Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Dominion

EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:08:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Who did God give "dominion" over the Earth?

It's US, that God gave dominion over the Earth.

God does not have dominion over the earth and what we produce in our lives, He has made us kings and Queens over our own lives and souls, we have been given a Kingdom not ruled by God, but by us. True free will.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 11:24:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:08:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Who did God give "dominion" over the Earth?

It's US, that God gave dominion over the Earth.

God does not have dominion over the earth and what we produce in our lives, He has made us kings and Queens over our own lives and souls, we have been given a Kingdom not ruled by God, but by us. True free will.

Its only by unfortunate circumstance that the same conclusion could be drawn of any mythological entity, invented entity, that such free will could just as easily been a result of us being at the top of the proverbial food chain.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 12:14:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 11:24:06 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:08:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Who did God give "dominion" over the Earth?

It's US, that God gave dominion over the Earth.

God does not have dominion over the earth and what we produce in our lives, He has made us kings and Queens over our own lives and souls, we have been given a Kingdom not ruled by God, but by us. True free will.

Its only by unfortunate circumstance that the same conclusion could be drawn of any mythological entity, invented entity, that such free will could just as easily been a result of us being at the top of the proverbial food chain.

I grasp your point and agree. But on the side-issue, if my mother bought clothes for my brother, who out-grew them and passed them to another brother, who out-grew them and passed them to me, I wouldn't be at the top of the clothing chain. I'd be at the bottom. Fair enough?

So when calories are passed from the sun to plants, from plants to animals, and from animals to humans, it's an inversion of logic to consider us at the top of the food chain, even though common ideas do pursuit this evasion of reality.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 12:32:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 12:14:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:24:06 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:08:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Who did God give "dominion" over the Earth?

It's US, that God gave dominion over the Earth.

God does not have dominion over the earth and what we produce in our lives, He has made us kings and Queens over our own lives and souls, we have been given a Kingdom not ruled by God, but by us. True free will.

Its only by unfortunate circumstance that the same conclusion could be drawn of any mythological entity, invented entity, that such free will could just as easily been a result of us being at the top of the proverbial food chain.

I grasp your point and agree. But on the side-issue, if my mother bought clothes for my brother, who out-grew them and passed them to another brother, who out-grew them and passed them to me, I wouldn't be at the top of the clothing chain. I'd be at the bottom. Fair enough?

So when calories are passed from the sun to plants, from plants to animals, and from animals to humans, it's an inversion of logic to consider us at the top of the food chain, even though common ideas do pursuit this evasion of reality.

I dig, thats why I was angling in with 'proverbial'. I don't mean that in terms of where we fall with regards to caloric intake. We, as humans, are the top-of-the-heap. King of the hill, etc. Were we not the dominate specie on the planet, would such an observation of free will still be rendered if we weren't? Heck, COULD it be, in such an instance?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 12:36:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 12:32:16 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/5/2014 12:14:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:24:06 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:08:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Who did God give "dominion" over the Earth?

It's US, that God gave dominion over the Earth.

God does not have dominion over the earth and what we produce in our lives, He has made us kings and Queens over our own lives and souls, we have been given a Kingdom not ruled by God, but by us. True free will.

Its only by unfortunate circumstance that the same conclusion could be drawn of any mythological entity, invented entity, that such free will could just as easily been a result of us being at the top of the proverbial food chain.

I grasp your point and agree. But on the side-issue, if my mother bought clothes for my brother, who out-grew them and passed them to another brother, who out-grew them and passed them to me, I wouldn't be at the top of the clothing chain. I'd be at the bottom. Fair enough?

So when calories are passed from the sun to plants, from plants to animals, and from animals to humans, it's an inversion of logic to consider us at the top of the food chain, even though common ideas do pursuit this evasion of reality.

I dig, thats why I was angling in with 'proverbial'. I don't mean that in terms of where we fall with regards to caloric intake. We, as humans, are the top-of-the-heap. King of the hill, etc. Were we not the dominate specie on the planet, would such an observation of free will still be rendered if we weren't? Heck, COULD it be, in such an instance?

Oh, I totally agree with everything you said on the actual topic (free will). But I find it interesting that so few people ever analyze the claim that we're at the top of the food chain, when any logical assessment places us at the bottom. It doesn't mean we're not dominant. It just means that we don't receive the calories until they have been passed at least two or three times. One could look at it like eating the vomit of an animal who eats the vomit of another animal. It doesn't really make one a "top" consumer.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 1:32:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 12:14:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:24:06 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:08:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Who did God give "dominion" over the Earth?

It's US, that God gave dominion over the Earth.

God does not have dominion over the earth and what we produce in our lives, He has made us kings and Queens over our own lives and souls, we have been given a Kingdom not ruled by God, but by us. True free will.

Its only by unfortunate circumstance that the same conclusion could be drawn of any mythological entity, invented entity, that such free will could just as easily been a result of us being at the top of the proverbial food chain.

I grasp your point and agree. But on the side-issue, if my mother bought clothes for my brother, who out-grew them and passed them to another brother, who out-grew them and passed them to me, I wouldn't be at the top of the clothing chain. I'd be at the bottom. Fair enough?

With all due respect Beastt, that's not what being at the top of the food chain means. It's about what a species eats and what other species, if any, eat it. We are at the top of the food chain because we eat just about anything and very few things regularly eat us. This is the same as a shark being at the top of the food chain in the ocean.

Your analogy is inappropriate because we are not talking about hand-me-downs. Calories are exactly the same regardless of the source. They don't fade, or get tattered, or lose buttons, or pass out of fashion.

So when calories are passed from the sun to plants, from plants to animals, and from animals to humans, it's an inversion of logic to consider us at the top of the food chain, even though common ideas do pursuit this evasion of reality.

You miss the point. Plants have to work very hard to convert raw materials into living material and food. The animals which eat those plants benefit from that and don't have to work quite so hard to get their nutrition. And so it goes up the line. A tiger only has to kill once every few days to survive. Grazing animals have to eat almost continuously during daylight hours and have methods to process and re-process what they eat to get the most out of it. Of course those animals which eat but are not eaten are at the top of the food chain. Any other interpretation is bizarre.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 2:18:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:08:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Who did God give "dominion" over the Earth?

It's US, that God gave dominion over the Earth.

God does not have dominion over the earth and what we produce in our lives, He has made us kings and Queens over our own lives and souls, we have been given a Kingdom not ruled by God, but by us. True free will.

This is funny. The Earth has dominion over itself. It could shake us right off at anytime like a dog shakes dust off its back. Those other guys can argue but the truth of the matter is that we have less dominion over anything than we think. Men. ;)
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 2:43:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:08:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Who did God give "dominion" over the Earth?

It's US, that God gave dominion over the Earth.

God does not have dominion over the earth and what we produce in our lives, He has made us kings and Queens over our own lives and souls, we have been given a Kingdom not ruled by God, but by us. True free will.

I would like you to go to the Serengeti and approach a lion and inform him of your dominion over him.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 2:56:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 2:43:01 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:08:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Who did God give "dominion" over the Earth?

It's US, that God gave dominion over the Earth.

God does not have dominion over the earth and what we produce in our lives, He has made us kings and Queens over our own lives and souls, we have been given a Kingdom not ruled by God, but by us. True free will.

I would like you to go to the Serengeti and approach a lion and inform him of your dominion over him.

Yes! That would be excellent documentary material.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 4:47:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 1:32:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/5/2014 12:14:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:24:06 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:08:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Who did God give "dominion" over the Earth?

It's US, that God gave dominion over the Earth.

God does not have dominion over the earth and what we produce in our lives, He has made us kings and Queens over our own lives and souls, we have been given a Kingdom not ruled by God, but by us. True free will.

Its only by unfortunate circumstance that the same conclusion could be drawn of any mythological entity, invented entity, that such free will could just as easily been a result of us being at the top of the proverbial food chain.

I grasp your point and agree. But on the side-issue, if my mother bought clothes for my brother, who out-grew them and passed them to another brother, who out-grew them and passed them to me, I wouldn't be at the top of the clothing chain. I'd be at the bottom. Fair enough?

With all due respect Beastt, that's not what being at the top of the food chain means. It's about what a species eats and what other species, if any, eat it. We are at the top of the food chain because we eat just about anything and very few things regularly eat us. This is the same as a shark being at the top of the food chain in the ocean.
Then the ocean, the jungle and just about any natural setting makes more point even more poignantly. Go to the Amazon and the mosquitoes will eat you. And while it's not such a literal attack, subdue, eviscerate and swallow form of eating, the point is that we're not really at the top of any food-chain, unless we're in one of the tiny regions where we have gained control over the environment. Place us in an environment which isn't artificial, and we're most certainly not on the top of the food chain. Ever watch "Survivorman"? Does it look like he's on top of the food chain when he's dining on a picked-over fish carcass that he's boiled into a soup?

Your analogy is inappropriate because we are not talking about hand-me-downs. Calories are exactly the same regardless of the source. They don't fade, or get tattered, or lose buttons, or pass out of fashion.
That's not really true. The quality and nature of calories does change as they pass through organisms. When you eat the flesh of a cow, you consume a concentrated accumulation of the fat-soluble toxins the cow has eaten. In the average Western diet, 89% of the pesticide residues you consume come from animal-based sources. You don't just consume the calories which have been previously consumed, you also eat the concentrated toxins, plus the compounds created in the animal eating before you. In the case of meat, that's saturated fats and cholesterol, uric acid, hormones and concentrated electrolytes. And you only receive 10% of the calories the previous organism consumed. No matter how you slice it (no pun intended), we're on the bottom, not the top.

So when calories are passed from the sun to plants, from plants to animals, and from animals to humans, it's an inversion of logic to consider us at the top of the food chain, even though common ideas do pursuit this evasion of reality.

You miss the point. Plants have to work very hard to convert raw materials into living material and food. The animals which eat those plants benefit from that and don't have to work quite so hard to get their nutrition. And so it goes up the line. A tiger only has to kill once every few days to survive. Grazing animals have to eat almost continuously during daylight hours and have methods to process and re-process what they eat to get the most out of it. Of course those animals which eat but are not eaten are at the top of the food chain. Any other interpretation is bizarre.
Any other interpretation is logically correct. You miss the point that unless we have plants as primary producers, all of the consumers simply die.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Yes, that would be the illogical default I'm referencing. Our world is filled with illogical defaults we simply accept. In fact, a number of comedians have had long lucrative careers based on pointing these illogical concepts out. A simple example is, why do we drive in a parkway and park in a driveway? Why is it a PAIR of pants, but only one BRA? These are meant to be humorous but they're humorous because the inversion of logic doesn't tend to be recognized until it is pointed out. What I'm suggesting is less humorous and simply a more logical method of looking at the calorie cycle.

Defaults aren't always correct, or logical.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:12:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 4:47:30 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 1:32:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/5/2014 12:14:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:24:06 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:08:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Who did God give "dominion" over the Earth?

It's US, that God gave dominion over the Earth.

God does not have dominion over the earth and what we produce in our lives, He has made us kings and Queens over our own lives and souls, we have been given a Kingdom not ruled by God, but by us. True free will.

Its only by unfortunate circumstance that the same conclusion could be drawn of any mythological entity, invented entity, that such free will could just as easily been a result of us being at the top of the proverbial food chain.

I grasp your point and agree. But on the side-issue, if my mother bought clothes for my brother, who out-grew them and passed them to another brother, who out-grew them and passed them to me, I wouldn't be at the top of the clothing chain. I'd be at the bottom. Fair enough?

With all due respect Beastt, that's not what being at the top of the food chain means. It's about what a species eats and what other species, if any, eat it. We are at the top of the food chain because we eat just about anything and very few things regularly eat us. This is the same as a shark being at the top of the food chain in the ocean.

Then the ocean, the jungle and just about any natural setting makes more point even more poignantly. Go to the Amazon and the mosquitoes will eat you. And while it's not such a literal attack, subdue, eviscerate and swallow form of eating, the point is that we're not really at the top of any food-chain, unless we're in one of the tiny regions where we have gained control over the environment.

Tiny regions? We've colonised the entire planet. Most of the arable land in the world is either directly under agriculture or is being used for grazing.

But really, the above has little to do with the definition of the food chain which is about the hierarchy of predation not control of the environment.

Place us in an environment which isn't artificial, and we're most certainly not on the top of the food chain. Ever watch "Survivorman"? Does it look like he's on top of the food chain when he's dining on a picked-over fish carcass that he's boiled into a soup?

That's irrelevant. You can't take a lone person out of their normal environment (which for us has evolved into living in communities of varying size), throw them into the wild and use that as your yardstick for what constitutes being at the top of the food chain. When humans did live in the wild, we still were at the top of the food chain. The indigenous people of Australia were at the top of the food chain. Using your example, Amazonian Indian tribes were at the top of the food chain. Modern man survived his time in the wild, even thrived, and then proceeded to fill the planet. I'm not sure how you can seriously argue that humans aren't at the top of the food chain. We eat everything; plants, grains, fruit, nuts, fungi, fish, crustaceans, birds, animals, even insects, snakes and lizards. As I said, barring accidents, what predator relies on us as a food source?

Your analogy is inappropriate because we are not talking about hand-me-downs. Calories are exactly the same regardless of the source. They don't fade, or get tattered, or lose buttons, or pass out of fashion.

That's not really true. The quality and nature of calories does change as they pass through organisms. When you eat the flesh of a cow, you consume a concentrated accumulation of the fat-soluble toxins the cow has eaten. In the average Western diet, 89% of the pesticide residues you consume come from animal-based sources. You don't just consume the calories which have been previously consumed, you also eat the concentrated toxins, plus the compounds created in the animal eating before you. In the case of meat, that's saturated fats and cholesterol, uric acid, hormones and concentrated electrolytes. And you only receive 10% of the calories the previous organism consumed.

The issue of accumulation of toxins such as heavy metals etc. is a valid one but again is irrelevant to the point I made about pure calories. You are making a case for why eating less meat might be healthier, and I might even agree with you. (I understand you have an agenda there, being a vegetarian). However, that is not the issue under discussion, which is what constitutes being higher or lower on the food chain. You seek to take away the commonly accepted definition and turn it on its head because of your ethical and health concerns. You can't just usurp terms when you feel like it.

No matter how you slice it (no pun intended), we're on the bottom, not the top.

Not unless you change the criteria on which the hierarchy is decided.

So when calories are passed from the sun to plants, from plants to animals, and from animals to humans, it's an inversion of logic to consider us at the top of the food chain, even though common ideas do pursuit this evasion of reality.

You miss the point. Plants have to work very hard to convert raw materials into living material and food. The animals which eat those plants benefit from that and don't have to work quite so hard to get their nutrition. And so it goes up the line. A tiger only has to kill once every few days to survive. Grazing animals have to eat almost continuously during daylight hours and have methods to process and re-process what they eat to get the most out of it. Of course those animals which eat but are not eaten are at the top of the food chain. Any other interpretation is bizarre.
Any other interpretation is logically correct. You miss the point that unless we have plants as primary producers, all of the consumers simply die.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, that would be the illogical default I'm referencing.

It's not illogical if the criterion is predation.

Our world is filled with illogical defaults we simply accept. In fact, a number of comedians have had long lucrative careers based on pointing these illogical concepts out. A simple example is, why do we drive in a parkway and park in a driveway? Why is it a PAIR of pants, but only one BRA? These are meant to be humorous but they're humorous because the inversion of logic doesn't tend to be recognized until it is pointed out.

These examples do nothing to prove that you actually have an "inversion of logic" up above. Your argument seems to be that because these examples exist, therefore the food chain hierarchy is also one. I'm sure you can see that this is an obvious fallacy.

What I'm suggesting is less humorous and simply a more logical method of looking at the calorie cycle.

As I said, you are inventing your own criterion to replace what is already being used. There is no good reason to do that. The definition and criterion we have is perfectly reasonable and logical.

Defaults aren't always correct, or logical.

Perhaps, but you haven't shown what is incorrect or illogical about the current default. All you have argued for is a change (not correction) because you don't like the connotations of "top" being associated with eating meat.

On a humorous note, why would you want to give away our "top dog" status? Be a team player. We could never be top of the food chain under your definition unless we painted ourselves green and started photosynthesising. Lol.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 1:10:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 7:12:36 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/5/2014 4:47:30 AM, Beastt wrote:


Tiny regions? We've colonised the entire planet. Most of the arable land in the world is either directly under agriculture or is being used for grazing.
Step outside. Now stay there. See the problem? How many farmers live in their corn field? Yes, tiny regions surrounded by roofs, walls, and environmental control systems.

But really, the above has little to do with the definition of the food chain which is about the hierarchy of predation not control of the environment.
I disagree. The "food chain" has to do with the chain of "food"... calories as they move through the biological system. We may be at the top of the predation chain, but only while we're protected from the real environment which other animals occupy as a home.

Place us in an environment which isn't artificial, and we're most certainly not on the top of the food chain. Ever watch "Survivorman"? Does it look like he's on top of the food chain when he's dining on a picked-over fish carcass that he's boiled into a soup?

That's irrelevant. You can't take a lone person out of their normal environment (which for us has evolved into living in communities of varying size), throw them into the wild and use that as your yardstick for what constitutes being at the top of the food chain.
Oh no? That's the environment in which everything you're comparing us to must exist. Fair for them, not fair for us? I readily disagree.

When humans did live in the wild, we still were at the top of the food chain.
That's debatable. Clearly, we evolved with a herbivorous digestive system, not an omnivorous one. Do you think that happened despite our eating habits, or because of them? We likely followed a path similar to that of other great apes, who range from purely vegan, to mostly vegan. Why would a top predator possess the physiology of a mountain gorilla? Mountain gorillas are strict vegetarians. The archaeological view for the long history of man as top predator is based on what survives over time - bones, not plant matter. Eat a purely vegan diet for a month. On day seven, find an injured and dying rabbit, transport it to your home, and eat it. What will we fing 25,000 years later? Will we find berries, seeds and husks, or just animal bones?

The indigenous people of Australia were at the top of the food chain. Using your example, Amazonian Indian tribes were at the top of the food chain. Modern man survived his time in the wild, even thrived, and then proceeded to fill the planet. I'm not sure how you can seriously argue that humans aren't at the top of the food chain. We eat everything; plants, grains, fruit, nuts, fungi, fish, crustaceans, birds, animals, even insects, snakes and lizards. As I said, barring accidents, what predator relies on us as a food source?
In a natural environment? Several. Lions, tigers, cougars, bears, alligators, sharks, humbolt squid, even coyotes, bobcats and large snakes have been known to eat people. But as long as we sequester ourselves from the natural environment, we're free to think we're not fragile prey animals, even though we are. Australian aborigines consumed; small marsupials, shellfish, reptiles, insects, honey, eggs and plant foods Men mainly hunted alone or in pairs for larger animals such as mammals, birds, reptiles and fish eggs, frogs, honey ants and some grubs. What percentage of that diet was what we consider to be the typical food of top predators? Almost none of it.


The issue of accumulation of toxins such as heavy metals etc. is a valid one but again is irrelevant to the point I made about pure calories. You are making a case for why eating less meat might be healthier, and I might even agree with you. (I understand you have an agenda there, being a vegetarian). However, that is not the issue under discussion, which is what constitutes being higher or lower on the food chain. You seek to take away the commonly accepted definition and turn it on its head because of your ethical and health concerns. You can't just usurp terms when you feel like it.
I'm demonstrating that the typical view is already turned on it's head, as are so many other systems we simply accept by default (religion as rational, for another example, Jesus historicity for yet another.). Somehow, when it comes to food, people are very protective of their traditional defaults.

No matter how you slice it (no pun intended), we're on the bottom, not the top.

Not unless you change the criteria on which the hierarchy is decided.
Have it your way. I've studies, researched and debated diet-related issues enough to recognize the brick wall most people retain in respect to their food.

So when calories are passed from the sun to plants, from plants to animals, and from animals to humans, it's an inversion of logic to consider us at the top of the food chain, even though common ideas do pursuit this evasion of reality.

You miss the point. Plants have to work very hard to convert raw materials into living material and food. The animals which eat those plants benefit from that and don't have to work quite so hard to get their nutrition. And so it goes up the line. A tiger only has to kill once every few days to survive. Grazing animals have to eat almost continuously during daylight hours and have methods to process and re-process what they eat to get the most out of it. Of course those animals which eat but are not eaten are at the top of the food chain. Any other interpretation is bizarre.
Any other interpretation is logically correct. You miss the point that unless we have plants as primary producers, all of the consumers simply die.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, that would be the illogical default I'm referencing.

It's not illogical if the criterion is predation.

Our world is filled with illogical defaults we simply accept. In fact, a number of comedians have had long lucrative careers based on pointing these illogical concepts out. A simple example is, why do we drive in a parkway and park in a driveway? Why is it a PAIR of pants, but only one BRA? These are meant to be humorous but they're humorous because the inversion of logic doesn't tend to be recognized until it is pointed out.

These examples do nothing to prove that you actually have an "inversion of logic" up above. Your argument seems to be that because these examples exist, therefore the food chain hierarchy is also one. I'm sure you can see that this is an obvious fallacy.

What I'm suggesting is less humorous and simply a more logical method of looking at the calorie cycle.

As I said, you are inventing your own criterion to replace what is already being used. There is no good reason to do that. The definition and criterion we have is perfectly reasonable and logical.

Defaults aren't always correct, or logical.

Perhaps, but you haven't shown what is incorrect or illogical about the current default. All you have argued for is a change (not correction) because you don't like the connotations of "top" being associated with eating meat.

On a humorous note, why would you want to give away our "top dog" status? Be a team player. We could never be top of the food chain under your definition unless we painted ourselves green and started photosynthesising. Lol.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 1:59:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A battle of intellects to the domination!

Subject: Who's on top?

Answer: None of the above. As none of it can exist without the rest. Bam! I win ;)
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 5:48:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 1:59:01 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
A battle of intellects to the domination!

Subject: Who's on top?

Answer: None of the above. As none of it can exist without the rest. Bam! I win ;)

You really know how to deflate a man's ego (but insightful as always). Lol.

I'll let it rest before it gets too heated. I can see Beastt has a real passion for this subject. (I was a vegetarian for a few years, so I can sympathize).
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 6:06:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:08:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Who did God give "dominion" over the Earth?

It's US, that God gave dominion over the Earth.

God does not have dominion over the earth and what we produce in our lives, He has made us kings and Queens over our own lives and souls, we have been given a Kingdom not ruled by God, but by us. True free will.

There is a difference between dominion (originally understood as control) and ownership.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 6:20:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 6:06:18 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:08:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Who did God give "dominion" over the Earth?

It's US, that God gave dominion over the Earth.

God does not have dominion over the earth and what we produce in our lives, He has made us kings and Queens over our own lives and souls, we have been given a Kingdom not ruled by God, but by us. True free will.

There is a difference between dominion (originally understood as control) and ownership.

So which is it? Control?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 6:50:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 6:20:46 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/5/2014 6:06:18 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:08:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Who did God give "dominion" over the Earth?

It's US, that God gave dominion over the Earth.

God does not have dominion over the earth and what we produce in our lives, He has made us kings and Queens over our own lives and souls, we have been given a Kingdom not ruled by God, but by us. True free will.

There is a difference between dominion (originally understood as control) and ownership.

So which is it? Control?

I'm guessing the OP is revering to the bible as his source.

Dominion means control, Lordship, ruling, govern

1400-50; late Middle English < Middle French < Medieval Latin *domini!3;n- (stem of *domini!3;) lordship, equivalent to Latin domin (ium) dominium + -i!3;n- -ion

This is different from Ownership. Which is a different Hebrew word.

Also to note Genesis 1:26-27 said "Let Us", Which is literally interpreted as being God and the Earth, created mankind. "in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them" Not that man is to have dominion, but that female and male are 2 sides to one unit that has dominion.

A later verse says to subdue the earth and have dominion. Subdue meaning to force, assault, subjugate.

I would say that in a biblical or christian view God has ownership over everything he created. Which is a level of governance higher than the creation having control.