Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Neither can a bird. They have to stop to sleep, eat, mate, all that stuff. We can fly much higher, faster and farther than a bird can.

(Again, advocate. I'm somewhere in the middle on this issue, not swayed enough to pick or bother arguing for one side)

Okay, I'll give you that. But when we fly, it's a product of our brains. When they do it, it's because of their wings. They're using one thing, we're using another.

...But actually, is this topic about who's better or if we're actually animals or not? (cause, you know, we are)

_________________

But we dont even need to. If a fish couldnt swim, it would be screwed.

A bird that couldnt fly would be a (Pardon me) sitting duck.

A human that cant fly or swim would be....

Hmmm.....

Not quite as screwed.

_________________

Actually, we've turned so many things into neccessities it's not even funny.

By the way, you know our SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE has many drawbacks.

_________________

Humans need:
Food
Water
Shelter

And what's wrong with our superior knowledge?

_________________

None of that, now.

Also, please cut down on the quotations. Strong Bad has taught us all the value of scroll buttons.

_________________
404 sig not found

You're still not getting it. Many people would not be able to live without the internet, airplanes, cars, etc. We've turned them into necessities.

We have the potential to be corrupt. It's hard to be simple.



Yeah, that was kind of uncalled for.

_________________

When we're comparing humans as animals to the rest of the species, there really is no 'natural' and 'unnatural'. In fact, to assume man-made things are 'unnatural' is to assume that we are better than animals, which defeats the point of your argument.

_________________

How so? I'm not saying I agree with Rusty, but I don't understand this.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Well, he is discounting things like cars used to travel faster than cheetahs only because cars are man-made. So basically he is saying that man cannot be better than animal because they rely on man-made things.

_________________

I think what ed is saying there is that if we're animals, anything we do is by definition natural, since we're just creatures in the wild, albeit really intelligent and technologically advanced creatures. The idea of "unnatural" becomes rather meaningless.

_________________
404 sig not found

The attempt to distinguish between "natural" and "unnatural" when it comes to whether humans can exceed animals in any given category becomes pretty much meaningless. The fact is, if we can do it, we win. The imposition of the distinction is itself artificial, when you get right down to it, because such a distinction is only recognized by humans, anyway.

But even if we allow the distinction between "natural" and "unnatural", it still proves that humans are unique, since we alone of all known creatures can actually accomplish something contrary to our nature.

_________________

Well, everything we do is an extension of our brain.

Ever play a Mario sport? You've got the speed character, the tricky character, and the all around character. The all around character can do everything, but they can't do specific things as well as the ones that are meant to do it. We're the all around characters.

_________________

Then why are we so much better than animals at their specialties?

But there are things that we're tons better than animals at. Our intelligence is so far beyond other animals that it completely makes up for it and pretty much allows us to be good at everything else. So, I'd say we're more like the special cheat character who's so amazing at one thing that he automatically wins every game as long as the user tries.

_________________

I've been saying this entire time that we're more intelligent, but they're better at other things.

_________________

You said we're the all-around character who isn't the best at anything but pretty good at everything.

_________________

They are NATURALLY better at other things. We use our intelligence to enhance our abilities and can become greater at other things.

I think the ability to overcome natural limitations would be something that would elevate humans above the animals.

With that said, I can't argue that man is not (at least in the VERY basic definition of the word) animal. I mean, we're not plant or mineral.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

If only we could use photosynthesis.

_________________

...which is what I just said

_________________

Neither are mushrooms, bacteria, and most proteans if you want to look at it that way.

So obviously, Man is not an animal. Man is a kind of amoeba.

_________________
GENERATION 22: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

The fact that we are animals is not in dispute. The term itself means simply that we are living, breathing creatures.

What is in dispute is whether humans are unique or special. And it seems to me, from simple empirical observation, we are.

SR pretty much nails it here: the fact that we use our intellect to overcome our natural limitations - and even to exceed other animals at what they do best - means that our greater intellect is to be preferred. A cheetah can run fast, but he can't use his superior natural speed to solve quadratic equations. Whereas a human being can use his superior intellect to build a machine capable of outrunning even the fastest cheetahs. Either way, we win.

_________________

In other words, we use tools. But we are not the sole tool-using species. And we have not overcome every achievment of the non-human world with our tools. Look at hummigbirds. What the human tool that most closely approximates a hummingbird? A helicopter, right? Well, both of them can fly fowards, left, right, and backwards. But can a helicopter fly upside-down?

_________________
G D G G A B C D D D Eb F G G G F Eb F Eb D D C C D Eb D C Bb Bb C D C Bb A A Bb C Eb D D D D D D D

It just so happens I have a webcomic...
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=10852

Yes.
Seriously.

Can a hummingbird?

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

A hummingbird can. I don't think a helicopter can.

_________________
G D G G A B C D D D Eb F G G G F Eb F Eb D D C C D Eb D C Bb Bb C D C Bb A A Bb C Eb D D D D D D D

It just so happens I have a webcomic...
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=10852

"Basic"

Ever see Airwolf or a live demonstration of an Apache?
They can fly upside down, just not well (or for very long).

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Do either hummingbirds or helicopters find any advantage in flying upside-down except in the rarest of situations?

_________________
404 sig not found

Still, I'd like to see ANY man-made aircraft that can match a hummingbird in maneuverability.

_________________
G D G G A B C D D D Eb F G G G F Eb F Eb D D C C D Eb D C Bb Bb C D C Bb A A Bb C Eb D D D D D D D

It just so happens I have a webcomic...
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=10852

Is looking cool an advantage?
If so, then yes, they do. Otherwise, I don't think so. That might be why you almost never see a hummingbird flying upside down.

At any rate, a hummingbird naturally does what it does. A helicopter is not a natural thing. It's a random collection of non-natural things that is put together by humans for the simple purpose of flying.

An ape can use a stick to get food out of a log, but that is not the same thing as using AutoCAD to design a helicopter.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

We probably could, but what would be the point?

_________________