Man is an animal too, my boy!

Didymus · **Posted:** Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:00 pm

LordQuackingstick wrote:

Are you saying they should learn to talk to gain respect in people's eyes? To quote Paul Corey, "Mortimer Adler... wants, before he will abandon man's nonanimal image, a zoologist to 'discover a nonhuman species of animal the members of which engage in conversation with one another.' He doesn't specify whether that conversation be carried on in English, Latin or Hebrew, but I assume he expects it to be some human-animal language. This alone shows Mr. Adler's appalling ignorance of nonhuman animals and, maybe, of the human animal as well."

Actually, I've read some of Adler's works. He's actually a very intelligent man. But to answer back at your criticism, people of different languages can in fact communicate with each other. There have been scientists who are teaching apes sign language and are able to communicate with them concerning simple concrete concepts, such as "I want banana." However, they have yet to demonstrate any capacity for abstract reasoning or the communication of abstract concepts. And apes are supposed to the the closest to us in intelligence, right? If you're attempting to apply Corey's criticism of Adler as a criticism of me, then my suggestion to you is essentially this: actually study some animal behavior and see if the theory I propose is not correct.

Acekirby · **Posted:** Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:10 pm

LordQuackingstick wrote:

Oh, and I'm not saying it's wrong to eat animals. We just should remember that we, too, are animals.

Animals eat other animals. You say humans are equal to all other animals. Therefore we have the right to eat animals.

And if you say "Well we have the capacity to choose if we don't eat animals because we're more intelligent and they can't choose / don't know any better", then it's a contradiction of the "we're the same as animals".

bwave · **Posted:** Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:11 pm

LordQuackingstick wrote:

I'm sure I'll be able to come up with an example of a nonhuman volunteer. But in the meantime, consider this:
Not all humans volunteer. Are the ones who do more human than the ones who don't?

We all make choices. We have the ability to say "that old lady can cross the rule 6 street by herself", or "I'll help that old lady". Just because some people dont do selfless acts doesnt mean they cant.

Also, consider this: People in primitive tribes share these characterists, despite never having heard of it occurring in our culture. This shows that compassion is just a part of human nature.

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:34 pm

All right, here: Sometimes, a bird of a certain species will help a bird of another species raise its young.

Acekirby wrote:

Animals eat other animals. You say humans are equal to all other animals. Therefore we have the right to eat animals.

I agree with this statement.

Didymus wrote:

However, they have yet to demonstrate any capacity for abstract reasoning or the communication of abstract concepts.

.
You have heard of Alex the parrot, right? Well, he asks for his rewards by name and does other things that can be considered abstract thought.

Mike D · **Posted:** Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:38 pm

Didymus wrote:

...they are here to be our food, pets, and amusement.

Out of curiosity, what's your opinion of Michael Vick? Are there moral limits to how we can use animals for amusement?

bwave wrote:

This shows that compassion is just a part of human nature.

But is it a trait exclusive to humans?

http://www.pcipr.com/clients/casehistor ... s_0006.htm

http://www.foundationtv.co.uk/brilliant ... item2.html

There are numerous explanations for these events, but thusfar nothing conclusive. Definitely interesting case studies, however.

Mike

Didymus · **Posted:** Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:03 pm

LordQuackingstick wrote:

Didymus wrote:

However, they have yet to demonstrate any capacity for abstract reasoning or the communication of abstract concepts.

.
You have heard of Alex the parrot, right? Well, he asks for his rewards by name and does other things that can be considered abstract thought.

Um, no. Asking for a thing by name is not an example of abstract thinking. That's concrete, not abstract. You're going to have to do better than that.

Mike D wrote:

Didymus wrote:

...they are here to be our food, pets, and amusement.

Out of curiosity, what's your opinion of Michael Vick? Are there moral limits to how we can use animals for amusement?

I am not in favor of animal cruelty at all. As creatures of moral sensibility, humans have a responsibility to care for the animals under their protection and not to abuse them.

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:06 pm

Abstract thought is reducing a concept into relevent information. Asking for an apple reduces the concept of the apple into the word apple.

Didymus · **Posted:** Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:19 pm

It is the direct association of the sound of the spoken word "apple" with the concrete object "apple", in much the same way that Pavlov's dogs could associate the sound of a bell with dinner. That's not abstract thinking. Abstract thinking is the discussion of concepts and ideas that are not always clearly associated with concrete objects. Such as the concept of morality. While concrete examples of such a phenomenon as morality can be given, morality itself is essentially a set of core values which can be articulated. This makes morality essentially an abstract. The same can be said for such things as aesthetics, ontology, theoretical mathematics, etc.

So, no, a parrot saying "Apple!" in order to get an apple is not the same thing as human beings discussing whether or not .999... = 1

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:26 pm

But wait! He specially CHOOSES the apple, and doesn't get a reward unless he asks for it. That's not pavlovian.

Didymus · **Posted:** Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:33 pm

He associates saying the word "Apple" (a specific behavior) with getting an apple (a specific result). It's still concrete, not abstract.

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:46 pm

It is, by the definition of abstraction.

Didymus · **Posted:** Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:49 pm

Come on, LQS, do you honestly think this parrot could discuss whether or not .999...= 1?

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:07 am

Didymus wrote:

However, they have yet to demonstrate any capacity for abstract reasoning or the communication of abstract concepts.

"Warm dark place."

That was Koko the gorilla's response when asked "What is death?"

Marshmallow Roast · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:00 am

Humans are indeed animals. And I don't place other animals on a lower level than I place our own species; I don't refer to the cats that live with me as "my pets," and I don't feel like we have a right to keep animals locked up in cages at zoos and the like, or to abuse them since they're just dumb ol' animals.

I don't consider it wrong for animals to eat other animals, since many species need to eat meat to survive. But since we, as humans, are not one of those species, I feel like we have a responsibility to refrain from eating other animals, and I think there will come a day when people will be shocked that humans used to eat meat. I also believe we shouldn't eat or wear other animal products- since the animals can't tell us it's okay to take them, it's stealing, in my view.

I know I'm risking getting jumped on for being the PETA advocate, but I've tried to present my opinions in an intelligent manner.

Didymus · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:36 am

Quote:

since the animals can't tell us it's okay to take them

But in my view, this is precisely what makes us superior to them. That, along with the fact that we can actually discuss the morality of eating them, whereas they cannot.

Beardo · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:37 am

Maybe you're equal to an animal.

(joke, no ban)

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:40 am

Marshmallow Roast wrote:

I don't consider it wrong for animals to eat other animals, since many species need to eat meat to survive. But since we, as humans, are not one of those species...

We're omnivores. Meat is high on our instinctual list of things to eat because of the protein and fats. Yes, there are ways around that, to get such nutrients from a wholly herbivorous diet, but I don't see why we should have to. Is it more human to follow the instinctual urge to eat meat, or is it more human to use reasoning to create and follow a morality based on going against more primal instincts?

I guess the answer to that--and to this entire thread--is how do you define and distinguish "human"?

Acekirby · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:32 am

Didymus wrote:

Quote:

since the animals can't tell us it's okay to take them

But in my view, this is precisely what makes us superior to them. That, along with the fact that we can actually discuss the morality of eating them, whereas they cannot.

This is EXACTLY what I said.

As long as I have the capacity to, I will continue to eat meat. I love it.

Marshmallow Roast · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:32 pm

How do you feel about people- humans- who are mentally impaired to the point that they cannot think rationally or communicate? That makes them similar enough to animals, but do you think that they are entitled to more rights than animals?

Didymus · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:13 pm

Of course I do. Because they are human beings. While they as individuals may not have the same intellectual capacity, they are still family, created in God's image, and therefore precious. Keep in mind, as a hospice chaplain, I work with mentally impaired people, mostly Alzheimer's victims.

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:35 pm

But are they entitled to those rights merely because they are human?

Nonhumans do communicate with us. Whenever a nonhuman changes our behavior, they have communicated. In some ways, they are better at communicating than humans.

Here, Didy, is a concrete example of complex thought: the New Caledonian Crow. This bird makes tools. It has even made tools out of materials it is unfamiliar with.

Wesstarrunner · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:39 pm

That's adapting and surviving.

Have you seen an animal think up a philosophy or create a religion? No.
Do animals have democratic government? Correct me if I'm wrong (I might be), but I believe they don't.
Do animals laugh at humorous things? No, they do not have a sense of humor, literally.

Koko the Gorilla is messed up just so you know. Look at the Wikipedia page on her that I'm not going to link to because I do not want to risk a chance of a warning for more info.

I think apes are probably capable of some basic abstract thought, but most animals are just dumb 'ole animals that are nowhere near our equals, they don't deserve torture but they are not our equals.

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:52 pm

They may not have democracy, but they certainly have government.

ed 'lim' smilde · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:00 pm

Duh, ever heard of a QUEEN bee?
Ba-dum CSHHHHH!!!

HHFOV · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:36 pm

Marshmallow Roast wrote:

Humans are indeed animals. And I don't place other animals on a lower level than I place our own species; I don't refer to the cats that live with me as "my pets," and I don't feel like we have a right to keep animals locked up in cages at zoos and the like, or to abuse them since they're just dumb ol' animals.

I don't consider it wrong for animals to eat other animals, since many species need to eat meat to survive. But since we, as humans, are not one of those species, I feel like we have a responsibility to refrain from eating other animals, and I think there will come a day when people will be shocked that humans used to eat meat. I also believe we shouldn't eat or wear other animal products- since the animals can't tell us it's okay to take them, it's stealing, in my view.

I know I'm risking getting jumped on for being the PETA advocate, but I've tried to present my opinions in an intelligent manner.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY
(Owned.)

Did he sell eggs? · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:02 pm

If we are animals, then we're the only ones who did anything huge with our intellectual abilities. See, if the dolphins had done something more, than it might be more easily proven that we're animals.

Didymus · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:04 pm

Quote:

Here, Didy, is a concrete example of complex thought: the New Caledonian Crow. This bird makes tools. It has even made tools out of materials it is unfamiliar with.

When it can have a discussion about whether 0.999... = 1, then I'll be impressed.

Mike D · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:28 pm

Abstract thought, art, government, technology, and so forth are lovely, but I'll reiterate that in the the long term species survival is the thing that matters most. There are many species on this planet who've survived in their present forms much, much longer than we have, and who could easily outlast us. By that yardstick it very much remains to be seen whether humanity has actual staying power or if we're essentially a flash in the pan. Despite all our advancements we are still very much a part of the planet's complex ecological web, and we could be extincted a lot more easily than a number of species we think of as "beneath" us.

Our capability to extinct ourselves remains the worst threat, of course. In truth, it would only take a few decisions from a frighteningly small number of people to get the ball rolling. Hopefully that's unlikely, but in fact it could occur at literally any moment. A species that actually extincts itself is a colossal failure and definitely a long way from superior. Honestly, the jury's still out on the superiority debate, and it will be for a long time to come.

If you want to argue that we're the most powerful species on Earth you can make a much stronger case. Our ability to influence our planet is unrivaled. The fact the we're our own worst enemies actually proves the point.

Mike

Didymus · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:36 pm

Actually, I disagree with your early statement, Mike. I do not concur that survival is the greatest, most important factor in determining a species' value. Sure, cockroaches may survive a nuclear holocaust that killed every other living thing on the planet, but so what? You'd have a planet full of cockroaches.

Human beings, on the other hand, have not just the ability to adapt to various environments, but also the ability to change its environment on a massive scale. Sure, cockroaches might be able to adapt to the city environment, but it is human beings who create that city.

Human beings also create art, music, literature, and science, that is, things that make our existence worth a lot more than whether or not we survive as a species. When a cockroach can survive a nuclear holocaust AND recite the works of Shakespeare, then I'll be impressed with them.

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:19 pm

Humans are not the only animals to build cities.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Man is an animal too, my boy!

Who is online