Do progressive atheists look like hypocrites when they insist that human beings are no different or more important than animals, but get outraged when human behaviors and animal behaviors are compared in a way they don't like?
I mean, I guess so, if you disregard the fact that atheists don't claim that humans are equivalent to or no more important than non-human animals. I mean, I've never seen an atheist make this claim.
It's a pretty consistent theme.
If you were a power user i'd say post a poll about it so you can see how the atheist demographic votes in the breakdown once the poll hits 250 users.
You could also look through old polls.
The "further" attack is in the subsequent poll when MD asks "do progressive atheists look like hypocrites", insert Tlaney in there and all of SOH is up in arms.
So you aren't able to discern the difference between a personal attack against a specific user versus a generalized statement?
Haha, oh, is there a difference? Lol. Of course. Why there is a difference in the community's reaction is beyond me. Post a poll correctly referencing someone's openly expressed belief and that gets labeled an attack poll. Post an antagonistic poll
with the intention of deriding a group represented on SOH, and that's totally fine.
Kscott, I just finished this exact same discussion with him in my other poll.
He really claims not to see a difference between posting a poll about a group, and posting a poll about a specific user.
Haha my lord you're intransigent, nothing's changed I guess. I have acknowledge a difference, I have also acknowledged a difference in response based on that difference. What I question is why it is that posting a user's only expressed view gets
construed as an attack poll, while posting an antagonistic poll deriding a group represented in the SOH community is tacitly accepted.
Openly* expressed view
Because, as I've already said in the other poll, the answer is right there in your question.
One poll is about a specific individual who you are calling out by name.
The other poll is about a general group of people.
This is why Tony doesn't ban people for posting polls about republicans, democrats, Catholics, atheists, Liberals, conservatives, etc.
Because those polls aren't calling out a specific user by name.
Think about it- how many tens of thousands of polls have been posted about the antics of various groups?
And you don't complain until one comes up that digs at your group a little bit.
This is a self serving, bullshit complaint and you know it.
Haha how many times? It's a thing of beauty. "One poll is..."
I am fully aware there is a substantive difference. I am also aware of a substantive difference in the community's reaction. You keep repeating the different reaction is due to the
difference. To which I keep saying, and why is that so? It's that difference in reaction I have repeatedly been questioning. How is accurately posting someone's openly expressed views worse than deriding a group represented on SOH?
And before you beat me to it- It's too late to continue this debate, seeing as you're choosing to be so intransigent. So let's pick it up in the morning. 😆
Progressive is synonymous with hypocrisy in this context.
Vegetarianism is the best example.
Lol, what? Humans are animals but we hold humans to a higher standard because of a difference in intelligence and ability to reason. This poll makes no sense.
It absolutely makes sense given the responses to my previous poll.
Hypocritical and/or, quite frankly, unintelligent.
I'm a conservative atheist... so take that!
Progressives are famous for flipping facts/ideas to support their agenda for each particular argument. "There are species of animals that are homosexual, it's natural." "Stand your ground is animalistic, we are a more intelligent species." Lol.
Are you implying that homosexuals are somehow unintelligent and/or less civilized?
"There are species of animals that are homosexual, it's natural", is a response to the claim that homosexuality is unnatural, nevermind that humans are part of nature. I've honestly never heard the argument that Stand your ground is animalistic.
Why are you syh Milk? That seems to be the intended conclusion of that comparison. Pray tell, if not that what exactly is the point of that comparison?
Because you are exemplifying the whole point of this poll, JJ.
Poor JJJ. You are making my point. You're flipping the data to make an argument. And yes, my quote is often used by the left when promoted same sex marriage. In fact, there was a poll earlier this week stating 400 species of animals are homosexual
Yet only one species is intolerant of it. I didn't make up the statement. It's used regularly.
We're clearly not understanding each other. Let me explain: I don't see how homosexuality and gun violence are related. In your attempt to be derisive, you seem to have assumed I was making some argument and have failed to explain your point.
I'm not comparing the two points. That's what you're mistaken. I'm just comparing to contrasting issues. Progressives/liberals use the animal defense to defend one point but use it differently to defend another. They claim one thing is normal
Because Animals do It, but in another case they say we aren't animals so we shouldn't do that. Either we are comparable to animalistic behavior or we aren't. Can't switch views to defend a point.
Well that's because they're used in response to two different arguments. People often say that homosexuality is wrong specifically because it is "unnatural". The animal analogy in that case is to prove that point wrong.
On the other hand violence...
is very natural. Everyone agrees on that. But the argument against it is that it's uncivilized. Now that doesn't mean that everything animals do is uncivilized, (they also eat, raise young, etc.) but some things are.
In other words, the only way that would be inconsistent is A) if you thought homosexuality was wrong because it's uncivilized or B) if you thought gun violence was wrong because it's unnatural.
JJ, you just restated the whole premise of the poll.
Progressives are ok with comparing animals to humans when it suits their agenda, but become outraged when animals are compared to humans in a way that contradicts their agenda.
"Of course X is Ok! animals do it!"
"Y is not OK! How dare you! It's no better than acting like an animal!"
Or, as was frequently stated in my last poll, "how dare you compare (X group) to animals! They're human beings!"
What mrMilk said lol.
The problem is you're generalizing issues hat are not actually related and thus missing the point. The fact that animals do something does not make it "good" or "ok" it makes it natural. Which in and of itself means absolutely nothing, "natural"...
is neither good and bad. BUT when your only argument as to why a thing is bad is that it's "unnatural" it makes perfect sense as as argument as to why that thing is not inherently bad for that reason. Now, it could still be bad for another reason...
but that's an entirely different issue.
In the other case "like an animal" is shorthand for "uncivilized". This doesn't mean EVERYTHING everything do is uncivilized, it's simply a figure of speech based on the fact that animals can't distinguish...
between civilized and uncivilized behavior. And this has nothing to do with the "naturalness" of something.
So you see, just because the two arguments both use the word "animal" does not make them related.
I can't speak to your other poll because I haven't seen it, but I'd be willing to bet that it makes a difference exactly what group "group x" is and in what context they were referenced.
JJ, you can rephrase it however you'd like, but you're still just saying exactly what I've already said. This is just more "do as I say and not as I do" nonsense from liberal progressives.
"It's different when we say it!"
Well if you're more interested in simply touting how much better your opinions are than actually understanding anyone else's, this conversation will go nowhere.
I freely admit that whatever argument you THINK I'm expressing is a logical fallacy...
however since that's not what I'm actually saying, and you have no interest in discussing what I'm actually saying, I suppose we have nothing more to talk about.
Yes. I had this recently when 2 other users said homosexuality is natural because animals do it. When I asked about animals eating their feces and their young, as well as killing their mates after sex, and whether we should do those, it went silent.
This implies that all animals have the same natural instincts, which is incorrect. Homosexuality exists in some animals buy not all. Same with eating feces.
And that has nothing to do with my comment. The point is you can't pick and choose when to compare to animals and when not to.
Um I suppose, but I'm not sure when militant vegans became the same thing as atheists.
I really hadn't considered the lion/dentist connection with this poll. It's interesting that's the first thing some folks saw.
Nice, trying to label Progressives, Atheists and Pro animal rights activists as hypocrites all in one question.
But its funny because I didn't see the animal rights connection (you're talking about the lion and the dentist, right?) when I posted these polls. I think the dentist is an a-hole and should be prosecuted.
This poll was actually about welfare.
I understood your point buddy
Animals eat what they kill, and don't (reportedly) ask to shoot an elephant with 63kg tusks after making a kill.
And now, after reading your previous poll, I know my comment is not germane to your intent.
But when has that ever stopped me?
...so that's why I believe the testing of superfluids and it's affect on the Earth's Van Allen belts pushes us to the edge of our own oblivion!
Thank you Seattle! I'll be here all week.
And tip the wait staff.
Actually an elephant sanctuary had a problem with their elephants killing rhinos and they didn't eat them.
Hypocrites, no. Illogical, inconsistent, and engaging in cognitive dissonance, yes.
I wonder if they're more troubled by how people will refer only to certain groups of people as acting like animals. Often, those that use polemic statements about people being like animals are not inclusive statements, but rather, elitist. No?
No, it's just when it conflicts with their political agenda.
Humans compared to animals to justify sexual deviancy? Ok.
Humans compared to animals to condemn govt programs that create dependency? Outrage.
Just curious, what's the analogy with animals and welfare?
Ah, never mind. I just saw the other poll.
Also when they complain about how we try to convert people but then they do the exact same thing. In my experience with a lot more arrogance and a more condescending attitude. That's just a generalization though.
But a valid one, nonetheless.
Atheists don't convert people they enlighten them :)
I've never had an atheist knock on my door trying to sell non religion.
Diknak, I've never had religious people knock on my door either. And still, you don't need to look out your door, look here. There's lots of it on SOH. And David, thank you for proving my point.
I am glad to prove your point. It's easy when I'm right. If I come off condescending and arrogant that's your problem. Atheists have had to deal with religious zealots for literally thousands of years. Now it's our turn to fix the mess you created :)
Well, try to attempt because we still have to deal with the likes of you forcing your BULL on the rest of society. Religion seriously sucks the life out of people. The worst thing to happen to human kind; man creating god and all that entails.
I can not stress enough how much religion is the epitome of the worst humanity has to offer. Congrats for making the world a worse place for everyone. No words can describe the amount of pain and suffering your kind had caused throughout history.
Oh wow, you're insane, buddy. I am not responsible for the actions of those that came before me. No one is except them. Religion sucks the life out of people? Prove it. This is your "enlightenment?" Spouting stupidity? Keep at it!
"Fix the mess you created." I have created no mess. "Forcing your BULL on the rest of society." I have forced nothing on anyone. "Congrats on making the world a worse place." How have I done that?
Thank you, before now, a biased article was the stupidest thing I've read all night. This takes the cake. Feel free to spout baseless generalizations and arrogance all day long. Give us something to laugh about :)
Also, let's get rid of all evil religious charities, since we (apparently we are all grouped together now) are such terrible people. Let the poor suffer and die.
Laugh some more. Your god doesn't exist. Keep believing you are going to heaven. You aren't. That doesn't exist either. This is it. Make the world a better place instead of acting superior. You definitely aren't.
Prove it. And yes, I'm acting superior by calling someone else's beliefs "BULL," acting arrogant and childish, and making baseless statements...no wait, that's you.
You generalized in your initial statement so I took the liberty to in mine. Assuming you are any form of Christian I stick to what I said. Apologies if your are Buddhist.
You aren't superior. Stop acting like you are. To be so stupid to think that you can know for sure that God is not real without any proof is laughable. Have fun wallowing in your false sense of "enlightenment."
I dont act superior, just enlightened.
Ah, "you did it, so that means I can." Yes, just what I'd expect from someone as sophisticated as you. When I said it was a generalization, that means that I do not believe it applies to everyone. Did that fly right over your head?
I try to have fun but it's ruined by the likes of you and your kind.
Haha, alright, you and your enlgihtenment can go and save the world. Meanwhile I'll just sit here volunteering, doing service, and apparently, according to you, making the world a terrible place.
So then you are Christian? Good I can act superior all I want. Because without a doubt I am.
Your definition of fun is insulting other people's beliefs and grouping individuals into big, incomparably different groups? Sounds like a playground bully with a case of prejudice.
Oh wow, you must have some serious self-esteem issues. I'm deeply sorry that you must tell yourself how much better you are than others to make yourself feel better.
Well, I guess you and your superiority can continue insulting people on the Internet, while I go and do service and help people. Because I'm just that terrible of a person.
6 years in the army I've dealt with worse than you.
Alright? Thank you for your service, but that's not really relevant.
This is the most entertaining thing I've read in a while. David, from your high horse, do we mere humans look like tiny ants? Are you so high up that you have to scrape clouds off your feet? Why don't you humble yourself just a little bit? I mean...
... the FAA is going to fine you if you don't get your nose out of their regulated air space. You're atheist. We get it. You don't like Christians. Got it. But you, my friend, go above and beyond. Do you know that many who believe in God would...
... say that they are "enlightened" by Him? What makes your enlightenment more superior? I know that you believe you're right, but what's the specific benefit of trying to tear others down to prove it? This is the most ridiculous thing I've read.
Not sure I've seen examples of that. Seems to me humans are compared to animals all the time. From sexual behaviors to pack mentality to paternal instincts etc
Look at my preceding poll.
I think they're science deniers.