Some &*$###basterd shot a cat with a crossbow

[GotGusto]

"Sorry dude, you're going to have to quote me where I wrote, "Hitler supported animal rights"."
I just did.
Next?
(Aren't you getting tired of being wrong?)

No, you didn't.

arthur, you're still a good kid. I'm happy to see you trying to sharpen your skills. You have a ways to go lad, but you're getting there.

"No, I think it's pretty clear to everyone reading this thread that you and I are quite different entities, GotGodwin.

We certainly are, son.

It's pretty clear you're not anything of the sort - learned, educated, booksmart, streetsmart, wise ...
Pick an adjective.


Thanks.

arthur your attempts to rattle me are indicative of your age and your present ability. With LOTS of effort, some day, you too can be as learned as me.

 

[GotGusto]

Precise, or accurate? They're two different things.
And if you learned to spell, it might help.
ROTFL
Another one you're going to lose, GotGodwin ...
But, you're not defending yourself.
Good.
Next?

Both.

Has my damned spellchecker stopped working again? What's many mispelled words tally thus far?

Good eye kid.

I read. I replied. Try stating something useful to your argument - like defending any one of the many attacks I've used to destroy your logic.

So, you're not debating that your argument was circular?
Excellent.
Next?

Jesus Christ arthur...

Right.
Circular argument, as I've already said.
ROTFL
You just can't help but making my point for me, can you?
Next?

Are you new to this debating thing?

You haven't made any.

And yet you expend so much energy. Are you cutting class right now? Time to hit the books again arthur...

Do you know what "circular argument means"?
Look it up, and report back.
'Cause that's a classic example.
Unless you want to say WHY they're inhumane and irrational (in other words, wrong).
LOL

Do you want to have that debate? I'm ready if you are. But that wasn't the point of our current debate, now was it?

And yet you keep on coming back to your reductio ad Hitlerum.
Well, perhaps better than your circular nonsense.

arthur, I can only hold your hand for so long. Now it's time for you to take those first few steps alone.

What does "wrong" mean? Inhumane and irrational?
If so, you've said "X is wrong because X is wrong."
Circular.

I would argue that an inhumane act is wrong, yes. Something being irrational is not necessarily wrong, no.

And no, it's not a circular argument.

"Animal Rights is wrong because it is inhumane and immoral" is not the same as "Animal Rights is wrong because animal rights is wrong".

On the very first page I provided an example: if some of my family members had to choose between saving a child and their favorite pet, they would choose the pet. I would make the case that this is inhumane and wrong. You may argue otherwise, as many would.

You haven't made ONE SINGLE POINT to prove that it's inhumane or irrational.
You're *begging the question*.

We're not having that debate. Did you want to start?

I've made ad hominems when you've made them to me. You'll learn, as you gain wisdom, that you get back what you put out. If you're disrespectful, you'll get disrespect back.

And here I thought you were the enlightened one between us. *Aw Shucks*

And, while they may not weaken the inherent strength of an argument, it's not clear what the inherent strength of yours is - and they most definitely weaken YOUR argument, as it seems you have nothing else to say.

*shakes fist*

Sure I could "prove" them - by arguing.
LOTS of ethics and morality is supported by logic.
And the fact remains that you cannot properly argue (that is, "prove") your point by being illogical - argumentum ad hominem, reductio ad Hitlerum, petitio principii, etc.

Perfect word selection: Immoral.

GotGodwin: "The Nazi Germany illustration merely supports the argument, it doesn't prove anything."
me: "HOW does it support the argument?"
GotGodwin: "I argued that it is irrational and inhumane to treat and protect animals the same as humans."

Right. Exactly my point. You're either being circular, or arguing that the fact that the Nazis supported this viewpoint is damning - reductio ad Hitlerum.
Once again, you prove my point.
Next?

With or without Nazi support of similar policies, it would still be inhumane, immoral, unjust, improper, wrong, distasteful, and uncivilized, to treat animals in the same way that humans are treated. My argument doesn't hinge on Hitler or the Nazis outlook on the issue at all.

Or, it's TOTALLY obvious to me and everyone else that your arguments are nonsensical.
Next?

You read minds, too?

 

[GotGusto]

GotGodwin: "Sorry dude, you're going to have to quote me where I wrote, "Hitler supported animal rights"."
me: post pointing out precisely where you posted a link, without comment, then pulling the first two sentences verbatim, saying precisely that
...
GotGodwin: "No, you didn't."

ROTFL
Ever see the Python sketch about arguments? LOL

So anytime somebody posts a link it means they're saying as well as agreeing with everything that is in the link?

I posted it because of the general information it contained about Nazi policy toward animals.

Dude, if you don't want to agree with something, don't post a link to it. Be more careful next time. LOLOLOL

Wow, OK.

Ah, so I am arguing with someone - you.
Wrong again.
Next?

This post makes no sense???

You've proven how "learned" you are.
LOL

Next?

You're so confident arthur. Did you pop your cherry today?

 

[Mia.Colpa]

Hey you two, Fonzerelli and Gusto, get a room. I have no idea what the bantering is as I did not, and have no desire, to read all your posts, but visually it looks like two kids going at it. You're both taking up too much bandwidth.

 

[jiiimmm]

pretty serious stuff here!

 

[GotGusto]

Nah, I'm going to keep fucking with this recent college grad.

 

[GotGusto]

arthur, as long as it takes. I've got time. shouldn't you be working to pay off those big tuition debts? lol

 

[GotGusto]

arthur took you awhile. I'm going to respond in kind a bit later. You'll learn yet kid.

 

[GotGusto]

Ummmm ... no.
LOL
Next?

Your reply makes no sense.

Next?

"What's many mispelled words tally thus far?"
Sorry, I can't respond if you don't make any sense.

Don't plan on becoming a teacher, OK? What did they teach you in college anyway?

Sorry, I don't believe.
Glad you're not arguing anymore.
Next?

Earlier you seemed at least familiar with English vernacular. Now, not so much.

ad hominem
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Next?


ad hominem
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Next?
And you continue to be wrong. I finished school looooooong ago, GotGodwin.

You shouldn't be such an easy target if you finished school so long ago. College called, they want your degree back.

I'm not necessarily interested in the debate - you haven't proved yourself remotely worthy of an intelligent discourse.
But, you may look better if you TRY to post something in support of your argument. Anything. Go ahead, try it. See what happens.
Something that's NOT a logical fallacy.
LOL

One minute you're interested in debating, another you're not. You need to stick to something son.

ad hominem
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Next?
Glad you've STILL stopped arguing, though.
LOL

Don't just move along folks. Get a hardy laugh first. He says I stopped arguing yet doesn't want to debate, and then he wants to debate. Talk about circular, lol. Get your story straight.

ROTFL
Wayda go out on a limb.
Care to stop being circular and say something meaningful?

I've tried. You're a bit thick. I don't mean that in the good way. haha

Possibly, but in the way you're using it, yes, it is.
You're just saying words like "wrong", "irrational", "inhumane", as if they're mutually supportive, rather than being essentially synonyms.
Circular argument.
Next?

By any other name, the sky is blue. For the record, yes, some things are wrong. Some more self-evident that others. But talking with you... I might as well be talking to a tree stump.

GotGodwin: "Animal rights are wrong."
me: "Why?"
GotGodwin: "Because they're inhumane."
me: "WHY?"
GotGodwin: "Because they're irrational."
me: "Circular argument."
...
GotGodwin: "No, it isn't."
LOL
Python calling ........

I never cared for British humor. Can you reference something more contemporary, old fella?

arthurfonzerelli: "why is animal rights wrong?"

GotGodwin: "Animals are not human and should not be elevated to human status"

arthurfonzerelli: "why?"

GotGodwin: "Because that would be an upside down world, an inhumane world where human life can be forfieted for the lives of pets"

arthurfonzerelli: "why is that wrong?"

*timeline*

GotGodwin: "Look, we're now at the 100th reason. You can either accept it or not"

arthurfonzerelli: "why is that wrong?"

GotGodwin: "You must be dim"

arthurfonzerelli: "why is that wrong?"

GotGodwin: "Yup"

Since you haven't provided ANYTHING to back up your statement about being inhumane or immoral or irrational, the only thing left is your circular argument.
Next?

Stop embarrasing yourself.

What do your childhood traumas have to do with society at large?
Obviously, you've been traumatized by the actions of your family.
Sorry.
Don't blame the rest of us.
... And, it has nothing to do with your reductio at Hitlerum. ROTFL

What on Earth are you going on about? lol

Not particularly, to be honest. Again, you haven't demonstrated much capacity for logic.

Good. If it doesn't make sense to you, I'm doing well.

I wanted to point out the fatal errors in your logic to this point, and specifically why you were being called out for Godwin.
If it's not yet clear to you why that happened, there really isn't any help for you.

I'm saddened to know I'm not going to have to read the same old from you yet again.

ad hominem
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Next?

arthur is ad hominem crazy today. Say it three times fast, it's like a tongue twister.

In no society on earth are animals treated ON THE WHOLE in the same way that humans are treated. None. Nada.

Good.

In most of them, the VAST majority are brutally slaughtered, treated cavalierly, or at most tolerated.

We're not talking about the majority of animals nor are we talking about the majoirty of societies.

Your ONE TINY example about how some family member dissed you seems pretty petty.
Next?

Nobody dissed me. Learn to read son.

 

[GotGusto]

Dude, you couldn't fuck with an electrified fucking machine on the fuckingest day of your life.

"Recent college grad"?!
ROTFL

You NEVER stop being wrong, do you!
LOL

I find it humorous that you appear like a recent college grad, too. haha

Graduated 20 years ago.
No debts then, nothing but bank now.

Sorry to burst your little bubble, GotGodwin. LOLOLOL

GotGodwin: "Once, my mommy saved our cat from a fire and left me to burn. Animal rights are wrong, because they're immoral and inhumane and irrational and wrong. Hitler and the other Nazis supported animal rights. QED."

ROTFLMFAO

This, whatever it is, makes as much sense as anything else you've posted.

Who left me in a fire? When did that happen? What is this??? lol

I've ruffled poor arthurs feathers lol.

How do you type while wearing a straight-jacket?

Yeah, I had dinner. Sorry if some of us have money enough to feed ourselves properly - you seem bitter. I can see why you're upset at people having pets - some of them must have better lives than you.

ad hominem

Next?

See how that works? LOL

I enjoyed my animal flesh. See, one of the privileges of living in a CIVILIZED society, is we can distinguish between animals that we like to eat, and ones that we don't.

What society would that be? Can I fry up a cat or dog today? Nope.

It's a little taboo, yeah, but so? I just fed my dog, too. And, yeah, I'd save him from a fire before you.

No doubt you would. You're just as loopy as the other extreme animal lovers. That's been crystal clear from your first post onward...

Yet I would save you over ANY animal. Who's civilized now?

I pray that you don't work in an industry where humans depend on you to survive.

You'll learn yet, dumbass.

Next?

The heat is getting to poor arthur. He's resorted to the very thing he so opposed earlier. His beloved ad hominems

 

[GotGusto]

arthurfonzerelli = extreme animal lover

You could have saved yourself all the drivel you've posted by calling yourself what you are. I knew this about you ever since you took the bait. I know how pea brains like yours work. You'll go to any length to defend your little doggy and you'll gladly save them over a human.

 

[GotGusto]

So arthur, you finished college over 20 years ago. So you're what, mid 40s? You're not so old that one can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Anytime you want to learn, come on over and I'll teach you, for free. Every right answer you get, I'll throw you a cracker. And I'll give your dog a steak lol.

 

[GotGusto]

It's a little taboo, yeah, but so? I just fed my dog, too. And, yeah, I'd save him from a fire before you.

No doubt you would. True colors revealed. You're just as loopy as the other extreme animal lovers. That's been crystal clear from your first post onward...

Yet I would save you over ANY animal. Who's civilized now?

 

[GotGusto]

Sure it does. I was both accurate AND precise, and it's clear you don't know the difference.
LOL
Next?

It's clear that my mind is firmly grounded and yours is in space somewhere.

Why don't you guess? Or are you tired of being wrong?
ad hominem
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Next?

ad hominem
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Next?

The reality would be funnier, and possibly ironic.

Sorry, I didn't go to college. I went to university. Precision, precision.
ad hominem
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Next?

You do realize that university and college are the same thing? Let me help you out: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/college

I think you meant highschool. I can see that maybe you graduated from highschool but not from any reputable university.

I'm sticking to my guns that your arguments are pitiful ad hominems, petitio principii, and reductio ad Hitlerums.
It's fun watching you backpedal out of the Godwin.
ROTFL
That's all it's ever been.

Don't you have a pet to save over a human child somewhere?

Do you even know what circular means?
No, no, you don't.
LOL

Typical animal lover so deep in love his emotions he starts spouting off nonsense.

I'LL tell you what I want to debate you about. And you'll like it, dumbass. Learn your place.

ad hominem
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Next?

"that others"? You mean "than others"? LOL
"Self-evident". Right. Precisely. Circular.
LOL

This middle aged man pointed out a typo. haha

Too sophisticated and left-wing for you, obviously.
ROTFL

Nah, too obvious and slapstick. I see why you would enjoy it.

WHOA!
You NEVER said, except in your one little allegory, which may or may not be true, that people were talking about elevating animals to "human status".

If you think that's the case - that many, most or even SOME people in western society want to elevate animals to "human status" - you're certifiably insane. Read that again: certifiably insane.

You just posted that you would save an animal over my life. The certifiably insane label belongs to you. If that's not elevating animals to and beyond human status, what is?

Saying that "animals should be treated without cruelty" is the same as "animals should have human status" is a pretty embarrassing argument, dude.

No, what's embarrasing, shameful, and insane, is you propping the lives of animals OVER humans. Your words, not mine. You lose. Try another time, son.
In the interim, seek professional help.

 

[Doctor Zoidburg]

Saying that "animals should be treated without cruelty" is the same as "animals should have human status" is a pretty embarrassing argument, dude.

Saying that "animals should be treated without cruelty" is the NOTthe same as saying"animals should have human status".

You seem to like to put words in other peoples mouths and twist things around to win an argument. Animals should be treated without cruelty. I would like to know what backward old country mentality makes you believe that God put animals on this earth for your convenience and you have the right to mistreat them.

It would be a good thing for you to ignore this piffle, that way we will not have to endure you borish gum flapping!

 

[GotGusto]

I'd rather you didn't touch me.
Ever.
Thanks, anyway, Godwinite.

The words of an rabidly insane dog lover.

Don't argue with arthur on a message board folks. If time ever comes between your life and his dog, you're going to lose. lol psychopathology at its finest.

 

[GotGusto]

I think I'm gonna start pushing for dogs to get the vote.
I mean, if they have "human status".

ROTFLMFAO

If a donkey could vote, you'd be the first in line to let it. Sounds crazy yet in the same breathe you're a guy that prefers pets lives over people. Fucked up mind.

 

[GotGusto]

Saying that "animals should be treated without cruelty" .. . is a pretty embarrassing argument, dude.

What did you have for dinner again? Thought so. Stick to veggies or eat crow.

 

[GotGusto]

No, we live in Canada, here, and colleges and universities are different entities. For instance, "Ryerson College" is now "Ryerson University". I guess THEY thought there was a difference.

In Britain and Canada, not the rest of the world. The words are used interchangeably. Is this and typos all you have to go on?

Oh, no, you TOTALLY misunderstood me.
I'd save MY DOG over YOU from a fire. Not any pet over any human child. Frankly, there wouldn't be anything to think about - I'd save the human life, first.
I was talking about YOU, GotGodwin. I'd leave YOU in a fire.

Just so we're clear.

LOL all this message board talk has gotten right under your skin. Hilarious.

British humour. Obvious and slapstick.
LOLOLOLOL
Unlike Cheech and Chong or the Three Stooges.
ROTFL

Figures Insane Dog Loving Mr. Tree Hugger would refernce Cheech and Chong.

Go have a another toke of the grass.

I wouldn't even grant my dog human status.
Not even close.
But, yes, I'd save him over you. See, I think your DNA should be removed from the human gene pool.

LOL, so you clearly know nothing about biology and genetics either, huh.

That, and I'm pretty sure I don't want you indoctrinating children into your Nazi admiring philosophies.
That doesn't make me insane.
Just thoughtful.

LOL what? ad hominem x 100000

If this were an ad hominem contest you would have won hands down early on.

Nope. Again - just you.

Next?

False. Anybody that thinks like you will do the same to others as you would do to me. Anybody who you disagree with will have the helping hand pulled away from them.

You're one step away from the nut house.

 

[GotGusto]

Aw, see, now you're not even making sense.

Hey, YOU said that "animal rights are wrong" because "animals should not be elevated to human status"! Don't blame me if you didn't mean something you said. It's not the first time. LOL

Spending billions on pets in food and pampering each year is elevating pets beyond the status of many humans.

You're CLEARLY crazy. Have you mutilated any animals lately? Maybe you should give us your name and address so we can have your house searched. You own a crossbow, GotGodwin? ...

Mutilated? No. Crossbow? No, but I would use one if I were hunting and it was legal. Why?

Have you eaten meat from an animal that was mutilated? Kept in captivity its entire life? Then brutally slaughtered? Yeah, you did a couple hours ago, just because you like the taste.