K.A Applegate is a stereotyping bigot

Talk about politics here.
Forum rules
Please read the forum rules carefully before you post.

If you like AnimorphsFanForum.com, please consider making a donation. Any donation will go towards the cost of the hosting, the domain and any other running costs.
User avatar
Diana moon goddess
War-Prince
War-Prince
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:16 pm
Gender: [Female][/Female]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: somewhere on a planet called earth with lots of freshwater, mountains, trees and constant rain

Re: K.A Applegate is a stereotyping bigot

Post by Diana moon goddess » Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:57 pm

Sorry, I had to go on with two posts side by side but this is too exciting and so awesome a debate I just had to come in
Page 2
The_African wrote:I'm not going to "agree to disagree with you". We're not "debating", I am right and you are wrong. You have no idea how wrong you really are.
that was arrogant, distasteful, and impolite. Snoopy probably thinks it’s correct to him. And no it is still debating just not a brilliant and academic debate
Snoopy wrote: you must realize that the cerebrum is the structure responsible for higher level thinking, reasoning and possibly consciousness.
isn’t the cerebrum just the thingy that connects the rest of the nervous system to the brain? If the cerebrum is responsible for higher level thinking then what use do we have for the rest of our massive heads?

Page 3
Elfangor wrote:
Rexhunter99 wrote:Please do not yank religion into this debate, someone will definitely get hurt.

Creationism vs Evolution topics should take place in the lounge...

Oh BTW Im atheist so I don't care if you diss religion, just don't hurt other people because of their beliefs
yea i agree a mod should lock this topic....
in other forum ive been on people get into religion arguments and then they turn out hating each other
and it also makes the forum look bad :( :(

BTW I'm a Christian and I'm agreeing with an atheist can't we all get along???
BTW i am neither christian(nor of any other religion, theism) nor athiest(nor agnostic--at least, for the most part) and i'm agreeing with a christian and an atheist.

i don't care if you diss religion or atheism or agnosticism(only the kind where people haven't done their study of religions and seen atheist vs theist debates half as well as james madison(he was obsessed with the research and they didn’t have the benefit of atheist vs. theist debates so he had to make them himself in his mind)) , just DON'T HURT OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR BELIEFS. thank you rex and Elfangor for that. i totally support you.

Page 4
Snoopy wrote: you mean that all the brains in question have the same components, (on the macro scale)…Just because an animal brain contains the same structure in the same location as a human brain doesn’t mean that the animal is capable of conscious thought.
err, Does it? Are you suggesting that a brain has to be a certain size before it can have consciousness? Oh so people with genetic mutations that cause them to be hobbits, little men, with comparatively little heads are incapable of conscious thought? And elephants are? They do have larger brains than humans.
Thus that was not a good argument.
Snoopy wrote: For all we know, consciousness may well be a metaphysical property that the brain has very little to do with.

yes, and no. there have been numerous instances where people not knowing of this before have experienced out of body experiences while they were dead. When they were dead, brains obviously didn’t work but for some weird reason they still could see and think. That was for snoopy. Now here now. How did consciousness arise at first if there was no brain to support it? You mean there was spirits and consciousnesses there since the beginning of time, since infinity and that if we have too many people maybe there might not be enough consciousnesses for everybody or reversed that there are all the consciousnesses floating around just to get a body and a brain? Is it “I think, therefore I am,” or is it “I am therefore I think”? okay I don’t make much sense right now do i?
Snoopy wrote:just like all other human beings on the face of the earth, are biased. And in this particular era, science is, on the whole, biased against anything that might suggest that the earth was created, or that there may be a God.

where do biases come from? Are we born with them? no, we get biases from the things we learned or didn’t learn or from the things that our parents learned or didn’t learn. Scientists see the facts that they have discovered facts and then look at religions claims that god created the world in 6 days, reason and then they end up with a bias against religion that is based on more logical fact. Scientists don’t have agendas (at least no more agendas than the average person), those are for politicians; they find the facts and let the rest of you decide. And no, science is not biased against anything suggesting there is a god. There’s plenty of religious scientists who go to church, synagogue, whatever.
Snoopy wrote: Just as a side note, let me say that this is not the first time bias has affected science. In Galileo’s time, the bias was exactly opposite. Science was so biased towards religion and the Bible that it refused to accept anything that might contradict the Bible. And even though Galileo was almost entirely right, not a serious scientist in the world would have agreed with him. This just goes to show how credible scientists really are. They are only human.
SCORE! Snoopy! Nicely done, you destroyed his argument on his own ground. Though I would say there wasn’t much science around at all those days. They mostly kept out of the way of the church.
Snoopy wrote: You obviously have not taken formal logic, or you would know just how absurd it is of you to say that there is not a serious scientist on earth who would disagree with those two points.
there! Go unravel his logical fallacy! You’ll sound better if you can identify it. I believe it’s ad homiem or something. I’m too lazy to check it out in my debate papers. Absurd is an interesting word choice
As Socrates said:

“I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.”

Ehh. Socrates was the old man who got sentenced to death by a jury for corrupting the youth.
If you know nothing, then you cannot know that you are intelligent, because you know nothing and knowing you are intelligent is knowing something.. If you cannot know you are intelligent, then you cannot know that you can not know that you know nothing.
That’s a paradox. If you knew you weren’t intelligent by knowing something, how are you supposed to know weren’t intelligent and you knew something if you weren’t intelligent in the first place? So the whole thing is a paradox.
Snoopy wrote: You obviously have not taken formal logic, or you would know just how absurd it is of you to say that there is not a serious scientist on earth who would disagree with those two points.
The_African wrote:Not a serious scientist that the scientific community as a whole would take seriously.
oops. Hehe.
Snoopy wrote: But you know what? They were both right. And these are only a few of the hundreds of examples where the scientific community has rejected a good theory based on bias, or just plain old stupidity.
The only reason it was excepted later on was because of science so therefore dissing the science community is incorrect. Scientists before the “empirical evidence” came out just did what they thought what they were biased toward like any other human.
Snoopy wrote: And as for elephants mourning for their dead… give me a break! What did they do… dress in black, and walk down the road with their headlights on? Good grief…
ha ha. Very funny. What they do is the closest friend or relative stay around their dead for days not eating or drinking not leaving and being generally depressed the way elephants get depressed. When the group meets the bones of a dead relative, they become solemn(become very quiet) and touch and caress the bones. And there are other instances of monkeys and other animals carrying around their dead babies for days because they just can’t let go. Oh and elephants don’t have headlights. But that issue is already taken care of, I see.

Pg 5
BluJugganaut wrote:Snoopy...

something has occured to me. One of the ten commandments, i believe, is to not judge, yet you claim that there is no definite proof animals have no consciousness. So if you believe that your theory is not definite, but you still see animals as having no consciousness, then in your own words, you are sinning, because you are judging the animals

its the same as looking at a picture of someone you don't know, and assuming what they are like by how they look. then acting upon these believes without even knowing

if you are Christian, which from your posts seems likely, then you are clearly sinning. Has that not occured to you?
Wow, just, wow.
Elfangor wrote:
Rexhunter99 wrote:This is getting ridiculous!
Its your own opinion try not to shove it down everyone else's throats.
yea i agree why can everyone get on with each other like me and rex??
exactly! I third that. though I will not be hugging boys.
Pg 6
The_African wrote:Neither you or they are infallible but, between the two of you, I think they're more qualified to comment.
that was definitely not a nice insinuation.

Also wikipedia is not a academic source because anyone from around the world professional or not can change an article to whatever they want it to say.

Sorry this is all I can say for now. Bye-bye till later. This took me like 2 hours to write on Microsoft word and then paste here and has left me exhausted

Anithropomorphic
Gedd
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:51 pm
Location: I can't tell you who I am, or where I'm from...

Re: K.A Applegate is a stereotyping bigot

Post by Anithropomorphic » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:58 am

Snoopy wrote:@The_African:
The_African wrote:It really is more than a semantical issue. Besides, you haven't offered any alternative word for 'animal'. Until you do (and it's accepted by taxonomists and other biologists), 'animal' refers to the kingdom 'animalia'. Neither one of us can up and decide that words should mean what we want them to mean.
It is simply an issue of semantics, nothing more. Biologists happen to decide that the definition for the word animal should include humans. Fine. That’s what they think. But you cannot prove that a word means something! You can prove that a group of people, or even every single person on the globe accepts a definition as that meaning of the word. But you simply cannot prove that the word “animal” intrinsically includes humans.
The_African wrote:
And just what, exactly, makes these “professional” scientists so infallible?
Neither you or they are infallible but, between the two of you, I think they're more qualified to comment.

There’s nothing to prove or disprove! It is all a matter of semantics!

It really is more than a semantical issue. Besides, you haven't offered any alternative word for 'animal'. Until you do (and it's accepted by taxonomists and other biologists), 'animal' refers to the kingdom 'animalia'. Neither one of us can up and decide that words should mean what we want them to mean.

For you to say that just because an animal has a limbic system or neocortex means that the animal has emotion would be like a two-year old saying that just because dogs have mouths they can talk.
Again, it's shocking that with all the evidence right in front of you, you still think you can just say "oh, the fact that I swallowed poison doesn't mean I'm going to get sick or die". What am I supposed to say to this, lol! Humans are the only animals with a limbic system or a cerebral cortex, why would you speculate that, inspite of other animal brains having the regions, they don't have emotion or are conscious.
I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say in the section that I’ve put in bold; I suspect it may be a typo. But as for the first part… what evidence? So mammals have a cerebral cortex. That does not mean that they have consciousness. The cerebral cortex performs a multitude of functions in the human brain, is it not possible that it performs all but one of those functions in another mammal’s brain. For you to say that all mammals with a cerebral cortex and limbic system means they have consciousness would be like me saying that just because an ostrich has wings means it can fly.
The_African wrote:I've presented no proof that other animals are sentient, only evidence. You haven't prevented proof or evidence and I'm supposed to accept your argument?
Well, if the onus of proof is on you, as you later agreed it could be…
The_African wrote:
You are the one who is trying to prove that something exists, i.e. an animal’s consciousness. The onus of proof is on you.
With this mentality, the onus is also on you to prove that other humans are sentient.
(This is fine with me… if you really want to go into a debate about whether other humans are sentient or not, I’m happy to do so, with the onus of proof on me. The only reason I haven’t delved into that one is because it seemed just a little off topic.)

Anyway, since the onus of proof is on you, I don’t have to present a scrap of evidence. All I need to do is show that your evidence is either not reliable, or does not substantiate your claim.
The_African wrote:I wonder what would happen if we removed a person's limbic system, reptilian brain stem or cerbral cortex, since these parts of the brain are no big deal and having them doesn't mean you are conscious/sentient...
You are committing one of the most basic logical fallacies in the book here. I said that just because an animal has a cerebral cortex and limbic system does not mean that they have a consciousness. You took that, and turned it into me saying that if an animal does not have a cerebral cortex and limbic system, it still may or may not have consciousness. I said no such thing.
The_African wrote:
And, incidentally, after doing some research on the limbic system, I am greatly surprised that you, or anyone else for that matter, believes that that structure is related to consciousness.
I never said it was. The limbic system plays a key role in mammalian emotions (beyond fear, aggression and pleasure). The cerebrum is the part of our brain thought to be responsible for consciousness. You have to be conscious to feel emotion.
From what I read, the limbic system is only responsible for some of the body’s most basic chemical functions, i.e. the autonomic nervous system. In fact, on Wikipedia, it is not stated as anywhere near fact.
Wikipedia is not an academic source and it's well known that the limib system plays a centrol role in emotion (among other things, I'm sure).
You say several times that Wikipedia is “not an academic source”. That’s all well and good, but you must follow that up with an academic source of your own contradicting what my source said. Until you do that, my evidence stands still reliable.

Moving on… I’m not denying that the limbic system may have a role in emotions. But you are assuming that the limbic systems of humans and of, say, dogs are identical, or at least similar enough to perform the exact same functions. Just because fiberglass insulates a house does not mean it fulfils the same role as the outer hull of a boat. Likewise, just because the limbic system is responsible for emotions in humans does not mean that it is responsible for emotions in dogs.
The_African wrote:
Snoopy wrote:
Wikipedia wrote: There is circumstantial evidence that the limbic system also provides a custodial function for the maintenance of a healthy conscious state of mind.
Circumstantial evidence? Custodial function? To me, that reads about like this:

“There is a chance that the limbic system might perform some of the functions necessary for consciousness.”

And, as for the neocortex, it is responsible for a multitude of functions…
Again, wikipedia is not an academic source but I don't see how any of this is evidence against other animals being conscious or sentient. The neocortex is found in all mammals (birds have a region of their brain that behaves like a mammalian neocortex), it is most prominent in primates. It still isn't exclusive to humans..
I’m not trying to use it as evidence against animals being sentient. I’m only saying that it cannot be used as evidence towards animals being sentient. To say that because an animal has a neocortex, it experiences an emotion, is a part-to-whole fallacy. I don’t deny that some neocortexes (human neocortexes) are responsible for emotion. But to go from some neocortexes are responsible for emotion to all animals with neocortexes experience emotion is simply illogical.
The_African wrote:
Wikipedia wrote: (About the neocortex) It is involved in higher functions such as sensory perception, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning, conscious thought and, in humans, language.
If the neocortex were responsible solely for consciousness, you might have a point. But as it is, that structure is responsible for a wide variety of functions. So, just because another animal has a neocortex does not mean it has conscious thought. To say this would be like saying that any animal with a neocortex is capable of language!

And, as I said, the neocortex of humans is much larger, in proportion to the brain, than that of other mammals.
The neocortex is only one part of the cerebral cortex and the fact that it has other functions besides consciousness is no argument against other mammals being conscious.
I’m not using it as evidence that other animals are not conscious. I’m only saying that it cannot be used as evidence for your points. And remember, that’s all I have to do, since the onus of proof is on you.
The_African wrote: A neocortex in one mammalian brain doesn't behave differently than a neocortex in another brain so whatever functions a human neocortex performs, we can expect the same in other mammals.
At last! The crux of your argument!

“A neocortex in one mammalian brain doesn’t behave differently than a neocortex in another brain…”

If this statement were true, then your argument would have a substantial piece of evidence. Unfortunately, it is simply not provable. Not only is it not provable, but we cannot even come close to proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. Why? Well, as I said, the brain is incredibly complex. You may be able to demonstrate that there are no structural differences between most mammalian brains. You may even be able to show some evidence that indicates that the neocortex is responsible for consciousness. But there is no way, with our very limited knowledge of the brain, that we can say that the neocortex behaves exactly the same in human brains as in other mammalian brains.
The_African wrote:Again, there is no absolute difference between a cow brain and a human brain. The differences are in size and proportion and whatever a human brain can accomplish that a cow brain cannot is a matter of *degree*.
Ah-hah… you said it again! There is no absolute difference between a cow brain and a human brain. There is simply not nearly enough evidence to support that statement. And if this statement is unsupported, so is your whole argument.

And, incidentally, you say that anything the neocortex can do in humans, it can do in other mammals. Does this mean that all mammals are capable of language?
The_African wrote: …and you are still presenting no evidence against other animals being sentient. All you are saying is "you can't prove that they are sentient, this doesn't prove that they are sentient" but it doesn't prove that they aren't either (and I recall you saying conclusively that they aren't).
Again, I don’t have to prove anything, since the onus of proof is on you. All I have to do is demonstrate that your arguments are logically invalid or lack sufficient evidence.
The_African wrote: Wikipedia is still not an academic source…
Maybe not. But before you go shooting down my references, you must have a more reliable resource of your own that contradicts mine. Until you do this, my resources stand reliable.
The_African wrote:
Uh-huh. And I’m sure that’s exactly what the scientists of Galileo’s day told him when he said he thought the earth was round.
LOL! This is such a meaningless argument. Science says something Snoopy agrees with, snoopy : cool. Science says something snoopy disagrees with, snoopy- well you know, they've been wrong before. This isn't evidence for why scientists are wrong in thinking that non-human mammals, reptiles, birds and cephalopods are sentient.
The point I was trying to make is that just because the “scientific community” accepts something, it is not necessarily true. We must examine the evidence for ourselves, rather then relying on the general consensus of other people. And, as I’ve said multiple times, I don’t need to present a shred of evidence in order to win the argument.
The_African wrote:
And I’m sure that Ignaz Semmelweis was faced with scientists who just sadly shook their heads and told him, “I don’t know what to tell you”, when Ignaz suggested for the first time that if doctors washed their hands before operating on patients, diseases would not spread. I’m sure his scientists laughed, and told him he was just paranoid.

But you know what? They were both right. And these are only a few of the hundreds of examples where the scientific community has rejected a good theory based on bias, or just plain old stupidity.
There is no proof that scientists who believe other animals are sentient are right. They could be wrong. There is no proof that other humans are sentient, I could be wrong in thinking that I'm debating with a conscious, thinking being. I have to work with the probability I have, science makes mistakes and you can't be absolutely certain about anything.
That’s why we have “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”.
The_African wrote:
The examples you gave have all been tested, and proven to work. The theory that other animals have sentience is not only poorly grounded, but next to impossible to test.
There is good evidence for other animals being sentient. You've presented no evidence for other animals not being sentient. Neither of us has presented any proof for our side, neither of us can test consciousness in non-human animals OR other humans. For you to say that the "theory" of other animals being sentient is poor grounded, my God, you are dogmatic and stubborn as hell.
Ah yes… we’ve all seen your one piece of evidence. The “fact” that the neocortex of a cow behaves exactly the same as the neocortex of the human brain, and that the only differences in function are of degree. You cannot honestly say that we have enough evidence to support that postulate.
The_African wrote:When I make a point, all you do is respond "that doesn't mean anything, that doesn't mean anything". Are you EVER going to present any evidence that suggests that humans are the only sentient species or is your only concern with disproving my unprovable/disprovable claims?
Well, not that I need to or anything… but…

If human consciousness has been millions, (or however long you believe…) of years in the making, then answer me this. Why is it that one of the oldest pieces of literature known to man, (the Bible), is as eloquently and beautifully written as it is? Wouldn’t you think that we would have some sort of much simpler texts on our hands, around the level of a five-year-old’s writings, much earlier then the Bible? Besides that, what about million-year-old buildings and cities? It’s not as though monkeys aren’t capable of doing these things? Why, if we have had conscious life for so long, is there no evidence of any advanced animal civilization? Seems to me that all these things, (language, architecture, etc., things that require conscious thought), just popped up out of nowhere within the past ten thousand years or so.
The_African wrote:
Surely even you must admit that consciousness had to “begin” somewhere. All I’m saying is that humans may be the first species to just barely cross the line and achieve consciousness.
Yes, consciousness must have began somewhere, but what causes consciousness (the cerebrum) didn't begin with humans so why would you argue that consciousness began with humans?
By that argument, you could also say that spoken language began with the first animal to have a cerebrum. I mean, it’s not as though the first mammals didn’t have mouths or vocal chords to communicate with, right? So, why don’t the lowest level mammals have at least a basic spoken language?
The_African wrote:
Surely even you must admit that consciousness had to “begin” somewhere. All I’m saying is that humans may be the first species to just barely cross the line and achieve consciousness.
Yes, consciousness must have began somewhere, but what causes consciousness (the cerebrum) didn't begin with humans so why would you argue that consciousness began with humans?
I certainly hope you’re joking. You cannot honestly believe that the chances of animals having consciousness are the same as that of the earth being round.
That's not the best comparison I could have come up with. The chances of other mammals being conscious are equal to the chances of other humans being conscious...

I can't prove either..
LOL… that’s even funnier than the first one…
The_African wrote:
You are the one who is trying to prove that something exists, i.e. an animal’s consciousness. The onus of proof is on you.
With this mentality, the onus is also on you to prove that other humans are sentient.

I can't prove that other animals are conscious but there's overwhelming evidence that suggests they are.
From your previous posts, it doesn’t sound like very “overwhelming evidence” to me. Sound to me like the whole thing has come down to whether or not there are any differences between the cerebral cortex of a human and a cow.
The_African wrote:
You can never prove anything 100% in science. So you prove that something is true beyond a reasonable doubt. Let me explain.

I can prove to you, beyond a reasonable doubt that the world is round, that the gravity constant is the same throughout the universe, that mules cannot reproduce, and that flowers grow from seeds. This is because there is absolutely no evidence to disprove any of those postulates, and the evidence for them is overwhelming. Evidence may someday present itself, but until it does, we say that those postulates are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
You remember which side you're arguing for, right?...

You're actually wrong, NOTHING but your own existence can be said to be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ah… you’re definitely wrong here. The term, “beyond a reasonable doubt”, by it’s very definition, means that something can be proven to that level. Exam the term carefully. Would it be reasonable to doubt that the earth is round? No, of course not. So we say that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth is round.
The_African wrote:
Let’s not forget… you’re the one who said only a few posts ago that you know that you’re right and that you know that I’m wrong.
You said that the idea of humans sharing 98% of their genes in common with chimps is laughable or something like that. This is common knowledge among genetecists, you simply cannot deny it. If I ever said I was right and you were wrong in response to any of your posts, I meant in terms of their being evidence for non-human sentience. I've admitted time and time again that I can't prove that other animals are conscious. *But* if you're going to be agnostic about non-human sentience, you also have to be agnostic about your not being the only human alive who is conscious. A point you ignore, time and time again.
I’ve said no such thing. I know what I believe, but I also know that I very well could be wrong. It is now up to you to convince me.
This is the first time you've admitted you could be wrong. I've said everything I could to convince you. There's evidence for non-human sentience, there's no evidence that only humans are sentient. Neither side can prove anything.

I've made this point 5 million times now. If I have to convince you that my cat is sentient, you should also have to convince me that you are sentient.
If you really want to take up the argument of whether or not other humans are sentient, we can. But the fact is that there is much more evidence for that than there is for other animals being sentient.
The_African wrote:
Let me just say that if those are the best you can come up with to demonstrate non-human altruism, you’re argument has even less credibility than I thought it did.
lol. Nothing could possibly convince you because you are dogmatic.
Nice try, but that’s another fallacy.
The_African wrote:
, and being to stupid to tell the difference between, say, a human and a baby dolphin. And besides, there are many more examples of animals being cruel, heartless and brutal to people than there are of animals being altruistic. See the story of Timothy Treadwell.
Yes, there are many examples of cruely in common chimpanzees, for example. I wouldn't say that a wolf who hunts is cruel, per se, they have to survive. Cruely and malice require empathy, I think.
So it’s okay for a wolf, a conscious, thinking being, (according to you) to hunt and kill, but it’s not okay of me to be “bigoted” towards those same animals the wolf is killing?
The_African wrote:And as for elephants mourning for their dead… give me a break! What did they do… dress in black, and walk down the road with their headlights on? Good grief… :roll:

As 'logical' as you are, you aren't even open minded to the possibility?

No ethologist denies that elephants mourn their dead. I couldn't tell you the details but they have a ceremony where the elephants gently touch the skulls and the trunk of the deceased.
It could be true, yes, but it can’t be used as evidence. There’s simply not enough empirical data.
The_African wrote:No ethologist denies that elephants mourn their dead. I couldn't tell you the details but they have a ceremony where the elephants gently touch the skulls and the trunk of the deceased.
Uh-oh… there you go again. I don’t think you really mean that no ethnologist denies that elephants mourn for there dead, until you’ve asked every single one. Better say that the scientific community says that elephants mourn for their dead. And we all know how accurate and reliable they are…
The_African wrote:Responding to this entire post was such a waste of my time, lol.
Sorry… you really don’t have to respond if you don’t want to. No one is forcing you to continue this discussion.


@Everyone else:
You all seem to be unhappy that The_African and I are arguing. The problem is, if no one ever argues about important issues, progress can never be made. If we just spent our whole lives standing around and singing Cum-by-yah, we’d never get anything done, and never make any new discoveries.

So, sorry that you’re not enjoying this, but you really don’t even have to read this thread.

Other animals DO have a lanugage and use it to communicate. Researchers at the Vancouver aquarium have confirmed that whales talk to one another. Just because there's no WRITTEN example of languange in other species besides humans doesn't prove that humans are the only animals capable of using language.

POST 2

There are no structural differences between mammalian brains of different species. We inherit our brain from a common set of ancestors. There are differences (like the fact that the neocortex in primate brains is more prominent than the neocortex in most non-primate mammals) but those are gradual differences, not black and white differences. Cats, dogs, pigs etc. may experience a different kind of consciousness (two humans may not even experience the exact same kind of consciousness, since no two human brains are exactly alike) than we do, but there are no black and white differences between what pigs feel and what humans feel. We have every reason (based on neuroanatomy) to believe that birds and other mammals are sentient.[/quote]
Again, this would be like a child looking at the inside of two computers. The child would see that both computers have the same basic components, mother board, processor, graphics card, etc. But would this mean that the computers can perform the same functions? No! Of course not!

You've got the whole thing wrong about how if a computer has the same components they won't have the same functions because all computers do have the same functions. Your example about how just because a dog has a mouth it would be wrong to assume that they can talk is out of whack. It should be changed to assuming that if an animal has a mouth they can eat. Yes, this goes for the fictional Andelites too. They don't have mouths on their faces but they had mouths of sorts where their hooves are.

POST 3
Snoopy wrote:Katie,

I think you probably just made the most important point in this whole thread. That is, why be so concerned about bigotry towards animals, when human beings are being treated much worse, (as in, being killed and persecuted for no good reason) all over the world. Seems a little out of balance.

And one other thing, kind of along these same lines... I wonder if The_African approves of abortion. Because, according to her, if an organism has a neocortex, they are conscious, sentient beings. I would think that he would be much more ticked off about the millions of unborn, (but still conscious and self-aware, according to The_African) babies that are being killed.
You don't mention that you would be sacrificing an unborn baby's life for the mother's. Since childbirth is excruciating and raising a kid would drain resources, energy and sanity. You can guess that I am pro choice.

POST 4

I have to agree with him on this point, but one complaint is that it seems the only argument made for people in posession of souls were for Blacks and that's all...

POST 5

And finally, on abortion, I don’t really want to delve into yet another side-topic here, but let me just say my two-cents worth. If you say that since a living, sentient human baby is inside the mother’s body, the mother has the right to kill it; then you might just as well say that if a baby was in the mother’s house, she could kill it as well. After all, it is her house, right? She should be able to do whatever she wants with it and anything inside of it. In reality, location really has nothing to do with it.[/quote]

People have killed others for being in their house, those killed are called robbers. That's beside the point though, since being in your BODY is not the same as being in your houe. You are totally objectifying women there, as if their bodies were buildings.

POST 6
Debs5595 wrote:wow people are still argueing over this

i agree with snoopy on what i would do if there were 2 people in a burning building

Also on abortion my take on it is that it is wrong it is basically muder unless the child severly deformed mentally or physically that it would make its life miserable
Are you two the same person? Seems all you do is support Snoopy's posts and the exact same location make it a bit fishy. Wouldn't put it past the guy to make up another person and pretend to support himself...lolol

POST 7

First: Yes, I gives more importances to an already full living woman and her personal choices than an unborn fetus.[/quote]
What about the unborn baby? You talk about the rights of the woman to be able to live her life how she wants… what about the rights of the baby? Does the baby have the right to live? Does the mother really have the right to kill another human being? The fact is that unborn babies are human beings, and they deserve all the rights of all other humans.
Helwi wrote:Second: No matter if a law forbids abortion, there still will be. And when it's not made by competent personal in a clean environment, such practice is even more dangerous for women or young girls.
Yes, there still will be abortions. But chances are that the number of abortions will be dramatically decreased. And as for the few women who will still end up getting abortions, I’m so sorry that they might get an infection that might cause them a little inconvenience as they kill their baby.
Helwi wrote:Third: If I push the reasoning even further about the importance of life of a fetus, what about all the spermatozoons that die every day? what about the ovums everytime a girl has her period? Don't they count as "potential babies?
A sperm cell does not count as a human. That would be absurd. Life begins when the sperm cell and the ovum come together to form a single cell, containing all the necessary genetic information for the development of the baby.[/quote]


You don't seem to be very aware of the dangers of childbirth or unsafe abortions. You know, it's not an infection that would likely happen, it's more like death. Also, yes. Yes, of course a full grown adult woman (or teenager for that matter) should be able to choose if she wants a baby. She is aware of herself and much more able to make a choice compared to some fetus. Also, you are so bent on trying to prove that animals have no soul. If it were proven, you'd feel a lot better about the way people have been treating them, wouldn't you? It's like The_African said, you like to think that only certain creatures have souls because then people would be justified in exploiting them. It also seems some people would sleep better knowing humans are somehow "special".

POST 8

I don't understand why you say an abortion is killing, because it is only a crime if it was unreasonable and the "victim" was a person. A fetus is a fetus. It can become a person, but that doesn't make it one. Also, you want to doom kids to a life of poverty and pain because it seems right for you to deny women their own reproductive freedom (and the mothers choosing abortion usually can't pay for a child + it is very easy for men to deny ALL responsibility so she could be a single parent too) ?

POST 9
Snoopy wrote:
Helwi wrote:Wow, I leave for a fiew days and it's already another page.

Hi! :D sorry I didn't answered you sooner Snoopy, but I'm very busy this year, so I can't take too much time tipping here.
No problem. I haven’t exactly been very prompt in my responses either.
Helwi wrote:But: lol, me? A tree-hugger? Where d' you get that idea? :P Don't be so manicheist, just because I don't share your view on some points does not means I am necessarily in the same category as The_African. Like the books says: there is no "black "and "white", only shades of grays (or colors, if you're not daltonnian :P )
Well, I was mostly referring to The_African. :)
Helwi wrote:
Snoopy wrote:Well, what’s wrong with evolution in theory? Boy… that’s a hard one to put in a nutshell, as we say. But, let me try. The code of life, the instruction manual, if you will, for building any living thing, from the tiniest bacterium to a human being, is called DNA. Now, this DNA is by far the most efficient method of storing information known to man. The DNA found in one single cell is equivalent to about .75 GB of information. Imagine how small we could make memory cards if we knew how to utilize that technology! Anyway, DNA contains very complicated instructions for building a living being, such as a human. It is simply absurd to believe that this DNA, as well as the incredibly well designed organisms we see all around us, appeared simply by random chance. It would be like looking at Mount Rushmore, and supposing that that was merely the work of random sand storms, or looking at Stonehenge, as postulating that the stones there simply happened to fall into that order due to an earthquake. Only it is so much more absurd, because the information found in DNA is orders and orders of magnitude more complex than either of those examples.
wow, I'm asking for your evidences agaisnt evolution, and I get a biology lesson. :?

Alright, maybe I wasn't very clear, I am indeed no scientist, (and I'm going to assume that you aren't either, considering your age) but that does not mean I never learnt about deoxyribonucleic acid, genes and such. Sorry for sounding so ignorant. :P

Though, I'm not sure if you tried to argue against the Theory of Evolution or the Abiogenesis Theory, Because, here, you're not refuting the Evolution, you're trying to disproove that life is a product of random chance, but the truth is that wether or not you're right, (and I have no reason to think you are right for the moment), it would still not disprove the evolution.

You're stating that because of the complexity of DNA, it would be absurd to think that it could only come by random chance. Reasonning by the absurd? Alright, but would you agree with me if I say that it would be absurd to think that the Earth emerged from Chaos like the Greeks believed? Or if I say that it would be absurd to believe that the universe and all its matter was created by magic by some omnipotent being that never shows up? See? It works as well as yours, and I can add that I find it absurd because it would contradict with Lavoisier's law of conservation of matter (Which you probably know already of) that state that "nothing can be lost, nothing can be created, everything is in constant change"(which is the reason why every chemical equation has to be adjusted).

And that's where the difference is, I'm adding a reliable reason to my reasoning. You have not for now (considering the univsers is considerably huge, a "random chance" still have some ratio).

You are taking the Mt Rushmore and Stonehenge as exemples of human designs to try to explain that you can't justify the apparition of life other than with some intelligent intervention. Letting out the fact that I find those examples inappropriate, because they're unliving material, did the humans who made them created the matters those two monuments are made of out of nowhere?

Well, I'm actualy studying in Art domain, therefore, I know a bit about artistic creation and design, and If there is something that I'm sure of, it is that I cannot make my materials pop out of nowhere (unfortunately) :D

Also, have you ever seen a building or a Stonehenge sprout off on its own? :lol: because, that's how life is going: on its own, you can't really compare it to those human built materials.

Anyway, Abiogenesis was not what I was talking about. And though I'm happy you share your fascination for life with me, I disagree somewhat when you say that our organism is so "incredibly well designed". I mean, sure, it's quite amasing, but it has a lot of flaws too: there are about one child out of 160 who is born with autistic troubles, (and that's just the autists) lots of people have to wear glasses, and the abortion is spontaneous in one case out of five. That is quite some troubles if you're asking me.

In order to disprove Evolution, you are going to have to refute the validity of the fossil records, the scientific datation, the already observed speciations and a bunch of other things.
Also, you're going to have to exlpain why whales posess a useless pelvis, why some human babies can have tails, what was the Archéoptéryx, why some snakes have remaining bumps of limb, why the Proteus, a cave batracian, start developing eyes for a time as an embryo which are later resorbed, why I am lacking three adult teeth which have never grown, even though my parents do not lack any of these.

If you can come with satisfying, reasonnable answers to these, and, of course, manage to disprove all the scientific searches which gives the Theory its importance, it would be a pleasure for me to listen to you. :)
Well, we’re already covering this ground over in the evolution thread, so I’m not going to respond to this portion point by point. Rather, I’ll just hit a few of the highlights.

First of all, in order to explain life on earth using evolution, you must first explain how life got here. Now, unless you’re willing to say that the very first cell was actually created by an intelligent agent, and then evolution took over from there, then you must rely on the theory of Abiogenesis to explain where life came from. So you see, without Abiogenesis, you have no foundation to stand on.

Also, I’m not arguing that a god created all matter from absolute nothingness. In fact, I’m not arguing for the existence of a god at all. All I’m saying is that life on earth had to be designed by some intelligent agent. It could have been a god; it could have been the aliens. Frankly, that’s not what this thread is about.

Any other points that you would like me to answer, please bring up in the evolution thread and I will be glad to do so.
Helwi wrote:
Snoopy wrote:So, it’s dependency that determines whether or not someone is a human, with all the rights of a human? Because in that case, you must also conclude that those on heart/lung machines are not human. After all, if the patient were removed from the heart/lung machine, they would die. Does that mean that they are not really human beings and that its okay to kill them if their caretaker doesn’t feel like paying the medical bills?
A human witn only one lung lacking would live, though :D . But it's not like those patients never had these fully formed before. The fetuses don't have them yet.
So what? If you follow that line of reasoning, you could say that it isn’t wrong to kill a male child under the age of 20, since all his organs are still not fully developed. Do you really want to say that it’s okay to murder a partially developed human? Because if so, then that means it should also be okay to kill any child who is not fully developed. And what about people with genetic disorders, who may never develop certain organs? Is it okay to kill them?
Helwi wrote:
Snoopy wrote:And so now we come full circle, to the question of whether or not animals are sentient and deserve to be treated with the same rights as humans. Since I believe they do not deserve the same rights, I at least am consistent with myself. Whereas people like The_African who believe that sentience is the qualification for whether or not an animal deserves the same rights as humans, gives no thought to the unborn baby who we know is sentient, at least as much as we know any other human is sentient. And no, an unborn baby’s innocence is not hard to determine. They are no more or less innocent than a murder victim.
Actualy, I was only talking about "innocence", not sentiencies. The lices have no malice against you when they suck your blood, in that regard, they're "innocent" :P . Innocence is a philosophical question, hence, the reason why it is so tricky.
Oh, I don’t think innocence is that tricky at all. See, I think that the lice I kill when I wash my hair are innocent, the cows that are slaughtered every day are innocent, and the plants I kill when I use Weed and Feed are innocent. And yet I can kill them with a perfectly clean conscience. Why? Well, it’s because I believe these creatures are not sentient, and therefore are not deserving of the same rights as a human being. However, we know that the fetus inside the womb is sentient as well as innocent, so it is wrong to kill it.
Helwi wrote:
Snoopy wrote:Like I said, circumstantial evidence can be enough to be sure, given that it has a proper degree of certainty.
Uh, somehow, I feel some contradictions with your post before. If it cannot be a sure source in science, then, there are obviously a lot of doubts in justice too. Didn't you quote one exemple of those before?
No, of course this is not a contradiction. As I’ve said time and time again, it depends on the degree of certainty of the evidence in question.
Helwi wrote:
Snoopy wrote:This is a problem of actuation, not of principle. True, there have probably been many, many executions of innocent people for crimes they did not commit. That does not mean the principle, (if someone takes a human life, they deserve death), is flawed, it only means that those carrying it out are not doing it right. This is a subtle but very important distinction.
I wonder, if you would have the same mentality, were you sentenced for a crime you didn't commit (I'm going to bet on yes :P )
You make a good point; the innocent man judged guilty who is being strapped to the electric chair probably does not share my views. And if I were in that situation, I would probably be protesting pretty loudly too. And to be sure, we should always be looking for new ways to make sure our justice system is reliable. But that still does not negate the principle.
Helwi wrote:By "principle", you mean the "Talion" law? "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"? Well, sure, it is a begining of law, I grant you that. Like in a lot of countries in the world: If you steal, your hand is cut, if you murder, you have to die, if you commit adultery, you have to die... indeed, this principle is so right that it is still applied a lot... or maybe it isn't so right, as the law is actualy doing what it forbids, quite the contradiction.
You just don’t get it, do you? Executing the murderer is not the same thing as killing the murder victim. Why? Well, what is the definition of “murder”?
Wikipedia wrote: Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification.
But even deeper than that, murder is the killing of an innocent person, who does not deserve to die. Murder victims, as well as fetuses, are innocent. Murderers are not. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it.
Helwi wrote:Though, I'll have to ask how exactly you can manage to remake the system be absolutely certain that those who are judged guilty commited those crime, as you seem to be so sure you know how to do.
That isn’t the problem in question. This is a question of principle, not actuation.
Helwi wrote:
Snoopy wrote:I’m saying that I’m not sure I know the right answer. In one way, the Animorphs were sure to be found out and infested if David were allowed to live, but in another way, David did not technically commit a capital offense. I don’t really know what the right answer is on that one.

Killing David was only my personal opinion at the time, that doesn’t mean I’m giving myself the right to decide whether or not it’s better for a person to be dead or alive. And you’re right, it’s only your personal opinion. My personal opinion is that if a person has never done something wrong, they deserve a chance to at least be born.
There is no "right" or "wrong" answer, there are just those that allow you to survive and those that don't. Though you said you were for death penality, therefore, you do give yourself the right to decide if it's better for a person to be dead or alive.
You just revealed a lot about your worldview there, and I’m very glad you did. So, you truly believe that there was no “right” or “wrong” answer? Do you mean to imply that all morality is relative? And deeper still, is there ever a “right” or “wrong” answer? These are crucial questions that I hope you will think about and answer carefully.
Helwi wrote:What I think is that wether a fetuses become human or not, it is already a factor of chance, the woman it is develloping in is also one of the factor; if the woman wanted it, then good for it, if not, it was unlucky for it.
Well then, could not the same be said of victims of the holocaust? You know, religion was one factor, Hitler was another; if Hitler felt like not killing that particular person, then good for it, if not, then, “oh well”?
Helwi wrote:
Snoopy wrote:Guns are a right given to us in the United States Constitution. Now, you may say that making guns legal will cause more deaths, and that may or may not be true. (I’m not going to go into gun control here, although you can probably guess my views on the subject ;). ) But still, making guns legal is not the same as making murder legal. It would be like saying we should make alcohol illegal, since that would help prevent drunk driving violations.
Wether or not guns are causing more deaths, I'm pretty sure it was already demonstrated that it does, but you'better check it out yourself.
Actually, I have checked it out for myself, and the findings are very shocking. But just let me point out that anywhere that guns are illegal, the only people who will have guns are, by default, criminals? Do you really want to force law-abiding citizens to abide by that huge disadvantage?
Helwi wrote:Interesting how you can compare a killing machine with a drink.
A gun is not a “killing machine” any more than a car, a shovel, a stick of dynamite, or a pool of water. All of those things are capable of killing, but does that make them “killing machines”? Of course not. Guns do not kill people. The person who pulls the trigger is the one doing the killing, not the guns.
Helwi wrote:On a side note, it's interesting how you nickname pro-choices "pro-death" when you willingly declare that you support some human killings.
How much clearer do I need to make it? Murderers are guilty. They deserve to die! Murder victims are innocent. They do not deserve to die. And unless you are going to argue from the position of total moral relativism, (which it would be an absolute pleasure to refute, I assure you), than you cannot really contradict this without presenting some moral philosophy of your own.
Helwi wrote:
Snoopy wrote:Ah… here’s where we differ! You see, I still believe the words of the Declaration of Independence, the founding document and charter of the United States of America. It says:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Emphasis added.)

You see the subtle, but oh so important difference? The Declaration of Independence says nothing about being born or not, but rather it says that all men are created equal. What about the unborn baby? Does the unborn baby have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Darn, you got me there, I completely forgot about your unique constitution. That explains some things.

On a side note, it is quite interesting, the way your country is following a capitalist ideology while being theologicaly affiliated. True capitalism isn't supporting any belief, did you know that?
Actually, true capitalism is an economic system. It can be affiliated with God, Buddha, or the boogey-man for all I care. True capitalism can support any belief it likes. And our “unique constitution” (it’s the Declaration of Independence actually, but I’ll let it slide), is one of the reasons America is the greatest, most powerful country on earth.
Helwi wrote:Well, here is the part I really hate, but you kind of put the bases on the first part of your post, so I'm going to took it again.

In order to persuade me that life was created, you used Stonehenge and Mt Rushemore as examples of intelligent design, let's take those two and compare to the fetuses and humans, as you seem keen of comparing living with non-living.

Before the Mt Rushmore was carved, was it already a work of the human art? And as it was carved, was it one already? Was Stonehenge more than rocks before men laid their hands on those? And was it already Stonehenge as it was in construction? Is a mall already a mall before it is finished? Or can it be stopped and be something else like aa abbandonned construction site?

This is why is dislike the word "creation" when applying to living, it is like reducing something to an object or work of art.
Of course not. And just as the rocks that compose Stonehenge are nothing more than rocks before they are put together, so the proteins that form the baby are nothing more than proteins until they come together to form the baby’s organs. But once again, if you’re going to argue from the level of development platform, than you must be prepared to support the killing of any human being who is not fully developed, and that includes and child under the age of 20.
Helwi wrote:
Snoopy wrote:Just because a baby is dependent does not mean that it does not have rights. There are hundreds of pre-maturely born babies who, the moment they’re born, must be placed in intensive care. Do these babies count as viable? They’re not really capable of surviving outside of the mother’s womb any more than an unborn baby. Does that mean it’s okay to kill them?
If they are not viable, then you don't even have to kill them, you know?
I cannot really believe that you are not this ignorant. What do you think abortion is? It is the killing of a baby while it is still in the mother’s womb. And in many cases, the baby still comes out of the womb alive. In fact, many abortion attempts fail, and the babies are left out to die. And it can take eight hours or more for theses abortion surviving “non-viable” babies, that “don’t really need to be killed” to die.
Helwi wrote:Well, to tell you the truth, I'm not necessarily for saving every children that are born. Pre-matured can have a lot of problems linked to their conditions, they can have mental problems which could ruin their lives, but the doctors are saving everyone, even thoses that would not have survived, that's what they do, even if it means giving the family a mentally disabled child to take care of. I heard of a man who was born with both autism and trisomy. The doctor said it was a science miracle, well, I doubt you would qualify this poor man as a "miraclous". He died in his twenties.
I must tell you, I am shocked and astonished that someone as “humane” as you is saying this. Do you have any idea what you are saying? I have known countless mentally and physically disabled children who love their lives, and who’s families love them deeply. Do you really believe it would be right to let these children die as babies? And if you are going to say that we should kill babies that are not quite as smart as other babies, then where do you stop? You could carry that argument further and say that we kill anyone who is not above a certain IQ. Are you saying we should let human beings die just because they are not smart enough?
Helwi wrote:
Snoopy wrote: "True, there are a lot of people wanting to be parent, and a lot of orphans too.

Not too long ago, I heard of a 19 year old girl who was kicked out of the orphan she lived in when she reached adultehood and was forced to live as a hobo. Well, apparently, the wannabe parents did not want her. What make you think it is so easy? "


Sure, there are some cases of unwanted children, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t many more cases of parents desperately wanting children, and jumping through all sorts of hoops to become parents.

It's a numb argument, if there are already children in the streets when abortion is legalised, there wont be less if it's forbidden.

And like I said, those children are already often social cases and it's very hard for them.
So we’re going to kill babies because they are unwanted? So much for “humane”.
Helwi wrote:
Snoopy wrote: The unborn baby is not a part of the women’s body; it is a human being that happens to still need the support of the mother’s body, just as an injured person is a human being, rather than a part of the heart/lung machine he may be on.
It has yet to be a human being, it is a potential human being like a lot of other things are.
And yet it is sentient, has hands, feet, toes, eyes, ears, a heart and lungs just like you and me, and after being aborted often survives for hours, and you still say it is okay to kill it?
Helwi wrote:
Snoopy wrote:I look in the mirror every day and ask myself if I know what I believe to be true. And every time, I have not the slightest doubt that a baby, born or unborn, is a human being and deserves to be treated like one.
And yet, you can still demand death penality to other human being, and that is one truth. And those ones are truly, without a doubt, humans.
For about the third time in this post, one is innocent, the other is guilty. ‘Nuff said.
Helwi wrote:
Snoopy wrote:Let me just say that I do not really fault all the women who have abortions. I know that folks like the people at Planned Parenthood are very good at making it sound like a perfectly moral thing to do. I don’t really blame the women who may not know any better, I blame the people who are well informed, and yet perform abortions.
You shouldn't worry about well-informed people, they're those who take the contraceptive pills the first. It's not a fun thing to do, do you really think a woman would take the risk to have to do one for her own pleasure?
No, but she certainly would risk having one for her own convenience.
Helwi wrote:
Snoopy wrote:Rape is a very, very serious crime. The man who raped this girl deserves imprisonment, in my opinion. And, if the girl’s life was at stake due to the forced pregnancy, that is the one instance where an abortion might be justified.


:? Well, that's something new I heard from you. I wonder why you did not even comment on that girl in the message where I told her story instead of blatantly judge her. Make me wonder if you read it...
Sorry… I did read it, but a response just seemed to fit better in this last post.
Helwi wrote:
Snoopy wrote:A women has a right not to get pregnant, and if she does get pregnant, she can always put the baby up for adoption. Abandonment and abortion are not the only two options.

And, using this argument, you could also say that the parent of a young child has the right to decide whether or not to feed the child. After all, it’s the parent’s food. Should the parent be allowed to have the child killed, simply because he or she cannot afford or does not want to provide the child with food?
A woman has the right to dispose of her body and we have nothing to say against that. Unless we're extremist.

As for the second part, the answer is in the Declaration of Human's Rights.
The baby is not her own body. It is a human who happens to be dependent on her. If you say that the baby is really a part of the woman’s body, than that means that the woman has two heads, four hands, and four feet! Is this really the line of reasoning you want to follow? If the baby is a boy, that means the woman has a penis. How much further do you want to go down this trail of absurd reasoning?

As someone has tried to tell you before, an abortion is not a matter of convenience. Sometimes it is a matter of life and death.

Like you said with other animals; can you prove a fetus is sentinent?
Last edited by Elfangor on Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: WOW! Never seen this many posts by a single user in a row. O_o

templar5811
Civilian
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:24 pm
Gender: [Male][/Male]

Re: K.A Applegate is a stereotyping bigot

Post by templar5811 » Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:50 pm

all this over a cat...wow

User avatar
TF.
Poke'mon Master
Poke'mon Master
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:19 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Location: We can't tell you who we are. Or where we live. It's too risky... (Australia)

Re: K.A Applegate is a stereotyping bigot

Post by TF. » Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:32 pm

I would almost agree if it was mentioned that Cassie's [black] family consists of veterinarians, since modern tv/film/books generally put black people in such positions. The same could be said of Rachel, a white girl with a focus on physical appearance and strong opinions. Or Marco, almost living in poverty for the first 5 books and having a broken family. Or the mentions that old people and parents get, etc.

The cat thing seems pretty legit, since you can't really expect such animals to feel any sort of 'love' for a human.
Image Image Image Image

User avatar
Diana moon goddess
War-Prince
War-Prince
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:16 pm
Gender: [Female][/Female]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: somewhere on a planet called earth with lots of freshwater, mountains, trees and constant rain

Re: K.A Applegate is a stereotyping bigot

Post by Diana moon goddess » Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:59 pm

how did we get from cats to abortion?

User avatar
TF.
Poke'mon Master
Poke'mon Master
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:19 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Location: We can't tell you who we are. Or where we live. It's too risky... (Australia)

Re: K.A Applegate is a stereotyping bigot

Post by TF. » Sat Nov 27, 2010 3:16 pm

Shame on you, Anithropomorphic, derailing a topic like this.


It is better than religious fundamentalism to Pokemon. ;)
Image Image Image Image

User avatar
Diana moon goddess
War-Prince
War-Prince
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:16 pm
Gender: [Female][/Female]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: somewhere on a planet called earth with lots of freshwater, mountains, trees and constant rain

Re: K.A Applegate is a stereotyping bigot

Post by Diana moon goddess » Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:00 pm

TF. wrote:It is better than religious fundamentalism to Pokemon. ;)
true that.

User avatar
TF.
Poke'mon Master
Poke'mon Master
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:19 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Location: We can't tell you who we are. Or where we live. It's too risky... (Australia)

Re: K.A Applegate is a stereotyping bigot

Post by TF. » Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:41 pm

Anyway, how annoying is it that Scyther couldn't learn fly in the first few generations?!


edit: damnit! There's language in this comic.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Image Image Image Image

User avatar
Sassy_Cat
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 1311
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:23 pm
Gender: [Female][/Female]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Third rock from Sol, Orion's Arm, Milkyway galaxy

Re: K.A Applegate is a stereotyping bigot

Post by Sassy_Cat » Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:32 pm

*Shrugs* As the cat of the forum, I have to say, that's almost true. We aren't always too intrested in humans. They were the ones who kidnapped us and put us to work all those years ago. But your food stinks. Mice, fresh caught fish, squirrels, anything is better then that *beep*ed Whiskas.
"Don't think. Thinking is the enemy of creativity. It's self-conscious, and anything self-conscious is lousy. You can't try to do things. You simply must do things."
- Ray Bradbury

My amazing blog- http://yasreadyas.blogspot.com/

User avatar
BSerAkafanofblake
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 2020
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:51 pm
Favourite Animorph: Tobias

Re: K.A Applegate is a stereotyping bigot

Post by BSerAkafanofblake » Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:22 pm

excuse your french.
Image