-

🎶 Take me where I wanna be I won't cry, I won't cry I just feel that life could be more than this, yeah 🎵 ❤️ @rexthedog1980 ❤️

@YodelSupportUK Hello. How do I speak to a human at Yodel. Your AI chat is struggling with my request. Thanks

@Cech2wastaken @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg You do have to prove it, or the theory doesn’t exist.

@shingaladaz @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg Again, I dont have to prove the negative case (Dogs do not have conceptual faculty) You need to prove the positive case (That dogs do have conceptual faculty)

Just as you think we've run out of ways to be cruel to the animals we eat, someone invents this. 😡 Can you imagine the confusion, claustrophobia, and terror this fish will endure? 😢

@Cech2wastaken @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg I’m not seeing proof you are right. I am seeing theory and avoidance of the demand.

@shingaladaz @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg Science or philosophy or math etc. are not human-made, they are human-discovered. We made the wheel, we discovered physics. Using science/philosophy is not contradicting one-self.

@Cech2wastaken @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg I’m not seeing proof that you are right.

@shingaladaz @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg That is not a positive claim unless you want to claim that everything in existence starts with everything and not nothing. (What I mean is that for that to be a positive claim you would have to assume that things are not defined by what they are, but rather what they are not)

@Cech2wastaken @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg You are making the positive claim that dogs can’t form concepts. Prove it and prove it without using a human-made law or theory. Careful or you will contradict yourself.

@shingaladaz @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg You are making the positive claim that dogs can form concepts. You have to prove why that is the case. I can prove the positive case for humans (I can from concepts, I am human, therefore the ability or at least potential to form concepts is in the nature of humans)

@Cech2wastaken @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg You cannot prove dogs can’t form concepts without using a human-made law or theory. Contradicting your self.

@shingaladaz @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg Again, rights are concepts. Dogs cannot form concepts. Therefore dogs cannot have rights.

@Cech2wastaken @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg Prove that dogs can’t form concepts without using a human-made law or theory. 🤣

@shingaladaz @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg I want YOU to tell me what YOUR problem with my position is. I cannot speak for you, I can only speak for myself. And I have given you proof for why I am correct. Dogs cannot, under any circumstance, form concepts Rights are concepts Dogs cannot have rights

@Cech2wastaken @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg Read through the messages between us and understand your contradictions*. Stop being a troll, troll. Further, it might be an idea to actually give proof that your theory is right. Just sayin….

@shingaladaz @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg What contradiction is in my position? What contradiction is in the position that Only conceptual beings have rights and that those rights are independent of human (Or any other) conciousness

@Cech2wastaken @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg I have shown your contradictions in full colour. You cannot deny this. You just repeat the same flawed contradictory argument that I have quashed over and over again thinking it’s still valid. It isn’t. Here’s some ad hominem for you; you’re nothing more than a troll.

@shingaladaz @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg "boring flawed bigot" is an Ad hominem and not an argument. You have provided no defense of your position that dogs have rights other than pure whim, which reduces to the primacy of conciousness, which is a flawed metaphysic

@Cech2wastaken @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg Mate. You’re a boring flawed bigot. Go away.

@shingaladaz @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg "common sense and empathy" are not philosophically/legally relevant terms. Both of them reduce to a form of the primacy of consciousness, esepcially "empathy"

@Cech2wastaken @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg Now fuck off.

@Cech2wastaken @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg / at a whim because you have rights and you think they don’t. Your theory is full of contradictions (“why can’t you be wrong” vs “I am correct”) and it lacks everything a human has over animals; the power to do what is right. Fool.

@Cech2wastaken @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg Why can’t your theory be wrong? If you deny that your theory can be wrong then I can deny your theory being right. You’re struggling to grasp this every single time. Dogs have rights via extension of me, your equal; a human with concept formation. We’ve been over his.

@shingaladaz @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg Only based on my theory? Yes, but my theory is correct. Why do dogs, beings that cannot form the concept of rights, have rights? How do you justify that position?

@Cech2wastaken @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg Only based on the theory you follow do you think you’re right about that. You can never be right when you say that dogs don’t have rights. It’s not about me being wrong. It’s about you not being right, no matter what you believe.

@shingaladaz @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg I can be wrong at any moment in time, however in this case (The fact animals dont have rights) I am correct

@Cech2wastaken @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg Oh wait. You can be. But only when it suits you.

@shingaladaz @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg Why can you not be wrong?

@Cech2wastaken @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg Why can’t you be?

@Cech2wastaken @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg I didn’t say that you practiced two theories, numbnuts. What I meant by that is that you practice one and have on more than one occasion assumed I’m the other. Your beliefs contradict mine and therefore I tell you that you are wrong. I can’t be wrong.

@shingaladaz @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg I am not stuck between 2 theories. I have 1 absolute theory, that only conceptual beings who can understand what rights are can have rights and that rights are absolute and objective (Independent of human whim)

@Cech2wastaken @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg Bro’s stuck between 2 theories and can’t grasp the concept of modernity. U know what they say about assumptions, don’t u? U follow strict rules, rules written by humans. You’re a fool. I’m no hypocrite. I also follow man-made rules. But that’s the point- I never said I didn’t

@shingaladaz @tyhartin123 @AmazingP18614 @JohnOberg You literally told me that you can decide at random whim what rights something has. That is at the metaphysical level the primacy of consciousness which is a fallacious metaphysic. I do not follow someone elses rules, I follow the rules of objective reality.