- McSpotlight -

This wasn't meant to directly condemn you Kevin

Posted by: Stuart Gort ( USA ) on November 22, 1998 at 12:34:09:

In Reply to: Defining superiority posted by Kevin Dempsey on November 19, 1998 at 23:08:07:

:Stu doesn't like links offered in lieu of arguments.

Kevin:: So is THIS why you keep dropping out of debates with me? Or do I bore you? Any of the books, references, etc. I provided in debates were usually to back up an earlier argument I made. Seems to me you even asked for some references on occasion. Sometimes I list a book I consider to be particularly well-written, in which an author argues a point or series of points better than I do. I TRY to argue the point myself first, then suggest a book you could read if you wanted to.

This wasn't meant to directly condemn you Kevin. I had in mind the
recent offering of Daddio and SDF when they gave a links to a
anti-biblical sites in lieu of a direct argument. What needs to be done
here to maintain some degree of intellectual honesty, in my opinion, is
to provide a few ideas at a time from those sites and present them as
arguments over here. I still offer my e-mail - powerfin@premier1.net to
those who have a genuine interest in the matter to avoid tying up
McSpotlight. I don't mind a link or two to support an argument (I
always read them) but I dismiss a link as an argument or any
kind of resolution to a premise. That is, of course, no argument at

:: I guess you know something I don't know. I was bombarded all the way through school (and church) with the assertion that humans are superior to animals. I, like most other people, believed it. Then one day I took a moment to reflect on the REASONS given as to why humans are superior. I couldn't find ONE valid argument as to why humans are superior. To this day I fail to see why humans are superior. We contribute no more to the planet's well-being or the life/death cycle than any other species. Every species plays a part. Take away one species, and things will go all wonky for a while. We are the only species who has a net harmful effect on the planet. Superior? Not in my books.

While I feel incomplete in offering only a secular argument here, I
realize you will dismiss any biblical argument out of hand. I feel it
is simple to offer a number of reasons why humans are superior to
animals in purely secular terms, however. Firstly, humankind has the
ability to dominate the whole of the animal kingdom. No group of
animals can organize itself to impose itself on humankind. That by
definition makes humans superior - if only in terms of dominance.
Secondly, the fact that you or I might consider these issues at all is
definite proof that we are superior. Do crows contemplate a choice
between berries or dead possums? Thirdly, does the animal kingdom work
to improve itself or even contemplate improvement? No! Isn't any entity
working to improve itself by default superior to one that is not? I can
go on but I find the notion you present as utterly dependant on your
definition of the word superior. I hope your reply will offer up
a better explanation of this.

Stuart Gort

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup