Is it immoral to fish for pleasure?

83 posts / 0 new
Last post
ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
Science tends to appear like

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.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Breezy - I'm more than happy

Breezy - I'm more than happy to provide a reference for any of the things I've said.

Breezy - So water can be said to reduce to H2O, but if you reduce it any further than that you no longer have water; you'll have protons or electrons, which are indistinguishable from other things like oil.

I'd love to see your reference that electrons are indistinguishable from oil.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
Wow. I should of known.

Wow. I should of known.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Or if you mean that the

Or if you mean that the constitute parts of water are indistinguishable from the constitute parts of oil; that is horseshit as well.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
That's is what I meant,

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

Nyarlathotep's picture
If you remove an electron

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.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
You're agreeing with what I'm

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?

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

No
Nyarlathotep's picture
You just told us the

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.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
I said that water reduces to

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.

arakish's picture
Breezy: "I said that water

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.

rmfr

Nyarlathotep's picture
Breezy - Break them down into

Breezy - Break them down into pieces and you won't know where a hydrogen came from.

On a side note: even that isn't correct.

Sheldon's picture
"If you look at hydrogen when

"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?

arakish's picture
And you have hydrolysis all

And you have hydrolysis all wrong.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy "Wow. I

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy "Wow. I should of known."

Should have, not should of (sic). That's a common grammatical error.

Sheldon's picture
"Science tends to appear like

"Science tends to appear like woo woo to those on the outside."

Like you denying evolution...

arakish's picture
@ Breezy

@ Breezy

The only time science is woo woo, is when you try to pawn off your poo poo.

rmfr

Cognostic's picture
PO: Is it immoral to fish

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.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Yeah, your using the wrong

Yeah, maybe switch your bait. Try these.

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: Monster drinks

@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!

Cognostic's picture
Well, the monster drinks sat

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.....

CyberLN's picture
In response to the OP:

In response to the OP:

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Sheldon's picture
Very good, I like that.

Very good, I like that.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.