I am Anti-Humanist.

[Raider5678]

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.

There are people starving to death in other countries. People being brutally tortured their entire life. People being eaten alive by parasites. People suffering from mental diseases beyond the scope of your tiny mind.

And you care about the dogs.

 

Go somewhere where you can actually experience some discomfort, and stop worrying about the animals.

[quickquestion]

SCELUS!

I don't get it. Can you be any more vague.

 

 

I have. Several. Under any definition of humanist. Both are simply not related.

 

People like you are the very reason we have those rules. You have to love the irony .

 

The point remains: you are the only victim of your hate.

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."

[Raider5678]

I don't get it. Can you be any more vague.

Yes.

 

Stultus bimuli tremula.

[quickquestion]

There are people starving to death in other countries. People being brutally tortured their entire life. People being eaten alive by parasites. People suffering from mental diseases beyond the scope of your tiny mind.

And you care about the dogs.

 

Go somewhere where you can actually experience some discomfort, and stop worrying about the animals.

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.

Edited April 18, 2017 by quickquestion

[Lord Antares]

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.

 

 

Did you even read my post on this?

[quickquestion]

 

Did you even read my post on this?

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

[Raider5678]

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.

Animals are not sentient, Stultus minima minded.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Raider5678

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Civility, please. Personal insults are unnecessary.

[Raider5678]

*innocently stops the Latin insults*

 

I'm done here.

But, you should know there are good people.

There are bad people, and good people.

Most people are normal people.

If you wanted everyone to burn and die because a few bad people, you're one of those bad people.

[iNow]

Animals are not sentient,

It's completely off topic, but this is remedially false. We can explore it in a new thread if you wish to pursue it.

[Raider5678]

It's completely off topic, but this is remedially false. We can explore it in a new thread if you wish to pursue it.

Quick break-off, I mean sentient as in having the ability to A: Think logically B: Have emotion C: Be able to communicate with a language of some sort.

Only humans meet all three.

But yes, I consent. There are animals that have the ability to use logic, some have emotion, and others can talk somewhat.

But none can do all three. Even on a base level.

For the most part, you're right though.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Raider5678

[iNow]

I mean sentient as in having the ability to A: Think logically B: Have emotion C: Be able to communicate with a language of some sort.

Only humans meet all three.

Nope

[Raider5678]

Nope

Huh. Okay.

[John Cuthber]

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.

You don't seem to be reading the same page.

It says

"Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives..."

Now, since the mistreatment of animals (or indeed people) is unethical, it's clearly contrary to the tenets of humanism.

So you hate humanists even though they are the one group whose defining characteristics include a requirement to treat animals ethically.

 

I don't think you have though this through.

Edited April 18, 2017 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

Nope

 

 

You must be using a rather broad definition of "language".

[NimrodTheGoat]

 

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."

You are perhaps reffering to the UAE?

 

"The Ultimate Attribution Error was coined by psychologist Thomas Pettigrew in 1979 to explain why members of the ingroup (“us”) tend to judge members of the outgroup (“them”) so harshly. Pettigrew suggested that when outgroup members behave negatively or undesirably, ingroup members attribute their behavior to dispositional causes, such as genetics, poor character, or poor upbringing, whereas when outgroup members behavior positively, ingroup members attribute that behavior to luck, a special privilege, extreme effort, or some other exception to the rule.

 

When individuals of the ingroup evaluate their own group members, they are more forgiving and make more exceptions for failures and fewer exceptions for successes. This error in thought plays a large role in prejudice and other social biases. "

 

 

Source: https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Ultimate%20Attribution%20Error

[Argent]

Well, there is a lot of hate in your posts, quickqustion. If your intention was to convey the fact that you are upset, it worked. The message came through.

 

If your rage was deliberately outrageous, to generate a reaction, that's a somewhat overdone tactic that usually misfires.

 

If the spewing of vile condemnations was actually a cry for help you might get further by saying "Hi there, I'm a bit confused and upset by some of the bad things that happen in the world. Can you help me see things in a more balanced and optimistic way?"

 

If you were just indulging the usual in-your-face aggression of a confused teenager, don't worry. You'll grow out of it.

 

 

Just for the hell of it, let's take a closer look at some of your thoughts.

 

I am Anti-Humanist because humans seem to always want to defend their garbage world, garbage humans, and evil society.

There is a lot of flawed thinking in such a short sentence.

 

A. Humanists are a sub-set of humans, therefore it is irrelevant to say you are anti-humanist. Why would you segregate a single sub-set of humanity when you claim they are all guilty?

 

B. I have known many humans who were just as prepared as you to attack "their garbage world", so your claim is therefore incorrect.

 

C. There is a strong case to be made for this not being a garbage world. Perhaps I can summarise the argument thus: the optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears he is correct. To that I add the realist see the strengths and the weaknesses, seeking to build on the former and overcome the latter.

 

 

If I say it is wrong to put animals in cages, instead of getting support I get arguments and fallacies of how one or two animals return their cages, (completely ignoring the fact of Stockholm syndrome and how it isno different than women brainwashed to return to their abusive boyfriends.)

I know plenty of people who object to putting animals in cages. I am in favour of it where it is part of an effort to preserve endangered species, directly or indirectly and with the proviso that the conditions are made as enriching as possible for the animals. Perhaps you feel my position on this is evil. If so I would consider your position naive and threatening to endangered species.

 

Another member commented that women are not brainwashed to return to abusive boyfriends. He obviously is unaware of the techniques used by abusive boyfriends to brainwash their partners. That makes him ignorant, not evil, not garbage, not worthy of hate.

 

If I say don't support China, people will say "Support China" even though China tortures dogs

 

If that is the argument you use for not supporting China I have to say you need to make a massive improvement in your debating technique. Is the Chinese torture of dogs the best reason you have for not supporting China? You don't think their trade in rhino horn or ivory or other portions of animals also deserve a mention?

 

It rather seems to me that you don't want people to agree with you, therefore you select the position that is most likely to discourage agreement. It's an old trick, but seasoned campaigners can usually see through it - often before the practitioner does.

 

 

9/10 on any forum, if anyone complains they don't have any love in their life, instead of support they will either patronize them or blame them or riducule them.

 

 

Probably true. So what? This simply demonstrates that some people who post in forums can be assholes some of the time. It may also demonstrate that some people who post in forums hope to convince others that they should take responsibility for their own condition. It may also demonstrate that some people recognise a deliberate ploy by some posters to goad other members into adverse reactions.

 

It says little about the price of wheat in Denmark.

 

It's time to see humans for what they really are, violent, sadistic, savage pack-hunting bullies

 

We definitely should see them that way. We should also see them as peaceful, kind, gentle, social teachers and parents and friends and mentors and carers. If you cannot see that dichotomy and embrace it then perhaps you still have some personal growth to experience.

 

 

I am sick of humans and I hate humanists

 

On the whole I find humans endearing, but I hate broccoli.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Argent

[Velocity_Boy]

I fear you have got some serious disorder.

Nah....Just a whiny little malcontent who is....To Nick a line from the movie Good Morning Vietnam...In more need of a blowjob than any man in history.

 

LOL

[StringJunky]

Nah....Just a whiny little malcontent who is....To Nick a line from the movie Good Morning Vietnam...In more need of a blowjob than any man in history.

 

LOL

This is a science forum not Facebook.

[swansont]

How are you getting away with posting rants like this on a Science Forum?

 

 

!

Moderator Note

One reason might be that nobody is reporting the posts as potential rules violations.

I posted this in the ethics forum.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Thus far I'm not seeing much discussion of ethics.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Remain on-topic, please. Language is not it.

[quickquestion]

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

One reason might be that nobody is reporting the posts as potential rules violations.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Thus far I'm not seeing much discussion of ethics.

How is talking about how China tortures dogs not ethics?

 

 

You don't seem to be reading the same page.

It says

"Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives..."

Now, since the mistreatment of animals (or indeed people) is unethical, it's clearly contrary to the tenets of humanism.

So you hate humanists even though they are the one group whose defining characteristics include a requirement to treat animals ethically.

 

I don't think you have though this through.

Sadly it is you who didn't think it through.

How am I supposed to know what they define as ethical? Because some humans don't even think animals are sentient. And the vast majority of humans eat-meat. So unless they define what their ethics are, it is nowhere implied on the paper that they have ethics about animals. And its silly to suggest I would assume they have animal-ethics concern when they didn't even find it important enough to mention.

 

Ironically enough, I encountered a vegan forum that hated humanists because they weren't on-the-level with animal rights. I said...Oh finally, like minds. Finally someone I can relate to, someone who hates humanists. But of course, these false allies of mine, they banned me for no reason. Once again I am hating humanity deeply as always. There is a never ceasing supply of Judas Iscariots to be found.

 

*innocently stops the Latin insults*

 

I'm done here.

But, you should know there are good people.

There are bad people, and good people.

Most people are normal people.

If you wanted everyone to burn and die because a few bad people, you're one of those bad people.

The majority of the planet eats meat. So you can say what you want about me but the humanity's killcount doesn't lie. As much as you beg and plead I will not ignore the growing killcount of humanity. And words will not erase their killcount.

 

 

Quick break-off, I mean sentient as in having the ability to A: Think logically B: Have emotion C: Be able to communicate with a language of some sort.

Only humans meet all three.

But yes, I consent. There are animals that have the ability to use logic, some have emotion, and others can talk somewhat.

But none can do all three. Even on a base level.

For the most part, you're right though.

Talk? Or communicate?

Dogs can use logic, emotion, and communicate. Some dogs can even talk.

 

 

Animals are not sentient, Stultus minima minded.

First of all, your definition of sentient is incorrect.

The definition of sentience is not whether or not something can talk.

Sentience means a being possessing awareness and feeling.

A Pzombie is not sentient, because it is not aware of anything and feels nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just for the hell of it, let's take a closer look at some of your thoughts.

 

There is a lot of flawed thinking in such a short sentence.

 

A. Humanists are a sub-set of humans, therefore it is irrelevant to say you are anti-humanist. Why would you segregate a single sub-set of humanity when you claim they are all guilty?

 

B. I have known many humans who were just as prepared as you to attack "their garbage world", so your claim is therefore incorrect.

 

C. There is a strong case to be made for this not being a garbage world. Perhaps I can summarise the argument thus: the optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears he is correct. To that I add the realist see the strengths and the weaknesses, seeking to build on the former and overcome the latter.

 

This is a prison system where the majority is poor and the world is perpetually on the brink of war. It is a garbage, garbage world.

 

A. is flawed logic. I hate humanists because they are the heros of humanity, defender of the sick sad species. Thus i specically target my hatred to such flagships who defend the sick sad species.

 

I know plenty of people who object to putting animals in cages. I am in favour of it where it is part of an effort to preserve endangered species, directly or indirectly and with the proviso that the conditions are made as enriching as possible for the animals. Perhaps you feel my position on this is evil. If so I would consider your position naive and threatening to endangered species.

 

i was talking about factory farms, mostly. we need to ban factory farms and do away with them completely.

 

If that is the argument you use for not supporting China I have to say you need to make a massive improvement in your debating technique. Is the Chinese torture of dogs the best reason you have for not supporting China? You don't think their trade in rhino horn or ivory or other portions of animals also deserve a mention?

 

Its not my job to fill up my brain with every detestable thing the Chinese do to animals.

Another user said I need to be more understanding of these people.

Understanding?

I would sooner try to understand a serial killer or rapist. At least they have hearts and souls.

But a dog torturer? Who does it for a holiday??? No. Im not degrading myself by even trying to think about what goes on in their in-human minds. And it offends me that someone would even expect me to degrade and damage myself by trying to understand something even lower than an abomination.

 

 

It rather seems to me that you don't want people to agree with you, therefore you select the position that is most likely to discourage agreement. It's an old trick, but seasoned campaigners can usually see through it - often before the practitioner does.

 

 

Say what you want, but it doesn't make it true. Leave your paranoid accusations of being a China-sympathizer at the tin-foil-lounge please. Rest assured, I deeply hate china and it is consumed with my rage. My only wish is that the UN takes hostile action to the chinese villages that torture dogs, because the chinese government wont do anything. And nobody wants to do anything about it. So people need to do something about it, by any means neccessary. Any means, and I don't care. The mere fact that these people are allowed to exist is sickening and disturbs me deeply. It also disturbs me that you would even think I would be a sympathizer of the chinese government. I dont even like america but i would sooner join the ranks of america than serve china.

 

 

We definitely should see them that way. We should also see them as peaceful, kind, gentle, social teachers and parents and friends and mentors and carers. If you cannot see that dichotomy and embrace it then perhaps you still have some personal growth to experience.

 

What I see are a majority of meat-eaters, who refuse to listen to me or obey me. Even though if they obeyed me half-the world's problems would be fixed already.

Edited April 19, 2017 by quickquestion

[swansont]

How is talking about how China tortures dogs not ethics?

 

 

!

Moderator Note

You might have noticed I said "Thus far I'm not seeing much discussion of ethics." rather than saying "I see no ethics discussion at all", and even where you mention this, it's not really in the context of ethics.

[Raider5678]

The majority of the planet eats meat. So you can say what you want about me but the humanity's killcount doesn't lie. As much as you beg and plead I will not ignore the growing killcount of humanity. And words will not erase their killcount.

 

 

Talk? Or communicate?

Dogs can use logic, emotion, and communicate. Some dogs can even talk.

I saw you say in an earlier post, that you always eat meat so that others will hopefully accept you.

You're adding to that body count. Also, that makes you a hypocrite.

 

 

Which dog can talk? Show me. Evidence. Sources. Now.

[John Cuthber]

 

Sadly it is you who didn't think it through.

How am I supposed to know what they define as ethical? B.

 

... they banned me for no reason. ...

"How am I supposed to know what they define as ethical? "

If you don't know what they think then you shouldn't decide that you hate them for thinking it, should you?

Did you think that through?

I'm also willing to bet that you were banned for failing to comply with the vegan forum's rules.

Most sites tell you those rules when you join up, and they explain that use of the forum indicates that you agree to abide by those rules.

 

How ethical would it be to sign up, then break the rules?

Is that the sort of hypocrisy that you accuse humanity of?

Well, perhaps you have a point, but you need a mirror.