|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 02/26/2010 : 23:43:41 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
I make no claim of any sort. I carefully stated that all of the above was my opinion, not a claim of fact. So don't throw that badly worn-out Skeptic's playbook dodge at me, I made no claim! I stated a controversial opinion.
|
Dave_W's comment sums up all the response required for you "opinion" game. Next?
What you have stated is that because all concepts such as morality, ethics, and "rights" are subjective concepts, the merits of one ethical position over another cannot be demonstrated rationally. So if you want to advocate the torture of puppies that position is as acceptable ethically as is one that defends animal rights.
|
I stated nothing of the sort. I guess you just wanted to make up some retarded crap to argue against, and it seems you have done a good job of it. Congratulations.
| "It is an error to provide them with human motivations" - Evidence for that claim, please. Burden of proof, you know! |
Really? I think your age is showing, and slowing your thought processes. The reason it is an error to give animals human motivations is that you have no possible way of knowing what their motivations are. The burden of proof, once again, lies with the person making the positive claim. In this case that is anyone engaging in anthropomorphism.
Or a egomaniac dictator of a powerful nation could decide that his "Aryan", master race heritage had the right to totally destroy an inferior "race" - the Jews. Hitler and his Nazi followers collectively awarded themselves the right to genocide.
|
Yep, and a whole bunch of other people put together some armies to express their disagreement. What is your point, if you even have one?
The danger of anthropomorphizing should be readily apparent. Animals do not think like humans. If you give them human motivations and intent, you are more likely to cause harm than good for the animal in question, and maybe yourself. You abandon objective, rational, evidence based thinking when you engage in anthropomorphism as anything other than a literary device.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2010 : 04:21:57 [Permalink]
|
My point is made:
SeaWorld tragedy: Former co-worker tells WFTV slain trainer is to blame
Orlando, WESH, WFTV, WOFL — posted by halboedeker on February, 26 2010 5:18 PM
Discuss This: Comments(119) | Add to del.icio.us | Digg it WFTV-Channel 9 offered a provocative report today about the trainer’s death at SeaWorld.
A former co-worker told the station that trainer Dawn Brancheau was to blame when her hair floated over the mouth of killer whale Tilikum. The massive creature responded by dragging her under Wednesday, and she drowned.
Thad Lacinak, a former head trainer at SeaWorld, said the trainers knew to stay away from the whale’s mouth. “The protocol was not to be around Tilikum’s mouth while you’re laying down,” he said.
Reporter Emily Turner explained that Lacinak said Brancheau “became too comfortable with the animal she loved so much.” |
Loving them is one thing and all well and good, but that should never be allowed to cloud common sense. The potential of the animal must never be ignored.
The article goes on the state that this orca can never be released, and that is correct. Without a family pod, it cannot survive and will be attacked by any pod it tries to join. This is a tragedy on both ends.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2010 : 06:09:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Loving them is one thing and all well and good, but that should never be allowed to cloud common sense. The potential of the animal must never be ignored.
|
Brings to mind Grizzly Man. |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2010 : 13:06:59 [Permalink]
|
Ahh...
Common sense, that old oxymoron.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2010 : 14:18:48 [Permalink]
|
Well, I lost the internet for almost 2 days due to that nasty East Coast storm that just passed through, so my apologies for not keeping up with this thread. I'd just like to say that Mooner's views on animal confinement are a separate issue than what I was initially addressing. It may be inherently cruel to house an ocean-roaming creature in a tank of water, however spacious. But what I initially took issue with was Bob Lloyd's contention that animal training (dogs learning tricks, horses learning fancy stepping, dolphins jumping up to hoops, etc.), amounted to de facto torture and torment. I don't think a reasonable case can be made to support that conclusion.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/27/2010 14:19:21 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2010 : 14:26:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
...my position is one of asking you and Humbert to demonstrate the logical superiority of your opinion that animals - particularly highly intelligent animals - do not deserve the same ethical standards that we extend to other human beings. |
How intelligent does a life form need to be in order to deserve equal rights as humans? Personally, I do not support the confinement of, abuse of, or non-consenting experimentation on any species capable of performing calculus.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/27/2010 14:27:43 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2010 : 14:27:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Well, I lost the internet for almost 2 days due to that nasty East Coast storm that just passed through, so my apologies for not keeping up with this thread. I'd just like to say that Mooner's views on animal confinement are a separate issue than what I was initially addressing. It may be inherently cruel to house an ocean-roaming creature in a tank of water, however spacious. But what I initially took issue with was Bob Lloyd's contention that animal training (dogs learning tricks, horses learning fancy stepping, dolphins jumping up to hoops, etc.), amounted to de facto torture and torment. I don't think a reasonable case can be made to support that conclusion. |
I agree. Just ask a dog whether being trained to catch frisbees is a torture or the height of joyous fun. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2010 : 15:03:09 [Permalink]
|
Cruelty is as cruelty does. Show horses like Tennessee walkers that step high are often fitted with heavy shoes and their toes left long. This encourages the horse to lift it's legs higher to make it's stride. Simple physics, really ,that does the animal no good at all.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2010 : 23:58:38 [Permalink]
|
Dave.......
Sorry to be late in response to your charming commentary. I've been out of town. But it's good to hear from you again. I've been missing your correction and lecturing. Thanks for showing up on your cue!
| Oh, forcryingoutloud, haven't we stamped out this stupefyingly evasive tactic yet?! |
No, forcringinginthecorner, (and shakingwithfear at the Voice From Olympus); "we" surely have not - nor have "we" even attempted to moderate the arrogance of omniscience that saturates some postings here, (some of of mine included, unfortunately; hence the "we" - I have never really subdued the child in me).
But there is no stupefaction, no evasion, and no tactics in my response to Dude, these exist only in the delusion implicit in your hectoring approach to ratiocination and debate.
Beating the Burden of Proof to Death
(Unless you have all day, don't even start)
Dave opines:
| "In my opinion..." and "I think it is true that..." are synonymous phrasings. And "I think it is true that..." is nothing less than the statement of an alleged fact (a "claim"). |
I take this statement to be a direct claim of fact as to the definition and usage of English words. Here is another:
When I predicate my statement of opinion with a disclaimer, to the effect that I am not making a statement of fact, I negate any implicit claim to fact in that may be in that statement of opinion. My opinion, in this thread with appropriate disclaimer, is precisely what both Websters and Wikepedia define as Opinion:Webster:
2.c: Opinion
a view or belief that is not demonstrable as fact, as in "this is only my opinion, of course" |
Websters New International
a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge. |
Positive knowledge would be defined as fact!Wikepdia
An opinion is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. In casual use, the term opinion may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs. |
I do not represent my opinions here on SFN to be anything but casual!
My statement to Dude which you have so complimentarily labled as "intellectual cowardice and transparent evasion" was:
| I carefully stated that all of the above was my opinion, not a claim of fact. |
Further, I responded to his specious request for justification of my opinion in several different paragraphs:| My personal view amounts to substantial agreement with PETA. In my opinion, captivity itself is abuse for most captive wild animals. There are many obvious exceptions - wounded animals, abandoned infants, those incapable of return to natural conditions, etc. |
| Yeah, I agree. The owners, planners, scientists, and even some of the handlers know when the Orca is unhappy - I would guess, yes, most of the time; but it's the money, man! They really don't care enough to give up their business, their jobs, etc. Too much vested interest in Orca's career! |
| More than anything else, I feel there needs to be considerably more controlled study of the relationship between the "lesser" animals and human beings, rather than merely strongly expressed opinion on the part of laymen like you and me..... |
.......so that it would be possible for me to respond with reference to documented fact!
| Dude, I can no more prove that wild animals are unhappy in captivity than you can demonstrate that they are content. There is little doubt that they live longer. But as to quality of life, I don't believe technology has advanced sufficiently to be capable of demonstrating happiness or unhappiness in animals. Actually, it's still pretty "subjective" (whatever that means) when it comes to the human animal. |
At this juncture, I can only give my opinion. I cannot reference detailed studies justifying it or contradicting it, nor can you, despite your self-bestowed polymathy and irrefutable opinions on everything that exists; because no evidence or alleged facts are extant on this matter that are not subject to personal interpretation. There are no facts to claim because there have been no conclusive studies of animal sentience, awareness and response to confinement, and what constitutes abuse.
These four examples are as close as I can come to your manic screeching for justification of my opinions. They certainly do not constitute substantiation of "claims of fact". However, I did not make claims of fact and no matter how many times you wish to arrogate your opinion on that subject, it is in flat contradiction to recognized authority on word usage and definition. Your opinion on "Opinion" is not a fact, nor even a valid claim to fact because you cannot document it! You, like the brainless Republicans, are entitled to your opinions and your abusive rhetoric, but you are not entitled to your own facts!
Dave opines:
Nobody holds an opinion that they think to be false. |
Well, that took some deep thinking! Of course not, that is a self-evident truism that borders on an oxymoron. If an expressed opinion is known to be false to the holder of that "opinion", it is no longer an statement of his view of the subject, no longer an opinion, rather it is a statement intended to deceive; and an intentional lie! Opinions are not defined as a way of lying! Why belabor the obvious? You talk about intellectual evasion, this is intellectual abdication!
However everyone, particularly yourself, holds and expresses opinions from time to time that they do not know to be true but that they believe to have a reasonable probability of being true. And this is well and good, otherwise conventional discussion, debate, and even preliminary scientific investigation would become cumbersome beyond practicality if every single opinion ever expressed had to be supported with independent confirmation before it could be even be considered!
Every hypothesis begins as an opinion based on observation. It remains an opinion (or hypothesis) until is submitted to testing. It is fair to state that untested hypothesis is opinion. An untested hypothesis certainly is not a statement of fact! It is manifestly fair and reasonable to ask someone as to what observations led to a hypothesis (or, interchangeably, opinion) I have been asked that by Dude, and I have more than adequately answered as I have just shown, so where is the "intellectual cowardice" and "transparent evasion", MOTU?
This current invective-loaded diatribe of yours purporting to demonstrate that opinion is identical to claim of fact is a perfect example of opinion that appears to be a statement of fact, but is demonstrably false according to the highest authorities (quickly available) here on the facts of word usage - Merriam-Webster, Webster's International and the Wikipedia.
Dave states:
"I think it is true that..." is nothing less than the statement of an alleged fact (a "claim"). |
Wrong!
"I think that it is true that..." is an opinion.
"It is true that..." is a statement of an alleged fact, or a Claim.
A Claim is a statement that an alleged fact is, by virtue of substantial evidence, true. Claims should properly be challenged as to the necessity to produce what may be the evidence supporting them.
From Wiki:
CLAIM 3 : an assertion, statement, or implication (as of value, effectiveness, qualification, eligibility) often made or likely to be suspected of being made without adequate justification. |
Note that a CLAIM is not defined as identical to an Opinion by Webster, nor by Wiki. "Opinion" is not used in the definition.
An Opinion, identified when stated as an opinion, if referencing an alleged fact; does not claim that the alleged fact is true or is not true. It is clearly ambiguous as to the truth of any fact that it may reference. The opinion may favor truth or falsity, but it does not make a claim to either. An opinion can be properly questioned as to its origins or method of reasoning, but it cannot be challenged for evidence of its truth, because it does not claim truth!
Opinions are not claims unless they are presented in a manner as though they were known facts without disclaimer, in which case they become claims, open to challenge. Therefore, I challenge you to present substantial corroborating evidence for your claim that an opinion is a claim of fact. You made the statement, I want to see accepted English linquistic authority on usage and definition that corroborates your definition of Opinion as a claim of fact!
An 'alleged' fact can be, an opinion. (Neat little trick to slip that "alleged" word in when needed). So, to state that "a Claim is a statement that an something is evidentially true" is acceptable. To state that "a claim of fact is an opinion" is not acceptable, because claim carries the force of conviction and also purports to reference demonstrable, evidential fact.Webster
CLAIM
4: to assert especially with conviction and in the face of possible contradiction or doubt. |
Dave opines:
The certainty with which one holds an opinion is irrelevant to the fact that opinions are assertions of facts. |
It is not a fact that opinions are assertions of facts. The certainty with which one expresses an opinion is relevant as to whether it is an opinion, or it is a statement of fact. A statement not identified as opinion, certainly can be taken as a statement of fact and challenged as such. Webster:
OPINION
2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge. |
Positive knowledge would be fact.
However, Webster defines, when opinion is identified as such; it is not a statement of fact:Webster:
2.c: Opinion
a view or belief that is not demonstrable as fact, as in "this is only my opinion, of course" |
| Dave: so challenges to support one's opinions as claims of facts are nothing more than requests for the evidence that one has used to arrive at the opinion in question. |
but challenges to one's opinions that are identified by the opiner as opinion only, cannot be directed to the opiner's claim of fact, because none is being made. No burden of proof is assumed by the opinion bearer because she is not claiming fact!
If the opiner's evidence is based on intuition, personal experience, testimonial, or is anecdotal in nature, he may not be able to claim fact and he should disclaim his opinion as such when given, less it be seen as a statement of fact. Most often in casual discourse or informal debate, the disclaimer is made and understood as, "this is only my opinion, or IMO.
Statements made referring valid scientific evidence are not opinions, they are statements of fact (as closely as it can be approximated) and they should not be identified as opinion.
What is the evidence for the existence of God, an opinion that many millions of people hold? Obviously there is no factual evidence and only those who state such an opinion without disclaimer are making a claim to fact. Their evidence is non-factual and they need to say so.
Dave opines:
Challenges to support one's opinions as claims of facts are nothing more than requests for the evidence that one has used to arrive at the opinion in question. |
My position is that opinions, when identified as opinion and not as a claim of fact, are not claims of fact, they are opinions, as stated. They are certainly open to question as to origin, (as in: "Where did you get that idea?") but not to the degree as if they were made as statements of alleged fact.(as in: "Show me the evidence for that statement of fact")
Wiki states:
An opinion is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. |
Wiki also states:
An opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. In casual use, the term opinion may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs. |
In other words, opinion is not the same as claim to fact. Dave opines:
Challenges to support one's opinions as claims of facts are nothing more than requests for the evidence that one has used to arrive at the opinion in question. |
Not scientific evidence; maybe personal observation or experience, intuition, testimonial, anecdotal even guesswork! Challenges are definitely in order if claims to fact have been made. If only opinions, clearly stated as such, are expressed, I think it might be appropriuate for a skeptic to ask what the basis or observation was for the unsupported opinion, but if the opinion is significantly or completely subjective, it is useless big skeptic-dick waving.(I have no idea out of what gutter I got that ugly image!) A subjective opinion does not necessarily have to have any basis in documented fact!
Wiki also differentiates CLAIM as:
Claim may refer to: a. b. c. etc.
Proposition - a statement which is either true or false |
So, according to a generally acceptable authority, a Claim is a Proposition, and a Proposition is either true or false. Therefore, a Claim is either true or false. Opinion may be neither, possibly shaded in one direction or another - strong or weak - but not yet defined as true or false.
According to the same authority, with regard to an an Opinion
| it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments. |
This certainly is not the same as "it must be either true or false", so one must conclude that a claim is not the same as an opinion.
The WiseGeek's statement
(Which may be an Opinion)
The difference between a statement of alleged fact and an opinion is that a fact is something that is empirically true and can be supported by evidence, while an opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with some type of evidence.
An opinion is normally a subjective statement that can be the result of an emotion or an individual interpretation of a fact. For example, biological differences between males and females are a fact while a preference for one gender over the other is opinion. |
demonstrating that there may be opinions or hypotheses that are not making claim to any fact.
Dave opined:
Therefore, refusals along the lines of "I didn't make a claim, I just stated my opinion" are nothing more than displays of intellectual cowardice and transparent evasion. |
Then OGMOTU, please erase these horrid displays by exercising your massive intellectual courage and non-transparent evasive techniques (transparent is really better evasion) to sucessfully contradict both a dictionary definition of Opinion.....| c : a view or belief that is not demonstrable as fact - as in "this is only my opinion of course" |
and Wiki's description:| .....An opinion is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another |
This cowardice and evasion must stop, we need a champion!
OPEN LETTER TO DAVE(only channel available)
Dave, I greatly enjoy this type of semantic hopscotch. It provides me with mental exercise that partially replaces the physical exercise that I can no longer do. Your acerbic man/child personality invites taunting and provocation which you obviously relish and probably require, and I eagerly await your explosive reply.
You have personally provided me with more than sufficient examples of your peculiar needs for cathartic name-calling. I, also, think it is fun to create inventive insult and I will try to oblige whenever I'm in town. It beats the hell out of chess!
It appears this word-parsing and definition quibbling nonsense is what you covet to really fan your glans! My e-mail and PM are available if your pot starts boiling over. I haven't banned them to anyone and never will! Keep up the vitriol, gall, and bitteroot, Dave, it's great compost for intellectual growth!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 08:46:32 [Permalink]
|
The argumentum ad Webster's has convinced me: opinions are utterly worthless in the marketplace of ideas. Given that it "is a self-evident truism" that people believe their opinions to be true, and given that an opinion is defined as being "a view or belief that is not demonstrable as fact," the assertion that a statement is an opinion is equivalent to saying, "I can't show that [statement] is true, but I believe it, anyway." In other words, "in my opinion" is a preface to a declaration of faith, and not, as I had previously (and obviously mistakenly) thought, just a shorthand for saying, "the following assertion of fact may not be as well-supported as I might like."
As someone who calls himself a skeptic, therefore, I will, from now on, seek to eliminate the word "opinion" from my self-references, and try to remember to point out anyone else's assertions of opinions as failures of critical thinking from the start. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 09:32:43 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
As someone who calls himself a skeptic, therefore, I will, from now on, seek to eliminate the word "opinion" from my self-references, and try to remember to point out anyone else's assertions of opinions as failures of critical thinking from the start. |
And again, some evidence may not be available. To lean toward an idea, given what is available to know, leaves us with sharing an opinion or saying nothing at all on the subject. You forget that admitting that sometimes the best you can do is have an opinion on a subject is also a way of being honest, and not a failure of critical thinking from the start. And by removing opinions, which are by nature subjective, would close down some considerations that are worthy of discussion, even if facts are hard to come by.
There goes many political discussions, and so on...
We are not going to agree on this, apparently. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 11:16:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
And again, some evidence may not be available. To lean toward an idea, given what is available to know, leaves us with sharing an opinion or saying nothing at all on the subject. You forget that admitting that sometimes the best you can do is have an opinion on a subject is also a way of being honest, and not a failure of critical thinking from the start. And by removing opinions, which are by nature subjective, would close down some considerations that are worthy of discussion, even if facts are hard to come by.
There goes many political discussions, and so on...
We are not going to agree on this, apparently. |
bngbuck chose definitions in such a way as to make his evasion even more ridiculous, so I was ridiculing him for doing so. According to what he last wrote in this thread, his statement, "In my opinion, captivity itself is abuse for most captive wild animals," means (in no uncertain terms) "despite the fact that I [bngbuck] cannot show that captivity itself is abuse for most captive wild animals, I [bngbuck] believe it to be true." This is an attitude which is diametrically opposed to the sort of skepticism we've been promoting here, Kil, but that's how bngbuck chose to defend his opinions.
If facts are hard to come by to support some position, then the rational response is to avoid taking such a position, not to whine about that position being challenged even though it was an opinion. "In my opinion" is not a magical mantra to protect a statement from critical examination, an examination which usually begins with looking for supporting evidence. If there is none, then the belief in question should be discarded, not excused as being opinion. (And this is especially true in political discussions.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 13:56:34 [Permalink]
|
From the homosexual closet-dwellers of the American Family association:
Bible ignored, trainer dies
Date: 2/25/2010 9:27:17 AM
You are aware by now that a 12,000 pound killer whale at SeaWorld Orlando killed his trainer Dawn Brancheau yesterday by pulling her into a pool and dragging her around until she drowned, in front of a crowd of stunned guests.
Chalk another death up to animal rights insanity and to the ongoing failure of the West to take counsel on practical matters from the Scripture.
According to the Orlando Sentinel, "SeaWorld Orlando has always know that Tillikum...could be a particularly dangerous killer whale...because of his ominous history."
The Sentinel then recounts that Tilly, as he was affectionately known, had killed a trainer back in 1991 in front of spectators at a now defunct aquarium in Victoria, British Columbia.
Then in 1999 he killed a man who sneaked into SeaWorld to swim with the whales and was found the next morning draped dead across Tilly's back. His body had been bit and the killer whale had torn off his swimming trunks after he had died.
What about the term "killer whale" do SeaWorld officials not understand?
If the counsel of the Judeo-Christian tradition had been followed, Tillikum would have been put out of everyone's misery back in 1991 and would not have had the opportunity to claim two more human lives.
Says the ancient civil code of Israel, "When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner shall not be liable." (Exodus 21:28)
So, your animal kills somebody, your moral responsibility is to put that animal to death. You have no moral culpability in the death, because you didn't know the animal was going to go postal on somebody.
But, the Scripture soberly warns, if one of your animals kills a second time because you didn't kill it after it claimed its first human victim, this time you die right along with your animal. To use the example from Exodus, if your ox kills a second time, "the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:29)
|
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 18:26:40 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
"In my opinion" is not a magical mantra to protect a statement from critical examination, an examination which usually begins with looking for supporting evidence. |
And I have never said or implied that an opinion should be exempt from a challenge and a call for supporting evidence. To the contrary. I have always stated that an opinion is subject to challenge. But it's ridiculous to argue that unless we can fully support an opinion, which wouldn't be an opinion if we had enough evidence or facts to back it up, than we just shouldn't take a position. You are arguing for the removal of opinions, it seems, subjective though they are. While I agree that the use of opinions can be a dodge, we all have them, and we all use them in discussions. What's new?
By the way, I can't believe you just questioned my skeptic credentials because I don't consider opinions to be as strong as claims of fact on the continuum.
I should add that I am not defending bngbuck. This has been my position all along, and you know it. I wasn't giving anyone a pass. I am responding to certain statements you have made about opinions that seem over the top to me. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 19:27:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
But it's ridiculous to argue that unless we can fully support an opinion, which wouldn't be an opinion if we had enough evidence or facts to back it up, than we just shouldn't take a position. |
It is ridiculous to make such an argument, so please don't suggest that I've ever held such a position. This started when bngbuck refused to offer an iota of argument in favor of what he believes to be true by tossing the word "opinion" in front of it. My objection was never because bngbuck couldn't "fully support" his statement, it was because he said, in essence, he didn't have to support it at all, simply because it was an opinion. His leap into deep semantic games supports my hypothesis, and then some.| You are arguing for the removal of opinions, it seems, subjective though they are. While I agree that the use of opinions can be a dodge, we all have them, and we all use them in discussions. This is old ground. |
It's old ground that you still seem to misunderstand. I'm not arguing for the elimination of opinions, I'm arguing for the elimination of "it's just an opinion" as a method of dodging the examination of an opinion.
I agree that we all have opinions and that we all use them. I disagree with bngbuck (bngbuck, mind you) that because something is an opinion, it should be immune from inquiry (by definition, no less!). It's apparently irrelevant to bngbuck whether such an examination would support his opinion or not, he clearly doesn't want to even make the attempt.| By the way, I can't believe you just questioned my skeptic credentials... |
I can't believe it, either! I thought I was continuing to question bngbuck's skepticism.| ...because I don't consider opinions to be as strong as claims of fact, on the continuum. |
Since I don't believe that, either (and said so quite plainly), I don't know why you would think that I would question your skepticism on such a basis.| I should add that I am not defending bngbuck. This has been my position all along, and you know it. |
Yes, I know that.| I wasn't giving anyone a pass. |
No, bngbuck was giving himself a pass.| I am responding to certain statements you have made about opinions that seem over the top to me. |
You're referring to the statements I made when taking bngbuck's horrible logic and definitions to their proper, absurd conclusion. Those statements were over-the-top because I was ridiculing bngbuck's absurd argument, and said so in the first sentence of my previous reply to you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
How could this happen!
