been outed in public. You can't trust a word he says about having some kind of outsiders, objective view when it comes to this. He wants to sew division and hatred among Americans because it works to satisfy a white nationalist agenda. The only question now is: Is it about the money, or does he actually believe in Trump's agenda? Hmmm. I guess it doesn't matter.

Yeah such a mystery why I'm only discussing the party in power right now. Sherlock was a stretch, I guess. — StreetlightX

That's why I looked for you putting some distance between you and the Trumpsters, but crickets. So, rather than have me Sherlock-up and dig through five years of shit to find all the times you took the Republicans down, just give me a hint to prove your alleged outsider, objective view of these two feuding kids.

That would be the other part of the cycle, yes. I see your powers of inference are doing wonders for you, Sherlock. — StreetlightX

You can't blame me. I had to say it for you. You never say shit about the Republicans, hence the borne-out suspicions that you are a shill for them.

So, the republican party functions as one-half of a two-part cycle whose overall effect is to ruin lives for everyone.

???

he democrats do not need me to undermine their psuedo-agenda. — StreetlightX

Yes, and yet here you are! That's my point, DOH! That is why you are suspected to be a shill for the Republicans/Putin, ragging on those who don't need to be ragged on, all while pretending to neutrality/objectivity/outsider/non-partisan status. You are indeed partisan, working for the Republicans and Putin.

A party that is transparently shit on climate change, or a party that is semi-transparently shit on climate change, pretends not to be, and then helps secure victories for the party that is transparently shit on climate change, while staving off any actual change from the left on behalf of both? — StreetlightX

That was precisely my question about you. :rofl: Self own.

Ooh. I'm gonna have to drop you off my radar. — frank

:up: Apparently you can draw some distinctions. :razz:

We have very different perspectives on the whole thing. — frank

:up: We have very different perspectives on some fundamental issues. I knew that when you refuse to distinguish between your patients. It's like giving an alcoholic a liver or a smoker some lungs because they signed up first. Whatever. Different perspectives indeed.

Yup. CPC should tank both bills and the debt increase next month. Tell both Joes: "Two can play at this game. Bye Biden."

Burn it all down. D's had their chance to tank the filibuster and get the whole enchilada. But they decided to make Mitch McConnel and Joe Manchin a sandwich. Good little wives, hoping their husband will change.

I would imagine the only reason these chaps have not been murdered is that they are to much in the public eye. — boagie

Also, the Plutocracy has it's ways of marginalizing anyone who points them out for what they are. Like they did with Scott Ritter. No one wants to be accused of child abuse, etc. And how hard is it to plant shit on someone's computer? All it takes is a hint: "Hey Oliver, did you hear what happened to X? Be a shame to have that happen. What a shame."

They’re not doing nearly enough, — Xtrix

And it doesn't help if they have someone undermining their efforts by trashing them, while giving the other side a pass.

I just told you that it doesn't really matter much who you vote for, not wrt fundamentals. — frank

That's the issue, though, isn't it? What are the fundamentals? I didn't vote for Hillary because she wouldn't release her Goldman Sachs transcripts, and she struck me as a Mitch McConnel: Conniving. But doesn't mean there is no daylight between them on other issues.

If you really understood that, then why are you up in arms about Republicans? Like they're the problem? — frank

Because they are the problem. Them and Manchin and Sinema. But to get down into the weeds on this (and I've said this many times before, though it's understandable you don't stalk me and read all I write), the Republicans no longer exist (in my mind). When they threw the last true conservative Republican under the bus (Liz Cheney), they forever bound themselves, irrevocably, to Trump (and if she stays in the party, so will she). And Trump places no daylight between himself and fascist white nationalist racists. Long story short, Republicans are now Trumpsters and I find Trump to be an un-American traitor to our fundamental principles outlined in our organic documents, as well as being the preeminent liar, coward and dishonorable, self-absorbed huckster.

I'm not being hyperbolic. — frank

Neither am I.

I understand that there's a lot of that in social media, so truth isn't a priority in most of what people say. Just to help clarify. I'm speaking as straight as I can. — frank

Same here. :up:

Here's an idea I was tossing around in my brain pan while I was out working today: The Republican (Trump) Party is akin to a man in a patriarchal society. The Democrat Party is akin to a woman in a patriarchal society. Now, there honestly is nothing inherently wrong with that, in and of itself. It can be a beautiful thing. But when we acknowledge that every individual (man and woman) is different, then we can ask ourselves: In the current iteration of the relationship, what kind of man and what kind of woman are we looking at? I see an abusive POS in a wife-beater tee shirt, beer in hand, telling the bitch to make him a sandwich. I also see a wife who doesn't like it but doesn't know what to do. Maybe if she just tries to understand him, make him a sandwich, be a good wife . . . Maybe she can change him. After all, she's simply trying to take care of the family. But apparently he knows better.

And she might look for a better man. But the best that men could come up with is Trump. The rest are his lieutenants.

I have my ideas of what she should do. But she won't.