Is it immoral to fish for pleasure?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Science tends to appear like woo woo to those on the outside.
I'm more than happy to provide a reference for any of the things I've said. I have, after all, studied the neurophysiology of pain, from the nerve pathways it takes up the spinal cord into the brain to the psychology of it, and how the mind interprets or misinterprets that information. I'm also familiar with cross-species comparisons and limitations. We can go into philosophy and discuss things such as reductionism as it applies to conscious experiences. Thomas Nagel's essay on what its like to be a bat might be a good starting point for you. Of course, since you're atheist perhaps you'll find Daniel Dennett's philosophy is a more digestible choice, and he's actually a physicalist that thinks qualia (experiences) can be reduced to brain states.
So don't be like my grandmother that treats science and philosophy as woo woo. Ask and you shall receive; I'm happy to educate.
I'd love to see your reference that electrons are indistinguishable from oil.
Wow. I should of known.
Or if you mean that the constitute parts of water are indistinguishable from the constitute parts of oil; that is horseshit as well.
That is what I meant, although knowing you, I have no idea in what sense you're taking it. A hydrogen composing water is still hydrogen when it composed a lipid. To stress that point even further, you have things such as hydrolysis, which can incorporate the molecules of water into a carbohydrate, or extract water from it. In other words the atoms in water don't belong to it. It's incorrect to say carbohydrate is composed of water, because it contains its molecules
If you remove an electron from a hydrogen atom in a water molecule and compare it to an electron removed from a hydrocarbon, there will be no interesting differences between them. But their are differences between them when they are part of their respective molecules. If what you are saying was true, spectroscopy would not be possible. While reductionism can make things harder (sometimes making it not helpful) it does not destroy information/distinctions. What you have told us is a violation of the -1st law of thermodynamics.
You're agreeing with what I'm saying. You can't reduce water beyond H2O. You need the entire molecule intact to have water.
If you look at hydrogen when it's part of the H2O molecule, in what sense have you reduced the water molecule?
You just told us the constitute parts of water are indistinguishable from the constitute parts of oil. If that was the case there wouldn't be a different between oil and water, something that violates the experiences of anyone who has ever put oil in water. That is where your magical thinking has taken you.
I said that water reduces to H2O. I don't need it to interact with other H2O molecules to know it's water. You can extract a single molecule of H2O from a lake and still have water. You can't however, extract hydrogen from it and retain the identity. H2O as a whole is water, it's constituents are not. You can tell the difference between water and oil holistically. Break them down into pieces and you won't know where a hydrogen came from.
All you're doing is focusing, or zooming into, sections of the whole. Which great, if that's the angle you want to take on reduction go for it. But it doesn't invalidate what I have said.
Breezy: "I said that water reduces to H2O."
More of your science woo woo that is actually poo poo. If you are going to defecate us with your brain diarrhea, at least flush.
Water DOES NOT reduce to H2O. Water IS H2O.
On a side note: even that isn't correct.
"If you look at hydrogen when it's part of the H2O molecule, in what sense have you reduced the water molecule?"
What does that have to do with fishing?
And you have hydrolysis all wrong.
ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy "Wow. I should of known."
Should have, not should of (sic). That's a common grammatical error.
"Science tends to appear like woo woo to those on the outside."
Like you denying evolution...
The only time science is woo woo, is when you try to pawn off your poo poo.
PO: Is it immoral to fish for pleasure?
Well I got the cans of Monster Energy Drinks on the Cubical of my desk and I have been fishing for pleasure for about 4 hours now. Not a frigging nibble. Damn, those MILFS are hard to catch and I'm getting cold. I'm wondering if I chose the wrong flavor. Perhaps I should chum a bit. I could put an energy drink on each of the MILFS desks, get them addicted to the stuff and then see if any pleasure is forthcoming. Well, that's it from me. So far this fishing for pleasure is not working out and as far as I can tell it is a myth that MILFS dig Monster Energy Drinks. It's also cold in here so I had to pull my pants back up.
Yeah, maybe switch your bait. Try these.
@Cog Re: Monster drinks
Hey, Cog!!!! Be careful, dude! Using those Monster drinks for bait is likely to draw in a school of those vicious little Teenage Gamer Geeks. If you hook one of those on your line, I suggest cutting loose immediately!
Well, the monster drinks sat there all day. Fishing for pleasure was a bust. I guess I am going home alone, I think I'll run. I'll bet I could run down a MILF right now. I feel really great. Hey!!! I just realized something! If you don't catch any MILFS, you can guzzle six energy drinks for pleasure. Damn I feel good. Where is my pig nose? I buried it outside of town. I bet I could run out there and find it. Hmmm.. I wonder if I can run faster than the city bus. By for now.....
In response to the OP:
Very good, I like that.