Although man IS below all other life forms, that is NOT the basis for the argument. Maybe you should actually read the OP.





A1. You cannot determine the burden of proof by the actions of a society. That makes no rational sense. Your suggestion that 'if society does something it must be right' is irrational and insane.

A2. I have already shown that the "disection" kills the worm, as is/imitates torture. It instructs the child that society encourages the view that other species are worthless.

A2.2 Even if there was legitimate reason for worm disection, the facts in (A2) remain. This is the main point : Your argument regarding legitimate education would not exclude My revalations regarding (A2). The two are not mutally eclusive, because there can be more than one objective to the excercise.

A3. There is no reason why worm disection is needed.

A4. You can learn it from the book. Since the worm disection is unimportant, a book should suffice.

A5. Fail (A4) and (A3), specimens that died from natural causes could be used. Birds, cats and so on regularly die, and thus why the need to kill the worms?

Conclusion A : The answers given to Me OP do not explain WHY it is necessary to kill the worms, and use live worms.



B1. It has no legitimacy. You forget to consider the fact that a life is being taken, and torture/torture-like application used.

B2. You do not address what is being learned, you just presume society always tells the Truth. What is being learned is to consider non-human species of life with total disregard.

B3. You must show why worm disection is worthy and important acedemic learning.


I dont have "standards". My OP is rational and sane. I am not trying to change society. I know that humans are too mentally ill to help themselves.

My argument is mature and rational. You just don't like the conclusion.


C1. I already gave alternatives. You just ignored them.
C2. Since you cannot see the Truth on My position, why give you alternatives to using live worms? You think it is OK to use them.

My questions all make perfect rational sense. You just cannot accept the ramifications of same, and think of sensible answers.


You are pathetic. Fishermen have NOTHING to do with the OP. I will therefore not go off onto a tangent and argue something that is nothing to do with the OP. However, My revalations about fishing are 100% accurate, and I may post a fishing-sport Truth thread in future.

You cannot disprove what I said. I know what fishermen DO, inferior. I don't have to be a fisherman Myself. I cano show why a fisherman does what he does. You cannot say otherwise, because you admit you cannot know why a fisherman does what he does. I am not even refering to individual fishermen, anyway.



No, you have not. I found logical flaws in your reasons. They are moot. See (A) section for a better explanation.


Every argument you make presumes society is automatically right. What bias. Since it is not crucial, why is it neccesary to do it to a live worm? Or kill a worm to do it? Think, man.

[Inferior material cut down]




I showed how it is unjustified, so other actions are nothing to do with it. What other actions? You dont make sense.



These are matters of societal policy. I know why humans do the things they do in general, because I am a Superior Seer. Your reply is so basic and undetailed I cannot determine what it is supposed to mean.

Seer Travis Truman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 1:25pm:

I know you like to imagine yourself to be a superior thinker (as most schizophrenics and psychopaths do) but maybe you should read something of the Buddhist concept of mindfulness, which states that "accidentally" stepping on a snail is not necessarily a blameless act or free of karma, but rather an instance of a lack of mindfulness... Meaning that, had you been mindful of where you were walking, you may have avoided stepping on the snail.

Seer Travis Truman wrote on Sep 30^th, 2009 at 10:06am:

Maybe because they're not 'truths'... Just erratic opinions feverishly slapped up during a series of psychotic episodes.

But anyway, as you don't appear to be aware of the concept of mindfulness and its relationship to moral culpability your raving assertions lack the depth to be dignified as 'truth'.

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2009 at 9:40am:

Yes, according to Buddhist dogma you must be free of karma to achieve Nirvana... I guess we can't be too harsh on an ancient belief system with no knowledge of Micro-organisms, but having said that, modern Buddhism doesn't seem to absolve anyone from the burden of karma for having killed any life form (although apparently, being a Tibetan Buddhist which accepts the necessity of eating meat, the Dalai Lama is partial to a bacon sandwich... go figure ).

A woman I work with and a practising Buddhist told me she angsted for a long time about using pesticides to kill an aphid infestation that was screwing up her roses. She told me she meditated for weeks on the morality of spraying her garden and decided that in Buddhist terms it could not be justified... But she sprayed anyway. Her desire to experience the beauty of her roses, she told me, was greater than her duty to mindfully preserve life, thus burdening herself with karma in accordance with Buddhism's second noble truth.