Man is an animal too, my boy!

Didymus · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:51 am

If that's the case, then we can't make any comparison at all. You can no more say that animals and humans are equal, than you're allowing me to say that humans are superior.

But I disagree with your premise there anyway. The fact that there are things unique to our species demonstrates that we are special. Period. End of discussion. What you're doing is claiming that we should essentially ignore those so that we can agree with you. That's faulty reasoning on your part.

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:55 am

Your argument seems to be based on that since humans have done things that we attach meaning to, we're special. But many of the things you mention have equivalents in nature. Thus, many of the things we attch meaning to are not unique to us.

Didymus · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:57 am

Incorrect. There is not an equivalent to Shakespeare in nature. If there is anything even remotely similar to it, it is on such a minute scale as to be imperceptible. Nice try, but your arguments are still failing to convince me.

Inverse Tiger · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:58 am

K, this needs to drop now. It's going absolutely nowhere. Ah! Ah! No more last words.

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:58 am

When certain birds make up songs, such as mockingbirds, its near enough to be equivalent.

Didymus · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:59 am

Nowhere close. If we allow for this example, then compare the mockingbird (aka, the bird world equivalent to Vanilla Ice) to J. S. Bach or W. A. Mozart.

Quack, you're still failing to do exactly as I suggested you do earlier: instead of dismissing criteria, you need to be establishing some. Otherwise, without any criteria, we are left with no comparison at all.

So my suggestion to you still stands: either establish some criteria that we can agree on in making these assessments (rather that simply tossing out my criteria), or just drop it. Without some common criteria, we cannot make any assessment.

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:08 am

My lack of criteria is the point. Criteria implies exclusivity; I'm saying the humans are not special. And I'd say mockingbirds are much more talented than Vanilla Ice.

Didymus · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:13 am

Your last point is valid. But if we have no criteria, then we cannot say that humans and animals are equal, either. That was the argument you were trying to make. Without exterior criteria to make that assessment, even that conclusion is faulty.

But I still don't see any reason to reject the criteria I've already offered. It seems to me that your reason for rejecting them is because they do contradict your conclusion. That being the case, I really don't see why we're continuing this discussion.

Besides, I sincerely doubt that a mockingbird can incorporate the spiritual and theological perspective that Bach and Mozart bring to their music, or offer a different dimension equivalent to that. So, while the animal world might have music, the music it offers is not on the same level, nor does it incorporate that added dimension. So I fail to see how citing animals emulating human creativity on such a small scale and in limited dimension makes them equal.

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:16 am

I think my point could be more accurately described as this: no reasonable criteria could exclude nonhuman animals.

As to your second point: a female mocker will pick her mate, at least partly, on the song he sings. Therefore, there must be some aesthetic dimension to their song.

Didymus · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:24 am

Some. But not the same level of technique. And not the added dimension, either.

But the problem is, if you're going to make the claim that there's nothing especially special about humans, then you cannot exclude those qualities that are distinctly unique to humans. If you do, you're actually contradicting your own claim. If we are going to present any criteria at all, we do have to take into account that some will be excluded. It's the same as when the education system presents testing standards: some students will be disqualified on account of the standards, but the standards are necessary in order to make any assessment regarding the effectiveness of education. Still, in order to substantiate your claim, you have to allow for assessment according to those criteria (that is, those things that are distinctly human), or you end up proving your claims false.

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:39 pm

(Hey, why not?)

The point is that are no standards that wouldn't be human-centric.

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:48 pm

so wait, is this about Humans and Animals being equal? If so, I have a pretty good argument against it...

ed 'lim' smilde · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:49 pm

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:

so wait, is this about Humans and Animals being equal?

Yeah...

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:57 pm

Eh screw it, it doesn't sound as powerful as it does OL as it does elsewhere.

None the less, Heres how it goes:
God
_______
Humans
_______
Angels
_______
Animals

Thats pretty much how it goes.

Beyond the Grave · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:23 pm

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:

None the less, Heres how it goes:
God
_______
Angels
_______
Animals

Thats pretty much how it goes.

Fixed.

Didymus · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:28 pm

LordQuackingstick wrote:

(Hey, why not?)

The point is that are no standards that wouldn't be human-centric.

So? Unless you can demonstrate from nature that a human-centric approach to addressing this issue is wrong, then I see absolutely no reason why, as human beings, we should not appeal to standards that we understand. It seems to me that, considering the sheer scale at which humans exceed other animals in those things which I have already cited, then there is no question: humans are overall superior. There is nothing distinctly human that any other species has been able to duplicate on an equal scale, and there is nothing in other species that humans cannot duplicate through use of reason and technology.

What it comes down to, Quack, is that you are simply conveniently tossing out any criterion for which we can make any such claims - either for superiority or equality - but then insisting that we declare for equality. If there are no criteria for making any kind of assessment, then claims of equality are entirely meaningless.

So what's it going to be? Are you going to give us any kind of criteria on which we can make a basis for equality with other species, or are you going to negate your own claims of equality by failing to present any criteria?

As for me, due to criteria I have already discussed, I see absolutely no reason why we humans should not consider ourselves the pinnacle of known creatures.

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:43 pm

Beyond the Grave wrote:

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:

None the less, Heres how it goes:
God
_______
Angels
_______
Animals

Thats pretty much how it goes.

Fixed.

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:52 pm

Didymus wrote:

LordQuackingstick wrote:

(Hey, why not?)

The point is that are no standards that wouldn't be human-centric.

So? Unless you can demonstrate from nature that a human-centric approach to addressing this issue is wrong, then I see absolutely no reason why, as human beings, we should not appeal to standards that we understand. It seems to me that, considering the sheer scale at which humans exceed other animals in those things which I have already cited, then there is no question: humans are overall superior.

This seems to me like stating that you should only think about things you already know, as things things you already know are the only things you know about.

Didymus wrote:

There is nothing distinctly human that any other species has been able to duplicate on an equal scale, and there is nothing in other species that humans cannot duplicate through use of reason and technology.

"Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge." - Thomas Edison

Are you saying that man can reproduce everything that non-humans can?

Didymus wrote:

What it comes down to, Quack, is that you are simply conveniently tossing out any criterion for which we can make any such claims - either for superiority or equality - but then insisting that we declare for equality. If there are no criteria for making any kind of assessment, then claims of equality are entirely meaningless.

So what's it going to be? Are you going to give us any kind of criteria on which we can make a basis for equality with other species, or are you going to negate your own claims of equality by failing to present any criteria?

As for me, due to criteria I have already discussed, I see absolutely no reason why we humans should not consider ourselves the pinnacle of known creatures.

My point is that there is no criteria. Humans are not special, so there is no criteria that will make them so. The equality can't be determined by criteria because implies exclusion. I'm not saying that we are necessarily equal (although I think this as well) but that humans are not special.

Didymus · **Posted:** Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:00 am

Quote:

My point is that there is no criteria. Humans are not special, so there is no criteria that will make them so. The equality can't be determined by criteria because implies exclusion. I'm not saying that we are necessarily equal (although I think this as well) but that humans are not special.

But MY point is, without ANY criteria on which to base your claims, you cannot claim that we are not special. That is where your argument fails completely. All you are doing is dismissing criteria rather than truly considering that there could be such criteria to make such judgments, and as far as that goes, you have not demonstrated to my satisfaction that those criteria I have appealed to are invalid.

Quote:

"Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge." - Thomas Edison

Are you saying that man can reproduce everything that non-humans can?

Earlier in our discussions, you suggested that anything humans can do, animals can duplicate. My response was that they might be able to imitate it to a certain degree, but not to the degree that humans can accomplish the same tasks.

Honestly, LQS, I get the distinct impression that you really don't have any basis for your claims at all. You simply dismiss any and all criteria for making claims, but fail to present any of your own. Therefore, you have no basis on which to claim that humans are not special at all. On the contrary, I am convinced that criteria I have presented already contradicts your claims.

I do not agree with you in the least: I see absolutely no reason why we should not consider human beings special. If you could at least present something worth considering, you might have a case. But as it stands now, I have yet to see any compelling reason to consider your claim.

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:16 am

Didymus wrote:

But MY point is, without ANY criteria on which to base your claims, you cannot claim that we are not special.

Appeal to ignorance fallacy! Appeal to ignorance fallacy!

Didymus wrote:

Earlier in our discussions, you suggested that anything humans can do, animals can duplicate. My response was that they might be able to imitate it to a certain degree, but not to the degree that humans can accomplish the same tasks.

Honestly, LQS, I get the distinct impression that you really don't have any basis for your claims at all. You simply dismiss any and all criteria for making claims, but fail to present any of your own. Therefore, you have no basis on which to claim that humans are not special at all. On the contrary, I am convinced that criteria I have presented already contradicts your claims.

I do not agree with you in the least: I see absolutely no reason why we should not consider human beings special. If you could at least present something worth considering, you might have a case. But as it stands now, I have yet to see any compelling reason to consider your claim.

You pretty much answered you own question.

Didymus · **Posted:** Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:19 am

WRONG!

You seem to have missed this part right here:

Quote:

My response was that they might be able to imitate it to a certain degree, but not to the degree that humans can accomplish the same tasks.

And yes, scale does matter.

Let me put it this way: suppose someone were to say, "Michael Jordan is nothing special; anyone can throw a ball at a hoop," or "Abraham Lincoln is nothing special; anyone can sign their name to a piece of paper and talk," or "Michaelangelo is nothing special; anyone can slop some paint on a wall." Such a statement would be ridiculous on account that it completely denies the simple fact: each of these men excelled greatly at what they did. They weren't just good: they were great.

It is true that anyone can throw a ball at a hoop. But can they score like Mike? Anyone can talk and sign papers. But can they lead an entire nation during one of its most troubled times, and thereby change the course of American history? Anyone can slop paint on a canvas, but can they produce a work of genius like the Sistine Chapel?

Now, I'm not saying that animals aren't valuable in their own way. I value dogs because they are excellent company. I value cows because they produce the milk I put in my coffee. I value chickens because they make eggs. I value sharks because they are kick-awesome predators. But of all animals, I value humanity the most. Why? Because of the things in life that are the most treasured, all of them spring from the minds and hands of human beings.

Your line of reasoning ultimately denies that there is anything to be considered valuable at all. Because once you begin to catalog those things and stack them against those things that are valuable from animals, there is little comparison. A dog may be excellent company, but I'd never be able to discuss literature with a Australian Shepherd. A cow may be able to produce milk, but human beings pasteurize that milk and put it in jugs (or bags for Checkot Fige). Also, a human being can also duplicate milk from soy protein. A shark may be a kick-awesome predator, but there are human beings who eat them. And, more importantly for me, human beings who film them so I can watch them on my TV.

Rusty · **Posted:** Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:12 am

furrykef wrote:

I do believe that humans are animals, and we are not special. I do believe, like Didymus, that (other) animals are not our equals, but I believe that is only due to being the most advanced animal, not due to any kind of special status.

"Superior" is also too simplistic a term. A lion, tiger, or bear (oh my) can kill an unarmed human quite easily. Of course, an armed human can easily do the reverse.

There's also the point that a lot of the things that human can do that animals can't is meaningless. Things like the Mona Lisa only have meaning because we give them meaning in the first place.

- Kef

Yes.

Really, boil us down, we're animals. We're "better" in some aspects while some other animals are "better" in other aspects. There are many things that other animals can do that we can't, but for some reason, we think that what we can do is better than what they can do.

EDIT: <DRAMA REMOVED> -SR

Didymus · **Posted:** Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:22 am

Better in what respects, though, Rusty? It seems to me that in the respects that would actually make a hill of beans difference are the ones which either we humans have the complete upper hand or ones that we can duplicate using our greater intelligence. The whole, "But those don't count" argument comes across as rather empty, considering that, here we are, discussing a topic that a Cocker Spaniel or a whitetail deer would have very little appreciation for. From my perspective, the fact that they can't appreciate it just seems to further demonstrate my point. It's like saying, "Michael Jordan is not a great basketball player. And to prove my point, here's a backwoods Arkansas hillbilly who's never even seen a basketball."

But ultimately, what makes us human beings special is that God created us to be, and in the fullness of time took upon himself our human form at Bethlehem. While I have no doubt that he could have taken any form he wanted, it was as a human being he chose to be born into this world.

Rusty · **Posted:** Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:05 pm

Didymus wrote:

But ultimately, what makes us human beings special is that God created us to be, and in the fullness of time took upon himself our human form at Bethlehem. While I have no doubt that he could have taken any form he wanted, it was as a human being he chose to be born into this world.

MORPHEUS, NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES WHAT YOU BELIEVE!!

Parlod · **Posted:** Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:46 pm

You ignored everything else he said.

IantheGecko · **Posted:** Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:29 pm

Rusty wrote:

MORPHEUS, NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES WHAT YOU BELIEVE!!

God forbid people have differing opinions, Rusty. Welcome to the world.

Rusty · **Posted:** Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:02 am

IantheGecko wrote:

Rusty wrote:

MORPHEUS, NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES WHAT YOU BELIEVE!!

God forbid people have differing opinions, Rusty. Welcome to the world.

What I mean is, the use of a religion as an all-encompassing answer to my question isn't going to do it. He can believe whatever he wants, but because I don't believe what he believes, if he wants to convince me, he's going to have to appeal to what I believe.

ed 'lim' smilde · **Posted:** Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:02 am

Rusty wrote:

What I mean is, the use of a religion as an all-encompassing answer to my question isn't going to do it. He can believe whatever he wants, but because I don't believe what he believes, if he wants to convince me, he's going to have to appeal to what I believe.

The first 3/4 of that post didn't mention religion at all. The last paragraph talked about his beliefs, but if you take that part away, the point still stands.

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest · **Posted:** Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:25 am

This is obviously a more than one sided debate. There are more than one answer to it, and it seems like there are no right answers. You can argue a point all you want, convince someone that your point is right and valid, and they can agree, but that doesn't mean that it is inherently fact.

This is more of an opinion based question; an opinion that cannot be proved one way or another.
You can't prove that Animals are better than humans; Animals are Varelse: no conversation with them is possible. They live, but we cannot guess what purposes or causes makes them act. They might be intelligent, they might be self-aware, but we cannot know it.

Rusty · **Posted:** Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:06 am

ed 'lim' smilde wrote:

Rusty wrote:

What I mean is, the use of a religion as an all-encompassing answer to my question isn't going to do it. He can believe whatever he wants, but because I don't believe what he believes, if he wants to convince me, he's going to have to appeal to what I believe.

The first 3/4 of that post didn't mention religion at all. The last paragraph talked about his beliefs, but if you take that part away, the point still stands.

Here's what threw me off:

Didymus wrote:

But ultimately, what makes us human beings special is that God created us to be,

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Man is an animal too, my boy!

Who is online