Joe Rogan and Bryan Callen talk a lot of ****

[Cold Front]

So do you consider humans killing each other acceptable? Do you condone murder?

Sure. In the right circumstances. I support the death penalty. I support some wars. I support justifiable homicide. And I realize that many people will murder other people regardless of what kind of morality or legal system is in use.

Absolutely, on a more rudimentary level - within a pack there is distinct social hierarchy. The alpha gets to bully everyone else and call the shots. Male and female chimpanzees do not enjoy equal rights.

You see, there you go again, Louis, proving my point. You talk about "rights" in an animal context in the natural world which does not deserve it.

False. Here's the actual peer-reviewed paper addressing the issue: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083418/

If you read my link, you would see it deals with that paper. Their methodology using DNA is flawed when extrapolating to pre-agricultural societies.

Right, so let's bring back slavery, racial inequality and a million other things, cause who needs social and moral progress as long as you have bigger and better technology.

The point you're missing is that those institutions might come back in other forms regardless of what you think. Any society which tries to regulate meat out of man's diet, for example, will need to institute regulations so onerous as to create a form of bondage on every man.

 

[Zvengeance]

That is why I only tune into his podcast when Eddie Bravo and Joe Diaz are on. Without them is a circle jerk with all of them sucking up to Joe.

 

[LouisBolanos]

Hilarious. You've been telling me this entire thread that you vegans don't believe animals are humans, and now you try to make the argument that animals are humans.

Can't you make up your mind?

You use egregiously misleading and false language, like saying that dolphins and birds have a mental capacity similar to children. You even claim that there are peer-reviewed research claiming animals are capable of logical reasoning.

I've been telling the people in this thread that vegans are liars, but do you really have to make my case so compellingly for me?

The only person lying to fit your narrative is you. Look up the research by world renowned primate expert Jane Goodall: http://www.janegoodall.ca/about-chimp-behaviour.php

"Chimpanzee behaviour is so complex because a chimp’s mental capacity is so developed. Through research, many mental traits that were once considered unique to humans have been demonstrated by chimpanzees, such as reasoned thought, abstraction, generalization, symbolic representation and a concept of self."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...humans--treat-like-people-say-scientists.html

Dolphins: http://www.seeker.com/dolphin-intelligence-explained-1765006302.html

"
If human standards for intelligence are applied to non-human animals, however, dolphins come very close to our own brain aptitude levels, suggests Emory University dolphin expert Lori Marino.

She's performed MRI scans of dolphin brains. The scans prove dolphin brains are:

• big, relative to body size
  
  
• intricate, with a neocortex "more highly convoluted than our own"
  
  
• structured to allow for self-awareness and the processing of what Marino calls "complex emotions"

Who is lying now?

You see, making the comparison to people again. You think animals are people.

A comparison does not imply they're equal. You're still confusing the most basic of concepts.

The Chinese dog trade doesn't brother me in the least. Nor does the fact that some people eat horse meat. Nor am I bothered by bullfighting.

Then you would be in the absolute minority in America. You do know killing and torturing dogs and cats are illegal in many parts of the world? Now how do you suppose that's the case, hm?

I love animals, but I love them as animals, not as people. And in the end they serve me. I don't serve them.

You torture, kill and exploit the things you love?

And you say you love animals as animals, not people. Haven't we just established that people have been killing each other since the beginning of time? If moral progress does not exist, are you for the torture and killing of people too? Is that how you would define your "love" for your fellow men?

 

[LouisBolanos]

Sure. In the right circumstances. I support the death penalty. I support some wars. I support justifiable homicide. And I realize that many people will murder other people regardless of what kind of morality or legal system is in use.

You support some wars? Do you support the type of war where a powerful nation invades a lesser one for resources, because that's the type of war that's been occuring throughout human history, so you must be okay with that, since morality never advance, right? Are you okay if someone enters your home with advanced weaponry and does whatever he wants with you, your family and your property? If no, why?

You see, there you go again, Louis, proving my point. You talk about "rights" in an animal context in the natural world which does not deserve it.

And there you again, confusing a comparison between human and primate behavior with "chimpanzees have human rights". You ought to stop doing that.

If you read my link, you would see it deals with that paper. Their methodology using DNA is flawed when extrapolating to pre-agricultural societies.

No it does not, it offers an opinion without actual evidence. All evidence-based research show that polygamy have been practiced throughout human societies for eons. So why are you against it? Why wouldn't you be okay for example, if your dad is married to multiple women? Morality doesn't advance, remember?

The point you're missing is that those institutions might come back in other forms regardless of what you think. Any society which tries to regulate meat out of man's diet, for example, will need to institute regulations so onerous as to create a form of bondage on every man.

So why fight for anything? Why even bother fighting for equal rights, for social reforms, since morality will always stay the same? The world should just focus on creating better technology, and human society should simply stay at the primal level. I should be able to enter your house and kill you and your family, as long as I procure powerful enough weapons to do so, survival of the fittest, am I right?

 

[Cold Front]

The only person lying to fit your narrative is you. Look up the research by world renowned primate expert Jane Goodall: http://www.janegoodall.ca/about-chimp-behaviour.php

"Chimpanzee behaviour is so complex because a chimp’s mental capacity is so developed. Through research, many mental traits that were once considered unique to humans have been demonstrated by chimpanzees, such as reasoned thought, abstraction, generalization, symbolic representation and a concept of self."

A chimp's mental capacity is developed and complex compared to a cow or an egret. Its not developed and complex compared to a man's.

And Goodall is an expert on primatology. She is not an expert on human language or reasoning, and she has no business making those kinds of comparisons, except of course as an advocate on behalf of chimp rights, which she is. Like you, she is a vegan wanna-be.

If human standards for intelligence are applied to non-human animals, however, dolphins come very close to our own brain aptitude levels, suggests Emory University dolphin expert Lori Marino.

That's a completely meaningless comment made by another person who is for advocating rights for animals. She is an advocate with a PhD which is not the same as a scientist.

A comparison does not imply they're equal. You're still confusing the most basic of concepts.

But you do think they are equal. It's evident in your philosophy. If Christians believe God made man in His image, you're busy trying to make animals into your image.

Then you would be in the absolute minority in America. You do know killing and torturing dogs and cats are illegal in many parts of the world?

So? What's that have to do with anything? Your vegan beliefs are in the absolute minority as well. More people functionally agree with my views (that animals serve man) than they do with your views (that animals should have most of the same rights as men).

You torture, kill and exploit the things you love?

Absolutely. I can love a little calf and still love veal on the plate. I can love the dogs I meet everyday and still not lose a night's sleep thinking of all those ones on the menu in China. I can go to a zoo because I love to see animals and still not see a zoo as the equivalent of the slave trade.

And you say you love animals as animals, not people. Haven't we just established that people have been killing each other since the beginning of time? If moral progress does not exist, are you for the torture and killing of people too? Is that how you would define your "love" for your fellow men?

Yes, I've already told you that in the right circumstances, I do support most of those things. I supported waterboarding terrorists, for example.

Civilization is not about superseding our worst human instincts with morality. It's about redirecting those energies into a form we can accept.

 

[Cold Front]

You support some wars? Do you support the type of war where a powerful nation invades a lesser one for resources, because that's the type of war that's been occuring throughout human history, so you must be okay with that, since morality never advance, right?

The only reason we don't do that today is because our scientific understanding of economics allows us to see that resources are just as easily used - and sometimes more easily used - without an invasion.

We bought Saddam Hussein's oil just as easily as we buy the new Iraqi government's oil today.

And there you again, confusing a comparison between human and primate behavior with "chimpanzees have human rights". You ought to stop doing that.

I will when you will.

No it does not, it offers an opinion without actual evidence. All evidence-based research show that polygamy have been practiced throughout human societies for eons. So why are you against it? Why wouldn't you be okay for example, if your dad is married to multiple women? Morality doesn't advance, remember?

No, it shows that the DNA evidence offered in the study can't prove anything beyond ten thousand years ago, which coincides with the rise of agriculture.

Early men and women were equal, say scientists

The authors argue that sexual equality may have proved an evolutionary advantage for early human societies, as it would have fostered wider-ranging social networks and closer cooperation between unrelated individuals. “It gives you a far more expansive social network with a wider choice of mates, so inbreeding would be less of an issue,” said Dyble. “And you come into contact with more people and you can share innovations, which is something that humans do par excellence.”

Dr Tamas David-Barrett, a behavioural scientist at the University of Oxford, agreed: “This is a very neat result,” he said. “If you’re able to track your kin further away, you’d be able to have a much broader network. All you’d need to do is get together every now and then for some kind of feast.”

The study suggests that it was only with the dawn of agriculture, when people were able to accumulate resources for the first time, that an imbalance emerged. “Men can start to have several wives and they can have more children than women,” said Dyble. “It pays more for men to start accumulating resources and becomes favourable to form alliances with male kin.”​

So much for your idea that the sexual morality progresses linearly.

So why fight for anything? Why even bother fighting for equal rights, for social reforms, since morality will always stay the same? The world should just focus on creating better technology, and human society should simply stay at the primal level. I should be able to enter your house and kill you and your family, as long as I procure powerful enough weapons to do so, survival of the fittest, am I right?

I never said morality stays the same. Morality changes with fashion and powerful incentives, but it doesn't impact the underlying human nature.

 

[LouisBolanos]

A chimp's mental capacity is developed and complex compared to a cow or an egret. Its not developed and complex compared to a man's.

And Goodall is an expert on primatology. She is not an expert on human language or reasoning, and she has no business making those kinds of comparisons, except of course as an advocate on behalf of chimp rights, which she is. Like you, she is a vegan wanna-be.

As the world's foremost expert on primates, she is much more of an authority on the issue than you ever will. Are you an expert on either topic? No? Then who are you to discredit her peer-reviewed research?

That's a completely meaningless comment made by another person who is for advocating rights for animals. She is an advocate with a PhD which is not the same as a scientist.

Yeah, and any scientist who disagrees with me is just an advocate for hunting.

See, how easy that was?

Is that the best you can do? When faced with peer-reviewed evidence, you simply dismiss them completely to push your narrative? Who's lying now?

But you do think they are equal. It's evident in your philosophy. If Christians believe God made man in His image, you're busy trying to make animals into your image.

No we don't, it's not evident anywhere except in your deluded mind. Unless if you can quote the post where I said animals and humans are equal, stop claiming something that is categorically false.

So? What's that have to do with anything? Your vegan beliefs are in the absolute minority as well. More people functionally agree with my views (that animals serve man) than they do with your views (that animals should have most of the same rights as men).

So because you seem to think your believes are in some kind of majority, you seem to think vegans are some kind of fringe belief, and that status justifies your ridicule. Well most Americans do not condone the killing of cats and dogs for meat, it is against the law in this country, so how do you explain that? How do you justify your minority opinion that killing dogs and cats are just fine, even though it is illegal?

Absolutely. I can love a little calf and still love veal on the plate. I can love the dogs I meet everyday and still not lose a night's sleep thinking of all those ones on the menu in China. I can go to a zoo because I love to see animals and still not see a zoo as the equivalent of the slave trade.

Then you're clearly someone who doesn't understand the basics of love or compassion. How could you possibly claim to love someone or something, and yet at the same time have no problem over them being tortured and killed? What's your reasoning here, let me guess: as long as it's not happening to your dog it's fine by you? Is that it? Do you also chuckle when you see news reports of a massacre happening somewhere else because it's not happening to your family? Do you not see how incredibly cold and selfish that is?

What if one day your dog gets run over by a car and the driver just carries on, not losing any sleep over the "thing" that got in his way? Are you okay with that?

Yes, I've already told you that in the right circumstances, I do support most of those things. I supported waterboarding terrorists, for example.

But do you support being waterboarded? Do you support your country, your home being invaded for resources by a superior force? Does it go both ways, or does it only work when you're the one doing the invading and waterboarding?
Hmmm, I smell a hypocrite.

Civilization is not about superseding our worst human instincts with morality. It's about redirecting those energies into a form we can accept.

You didn't answer my question. Human society have accepted slavery and many forms of discrimination for how many centuries? Why even bother fight for progress?

 

[LouisBolanos]

The only reason we don't do that today is because our scientific understanding of economics allows us to see that resources are just as easily used - and sometimes more easily used - without an invasion.

But you don't see anything morally wrong with an invasion, right?

You don't see anything morally wrong for example if another nation invades yours, and its soldiers enter your home and does whatever they wants to your family and property, correct? It might not be the most efficient way for resource acquisition, but there's certainly nothing wrong with it given the ample historical precedence, correct?

Or are your lack of morals only applicable when you're not on the receiving end of its wrath?

I will when you will.

Except I never did. The act of comparison doesn't make the two equal.

So much for your idea that the sexual morality progresses linearly.

Kindly point to where that was stated in any of my posts. I will wait. We have the most destructive weapons technology today, and yet we are living in a time with least amount of violence: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/history-and-the-decline-of-human-violence/

Clearly humanity as a whole are progressing on a moral level, in addition to on a technological level. It's by no means a linear progress, but it's going forward.

I never said morality stays the same. Morality changes with fashion and powerful incentives, but it doesn't impact the underlying human nature.

Of course it does. The "underlying human nature" isn't some unyielding law of physics, it changes from one individual to another, from one age to another, from one gender to another and it can be significantly altered by changing the balance of chemicals in our brain, most importantly, we are still evolving as a species, slowly perhaps, but it's a definite ongoing process. To claim that we have reached some kind of moral endgame and human nature will forever remain as it is is extremely ill informed.

 

[Cold Front]

As the world's foremost expert on primates, she is much more of an authority on the issue than you ever will. Are you an expert on either topic? No? Then who are you to discredit her peer-reviewed research?

Peer-reviewed doesn't mean anything if your peers are idiot primatologists.

Jane Goodall is a field scientist who works with primates. Nothing more. She's not an expert on language or reasoning or any of the other categories in which she occasionally expounds when she talks about chimps.

Yeah, and any scientist who disagrees with me is just an advocate for hunting.

No, there are scientists who steer away from politics and try not to allow their personal views to inform their research.

Try and find some of those scientists and see how little they support your views.

Is that the best you can do? When faced with peer-reviewed evidence, you simply dismiss them completely to push your narrative? Who's lying now?

You are, Louis. Peer-reviewed doesn't mean anything if your peers are idiots or if your field is rank with misinformation. You think Freud was scientific just because at one point in history most psychologists thought he had legitimate ideas?

Primatology is not the gold standard for scientific work, which is why it attracts a lot of women with strange ideas about how the world works.

No we don't, it's not evident anywhere except in your deluded mind. Unless if you can quote the post where I said animals and humans are equal, stop claiming something that is categorically false.

You say it all the time. Look if you say you aren't virulently anti-Semitic, but advocate putting all Jews into ovens, then it hardly matter shot you claim about yourself. Your advocacy overrides that.

So because you seem to think your believes are in some kind of majority, you seem to think vegans are some kind of fringe belief, and that status justifies your ridicule.

The truth often begins as a fringe belief. Your beliefs are mockable, however, not because they are fringe but because they are stupid.

Then you're clearly someone who doesn't understand the basics of love or compassion.

Is that peer-reviewed as well?

 

[The Beevers Revenge]

Bryan Callen is one of my least favourite people on earth.

 

[Cold Front]

What if one day your dog gets run over by a car and the driver just carries on, not losing any sleep over the "thing" that got in his way? Are you okay with that?

I'd lose sleep over it for a night or two, but it wouldn't affect me nearly to the same degree as if a member of my family was killed in a hit-and-run incident.

I suspect you would be just as heart-broken. That's not because you're sensitive; it's because you lack all sense of proportion.

But do you support being waterboarded? Do you support your country, your home being invaded for resources by a superior force? Does it go both ways, or does it only work when you're the one doing the invading and waterboarding?
Hmmm, I smell a hypocrite.

There's no hypocrisy. I realize that the strong will do what they will and the weak will suffer what they must, and that for that reason I hope always to be on the strong side.

But I like efficiency. I'm not for torturing just for torturing's sake. If it helps win the war or stop an attack, then do it. If not, then don't.

You didn't answer my question. Human society have accepted slavery and many forms of discrimination for how many centuries? Why even bother fight for progress?

I don't fight for it. And neither do you.

How many slaves have you freed? North Koreans are enslaved right now. Iranian and other Middle Eastern gays are being killed right now as we speak. I don't see you making any move to alleviate their suffering.

You talk a good game, but you don't show up on the field when it matters.

The truth is that the heavily bigoted Americans whites of the nineteenth century freed more slaves than you'll ever free.

Your morality is nothing more than stream-of-conscious gibberish that allows you to believe that you're a moral man just because you don't eat meat. It's the easiest kind of morality to affect, and the least effective.

 

[DannyNL]

That really stinks!

 

[LouisBolanos]

Peer-reviewed doesn't mean anything if your peers are idiot primatologists.

Jane Goodall is a field scientist who works with primates. Nothing more. She's not an expert on language or reasoning or any of the other categories in which she occasionally expounds when she talks about chimps.

Well, are you an expert on any of these topics? What authority then do you have to discredit her research? Your childish name calling aside, can you actually point towards an experts on primate and languages who discredits her research?

No, there are scientists who steer away from politics and try not to allow their personal views to inform their research.

Try and find some of those scientists and see how little they support your views.

And I will ask you again: what scientific qualifications do you have to discredit peer-reviewed research? Simply claiming something as "invalid" doesn't work. I can do it too, check it out:

your argument is invalid.

See how easy that was?

You are, Louis. Peer-reviewed doesn't mean anything if your peers are idiots or if your field is rank with misinformation. You think Freud was scientific just because at one point in history most psychologists thought he had legitimate ideas?

And I will ask you again: what scientific qualifications do you have to discredit peer-reviewed research? Simply claiming something as "invalid" or that someone is "an idiot" doesn't work. I can do it too, check it out:

You're an idiot, nothing you say is valid.

See how easy that was? We could do this all day. How about you actually cite a non-political, respected scientist who is an expert on both human cognitive science and primate study, who discredit animal intelligence research?

If you just want to play name calling all day then I'm game.

The truth often begins as a fringe belief. Your beliefs are mockable, however, not because they are fringe but because they are stupid.

Your beliefs are mockable, however, not because they are fringe but because they are stupid.

See how easy that was? I mean, in your case, it's actually the truth: you pretty much said there's nothing wrong with killing and eating animals of any kind - including those which would land you in jail in most western nations, and that there's nothing wrong with invasion except it's not the most efficient way to procure resources. Care to cite a non-political scientist who shares such beliefs?

 

[Cold Front]

But you don't see anything morally wrong with an invasion, right?

No, I do not. It's just not an efficient use of time and energy. Just as colonialism was not an efficient use of time and energy. It usually wasted more money than it ever got back.

You don't see anything morally wrong for example if another nation invades yours, and its soldiers enter your home and does whatever they wants to your family and property, correct?

Self-interest does not require morality. I believe in protecting my own interests.

You assume that your morality protects you from other people. But it does not. Armies and your country's productive resources protect you. You're just too dumb to realize it.

The act of comparison doesn't make the two equal.

In the way you compare them it does.

Kindly point to where that was stated in any of my posts. I will wait. We have the most destructive weapons technology today, and yet we are living in a time with least amount of violence: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/history-and-the-decline-of-human-violence/

Clearly humanity as a whole are progressing on a moral level, in addition to on a technological level. It's by no means a linear progress, but it's going forward.

Because our jails are full and our nukes are scary. Those are more powerful incentives than anything found in your morality.

Of course it does. The "underlying human nature" isn't some unyielding law of physics, it changes from one individual to another, from one age to another, from one gender to another and it can be significantly altered by changing the balance of chemicals in our brain, most importantly, we are still evolving as a species, slowly perhaps, but it's a definite ongoing process. To claim that we have reached some kind of moral endgame and human nature will forever remain as it is is extremely ill informed.

Individuals differ, but most differ narrowly. In the end, no matter what your views on animals, you'll eat your dog if it keeps you and your family alive. Or you'll have your dog help you hunt down your next meal, even if that meal is your neighbor who has done you no wrong.

 

[LouisBolanos]

I'd lose sleep over it for a night or two, but it wouldn't affect me nearly to the same degree as if a member of my family was killed in a hit-and-run incident.

I suspect you would be just as heart-broken. That's not because you're sensitive; it's because you lack all sense of proportion.

You'd lose sleep over it? Really? Why? It's just meat that got run over, why would you care? Have you lost your sense of proportions?

There's no hypocrisy. I realize that the strong will do what they will and the weak will suffer what they must, and that for that reason I hope always to be on the strong side.

Ah, so you admit there's nothing wrong if - say, someone kills your father and rapes your mother, as long as said person is "strong enough" to pull it off, it's all fine and dandy, is that correct?

Do you have any compassion for anything?

But I like efficiency. I'm not for torturing just for torturing's sake. If it helps win the war or stop an attack, then do it. If not, then don't.

But is there anything wrong if someone chooses the inefficient option? What if the Japanese in WW2 just enjoy raping women and children, there's nothing wrong with it according to you, right? What if Hitler just wanted to wipe out a whole race of people, nothing wrong with it according to you, right?

How many slaves have you freed? North Koreans are enslaved right now. Iranian and other Middle Eastern gays are being killed right now as we speak. I don't see you making any move to alleviate their suffering.

You talk a good game, but you don't show up on the field when it matters.

And you would know this...how? How do you know what I have done in real life? So now you're claiming to know what I do or do not do in real life with zero evidence? I can make claims about you too, watch:

You are a vegan, but you hate yourself for being one. Why are you a vegan who choose to belittle veganism?

See how easy that was?

Your morality is nothing more than stream-of-conscious gibberish that allows you to believe that you're a moral man just because you don't eat meat. It's the easiest kind of morality to affect, and the least effective.

And you're so cool and edgy because you have no moral compass, you condone the killing and raping of anyone and anything. "The strong will do what he will" and there's nothing wrong with it, am I right?

 

[Cold Front]

Well, are you an expert on any of these topics? What authority then do you have to discredit her research? Your childish name calling aside, can you actually point towards an experts on primate and languages who discredits her research?

I'm an expert on all of them. I know more about IQ, for example, than Jane Goodall will ever know.

And I will ask you again: what scientific qualifications do you have to discredit peer-reviewed research?

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't even know what that word "peer-reviewed" means.

And I will ask you again: what scientific qualifications do you have to discredit peer-reviewed research?

I asked the question first. Do you believe Freudianism was scientific?

 

[SocraticMethod]

I'm a vegan you doofus. I don't eat meat and I absolutely do not support the meat or diary industry.

But nice of you to make assumptions, I don't expect any less from someone who shoots animals for personal entertainment.

What do you have against diaries? Where else am I supposed to record my innermost thoughts, crushes, and teenage girl angst?

 

[Cold Front]

You'd lose sleep over it? Really? Why? It's just meat that got run over, why would you care? Have you lost your sense of proportions?

Just for sentimental reasons.

And a week later, I'd go out and get a new dog.

Ah, so you admit there's nothing wrong if - say, someone kills your father and rapes your mother, as long as said person is "strong enough" to pull it off, it's all fine and dandy, is that correct?

Again, you make the mistake of believing that self interest is morality.

In any world in which the kind of thing you describe could happen is a dog-eat-dog world, and most of us would adapt to it quite quickly. Those who didn't adapt would die out.

But is there anything wrong if someone chooses the inefficient option? What if the Japanese in WW2 just enjoy raping women and children, there's nothing wrong with it according to you, right?

Men have been raping women and kids forever. You make it sound like a historical oddity. You should read about the Middle East. Do you even have a passport? Or are you one of these dumb Americans or Europeans who thinks that the customs and laws of his country are the global norm that everyone else strives for?

I don't find my self-interest enhanced by living in anarchy and so I advocate laws which deter it. Those laws govern men's wildest passions and channel them into more constructive pursuits, but there is no moral law, and nothing about recent progress in the West which can't be quickly reversed.

And you would know this...how? How do you know what I have done in real life? So now you're claiming to know what I do or do not do in real life with zero evidence?

Because no one in modern society has. Why should you be the one exception?

 

[LouisBolanos]

No, I do not. It's just not an efficient use of time and energy. Just as colonialism was not an efficient use of time and energy. It usually wasted more money than it ever got back.

Self-interest does not require morality. I believe in protecting my own interests.

Well, good to know you think there's nothing wrong with the killing and raping of your own family. I feel sorry for your parents to have raised someone so utterly devoid of compassion such as yourself.

You assume that your morality protects you from other people. But it does not. Armies and your country's productive resources protect you. You're just too dumb to realize it.

By your logic the few nuclear powers would have take over the world. But we have the UN, we have peace treaties, we have powerful nations committing major resources towards humanitarian acts with little reciprocal benefit. Is it perfect? No. Is it far better than centuries ago? Absolutely. That's what progress is all about..

In the way you compare them it does.

No it does not.

Because our jails are full and our nukes are scary. Those are more powerful incentives than anything found in your morality.

Nukes? What about the million different conventional weapons we have? Why don't we all go to town on each other with those? Plenty of countries don't have jail overpopulation, why don't the people all start shooting each other?

Individuals differ, but most differ narrowly. In the end, no matter what your views on animals, you'll eat your dog if it keeps you and your family alive. Or you'll have your dog help you hunt down your next meal, even if that meal is your neighbor who has done you no wrong.

And so will you kill and eat another human's flesh if it keeps you and your family alive. Does that make killing humans okay? Well I guess we have already established that it does for you, haven't we?

 

[LouisBolanos]

I'm an expert on all of them. I know more about IQ, for example, than Jane Goodall will ever know.

And I'm double the expert than you are in any field. I know more about animal intelligence, for example, than you ever will.

See how easy that was?

I asked the question first. Do you believe Freudianism was scientific?

No, I asked the questions first. You say you are a qualified expert. Well, proof it.