quickquestion

I've tried, but then they just resort to unsound arguments that animals are not sentient.

That's nice, but that wasn't the main point of this topic.

That is beginning to seem like a wise idea. Unfortunately, the cockroach politicians would be buried in the bunkers, and reproduce the world with all the people I hate.

Why am I banned, for simply repeating the exact same insults a horde of bullies has continuously directed at me? In fact, I actually said less insults than they said to me. It's a rhetorical question. Of course I know why I was banned. I was banned because I am an outsider of the group, and humans are dominated by xenophobia and their ancient emotional associations to desire conformity. Thus I was given a bias and banned, whilst others broke more rules than me, and got no punishment. And don't even say it was because I didn't follow the scientific method. You had guys who made ridiculous unscientific claims like "animals are not sentient" and didn't ban them for that. Let me know when you'll give me a valid reason to stop hating humanity.

Thing is, your entire society ostracizes Me. If I say "Your laws and rules are stupid, and you are building a prison system" society (the sheep) tell me how wrong and ludicrous I am, and then somehow justify their ridiculous laws and punishments and prison system. If I see someone torturing an animal, and I stab them before they kill the animal, society will ostracize me, say "How dare I not give them a fair trial, AFTER letting them kill the animal." Over 94% of the world are meat-eaters, so the majority is against me. They are against me in various other ways, but I give meat and laws as a small example. The fact that society ostracizes anyone against their values, is actually the big problem.

Post on what? I wasn't even talking to you. I was talking to Raider.

Your mind is what's tiny, not mine. I bet you didn't even care about animals in the slightest before I even mentioned it. I bet you are so ignorant you didn't even know China tortures dogs. Your argument is a complete fallacy, why should I have to suffer for no reason when I am well aware this is a garbage world. My whole argument is that this is GARBAGE WORLD and so I don't even know what point you are trying to make. Telling me it's garbage? I'm well aware and that is the crux of my argument. You are like an old man who tells me I should take cold showers for no reason, just because "back in my day i had to take cold showers, blablabla." Would you like me to nail myself on the cross, so I can be better acquantied to human suffering? I am well aware your planet is complete garbage. Should I go to Africa and come out as a homosexual, so they can stone me? How on earth do you think that would cause me to hate humans less? I thought you were trying to make me hate your species less, and then you provide even more examples as to why I should hate your entire planet. It's clear you are species-centric, you only care about your own species but not sentient animals. Nothing new, very run-of-the-mill.

I don't get it. Can you be any more vague. People like me are the only reason animals have any rights at all. I don't get what you are saying. You seem to want to oppose me, instead of saying "Hey, maybe I'm right. Maybe it's wrong to protect torturers and maybe it's wrong to make rules preventing people from attacking torturers."

https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/ On the first page, it just says "human this human that". Nothing but species-centric human-selfish promotions. Human goals. If somewhere buried in the fine print is something about animal rights, it is clearly low-priority in their radar. Only the British website says anything about animals in their "About" page...And I don't live in Britain, so I have to deal with fighting these American human-centric humanists.

Incorrect. How can I not hate meaters, or not hate people who are cool with letting China torture dogs?

His argument was that I was wrong, because what I said contradicted modern psychology. His argument relies on a priori truth, that the resident authority, modern psychology, is the truth, and thus anyone who contradicts it, is therefore not the truth.

We should stop breeding THEM in the first place. It is better to not be born than to be born in Hell.

No you are, for defending this pitiful race of evil humans. I try to save dogs from being tortured, and all you can say is I'm a spoiled brat. This is why your world deserves to burn. Whats plain dumb is how you deliberately misquote me to appeal to your false reasoning. That's like, Faux News. What I ACTUALLY said was, I wanted to find out if I had special DNA or if I did not. You should work for some corrupt media organization that uses bias and misrepresentation to make sales.

None of that is in the official definition of humanist here: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/humanist Seems human this, human that. Very human-centered. Now lets analysis your definitions. "trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)" That is the definition of a scientist. Being human has nothing to do with it, I could build a robot that does the scientific method. Furthermore, it is unscientific to automatically reject the supernatural, if the evidence implies supernatural activity is true. "makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals" Haven't met any humanists who don't eat meat. Not saying it's impossible, just haven't met any. I posted this in the ethics forum. Has very much to do with ethics and human society. I fear that you are lazy and can't take the time to post anything but a logical fallacy. Not sure what the latin term for it is, but it has something to do with the fallacy of argument of group authority -"if someone doesn't like my group, then they are ill" fallacy. Similar to the Catholic fallacy or heresy fallacy. "if someone doesn't like my religion, they are insane." How am I part of the problem? Its human specie that is part of the problem. They never focus on animal rights and just focus on their selfish species-centric desires. That is why the majority of the world is meat-eaters. When I watch a movie, I cry when a dog dies, most of the time when a human dies I just laugh. If there were no laws and rules, I'd make sure that people suffered from my hate. It's an injustice, a pitiful world and detestable people, always protected from harms way. How dare China shelter their own dog-torturers. China says its legal to torture dogs, but illegal to harm those who torture dogs. I say hang them high, after torturing these dog torturers. Meanwhile politicians sit and twiddle their thumbs, saying "oh we can't harm these people, we need diplomacy, blablablaa" Im so sick of it. Hang them high and burn their dog-torturing villages to the ground.

So do abused girlfriends who don't have much money. They return to their abusive boyfriends because they have nowhere else to go. That and because they are brainwashed by Stockholm. Thus humans who cage animals are evil. Also, not responding to dimreepr, because I already addressed his argument and won. If he cares to read back on my posts he will find out that he lost the argument.

Comfort is everything. If you are comfortable bunjee jumping, or doing daredevil stunts, by all means, do them. But it is wrong to force something on someone they are not comfortable with. If someone is comfortable starving themselves, by fasting, that is fine, but people should not be forced into starvation. If someone is comfortable with a lifestyle of chastity and celibacy, that is their decision, but if someone wants to have sex, the response should not be "Oh, well just go chasity, I did it and I don't mind". If someone wants to eat, the response should not be "Oh, back in my day, I was starving, so get down with your own starvation." That is the whole point of having comfortable lives...to make lives people are comfortable having. Anything else, is metaphorical rape. Rape, metaphorically, is when you force someone to endure a thing they are not comfortable with. It would be like forcing someone to watch Horror videos when they asked you not to. There are a statue of limitations on presidents, so his immortality is irrelevant. Furthermore, corrupt dictators would not be invincible, just immortal. What I am mainly worried about is the ridiculous laws and penalties made up by unthinking humans. It's like, you make some counterfeit money, and they send you to life in prison. People think they are Yahweh or Princess Celestia, they think you deserve to be tortured for 1000 years over some minor crimes. I say, get thy hand off the controller. The prison system is proof of the evil of the human specie. They just casually hand out sentences like they think they are Yahweh, Yahweh a false god who thinks he can send people to eternal damnation.

Liberalism, yes, but not liberals. The definition of liberal is someone who questions tradition and has a deep philosophy of the universe. But most liberals tend to be very closed-minded, fixed in their beliefs and follow the mainstream.

I don't hate the dark.

So you are saying that NK is holding SK hostage, and that if any nation attacks NK, they will bomb SK?

Hate is not a lack of understanding. I can understand a person, and the deeper I understand them the more I hate them.

You aren't making any sense. Why is the only reason to kill, hunger? Please stop using circular reasoning, it is a fallacy. I am tired of giving you examples of how you are wrong, but here is an example. If a person has a disease, and they are living in constant suffering, and they say "Kill me", isn't killing them done for a reason, other than hunger?

Killing a smaller proportion to save the majority is the only noble thing. It is better to kill a few than let the majority rot in injustice and tyranny for the rest of their lives. NK is so decrupt that they even throw babies and children in jail for their Grandfather's crime.

You seem to suffer from Human Group Fallacy...which is the same fallacy that caused ancient greeks to ridicule Democratus for promoting Atom Theory. It is the same fallacy that caused Catholics to ridicule anyone who didn't believe religion. You are a bully. My guess is mostly you post just to bully me and get some kind of emotional gratification so you can feel better about yourself. The majority of posts here demonstrate this fallacy, and do not even follow the scientific method. Scientific method is to disprove my 3 points: 1.that aether is real and that 2. some parts of relativity are true and support aether, and that 3. relativity, overall, is an incorrect theory because has a paradox. The majority of these posts just posts mockery and insults of how wrong I am. If I am so wrong why then cannot you take the time to prove me wrong? You claim there are "experiments" which disprove aether being dragged around the earth, yet won't even tell me what they are. Actually out of these 15 posts, only 3 of them posted anything of any scientific relevance. Post 1 (scientifically relevant, but irrelevant to the topic at hand) and the post of: Herrmann, S.; Senger, A.; Möhle, K.; Nagel, M.; Kovalchuk, E. V.; Peters, A. and the post of: Miller Experiment (Poster Barely mentioning it and not even giving an explanation.) Since none of you will provide any effort to make a civilized debate, the burden is on me to research this material (which was made by Phd's, which I do not have) and get back to you.

I try to eat meat around them so I can be as evil as they, in the hopes that they will accept me. But still, they never accept me.

I already admitted it was mudded. There are several stem-terms that don't fit and could be made better, but due to acadamia and tradition noone is usually allowed to challenge these words in a classroom. What these words are I don't remember, I just remember encountering them at various points in my life.