Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Man is an animal too, my boy!
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12330		 Page 1 of 8
Author:  LordQuackingstick [ Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Man is an animal too, my boy!
Humans are animals. Discuss.

Bonus points if you know what the title is.
Author:  StrongRad [ Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Man is an animal too, my boy!
LordQuackingstick wrote:
Humans are animals. Discuss.

Bonus points if you know what the title is.

FYI, if you're going to start a topic. Saying "Discuss." isn't the best way to get it rolling.

Howsaboust you give us your insight on the situation.
Author:  LordQuackingstick [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:43 am ]
Post subject: 
Well, ex-cuuuse me, Princess!
Basically, I do not believe that non-human animals are in any way spiritually, emotionally, or morally inferior to humans. I don't think we're as superior intellectually as we like to think.
Author:  Didymus [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:59 am ]
Post subject: 
When was the last time you saw an elephant paint the Mona Lisa? Or a whale program a satellite to take pictures of Mars? Or a camel write a treatise on camel rights?

I'll make a deal with you, Quackingstick, when the animals are able to speak up for themselves, and establish their own equality with us, and defend their own rights by word and deed, then I'll believe their our equals. Until then, they are here to be our food, pets, and amusement.

Oh, and by the way. If you wish to be consistent with your belief, then that hot dog you ate at the 7-11? The one that gave you hiccups? That was MURDER!!
Author:  LordQuackingstick [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:11 am ]
Post subject: 
When was the last time you saw an anteater start a war and kill millions?

Oh, and lots of elephants paint.

"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow man."

Oh, and I'm not saying it's wrong to eat animals. We just should remember that we, too, are animals.
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:22 am ]
Post subject: 
I can do Calculus, monkeys can't.

HUMAN SUPERIORITY, FOO'!

Be proud of your species. Embrace it, make it yours.
Author:  Inverse Tiger [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:29 am ]
Post subject: 
One LQ post at a time.

First: Humans are animals.
Yes.

Second: Animals are equal to humans in this list of qualities.
No.

Third: Same point with examples that actually contradict the point when you think about them.
...your examples actually contradict your point when you think about them.

Of course humans are animals. The question is: are we really smart animals, or animals with something else, or are we primarily something else attached to an animal? That's a spiritual question.
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:32 am ]
Post subject: 
Humans aren't animals, if we were all animals, then we'd all be furries. Then I'd have to kill myself.
Author:  Inverse Tiger [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:35 am ]
Post subject: 
You're a person who thinks he's a homo sapiens!!! OMG FURY EVIL
Author:  IantheGecko [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:46 am ]
Post subject:  Take your furry hate elsewhere, COLA. Respect your mods.
We are animals, COLA. Any biologist will tell you that.

Furries, on the other hand, are animals with human characteristics. A wild animal is not a furry. But that's a subject for this thread.
Author:  furrykef [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:08 am ]
Post subject: 
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
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 5:16 am ]
Post subject: 
LordQuackingstick wrote:
Oh, and I'm not saying it's wrong to eat animals. We just should remember that we, too, are animals.
What are you trying to say then? We too can be animals, but what does that imply?
Author:  Didymus [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:16 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
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.

But the fact we attach meaning to such things demonstrates yet another quality of humanity: abstract thinking. Even the very fact that we are able to discuss the topic of this thread.
Author:  Mike D [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:54 am ]
Post subject: 
Yes, we are animals, albeit rather highly trained. Obviously "superiority" is a subjective term. The cockroaches are probably going to outlast us, after all. In terms of species survival they've got us beat by a longshot. I think people have a difficult time conceptualizing human extinction, but despite all our advances (or, more likely, because of them) it could certainly happen to us.

Mike
Author:  The Noid [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:
Humans aren't animals, if we were all animals, then we'd all be furries. Then I'd have to kill myself.


I lol'd.

Anyways, uh, yes, we are animals and we are arguably one of the smartest kinds. Now I'm just sayin' this for all of the elephants out there in Michigan...
Author:  HHFOV [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
You cannot justifiably say that humans are morally equal to animals as you are.

A human has inherently potentially more to accomplish and affect others within its lifetime, therefore killing a human is worse than killing another animal.

But humans are animals, to some extent.
Author:  LordQuackingstick [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
Let's say that you have a doctor and an appliance salesman. The doctor is, more likely than not, going to change more lives and accomplish more than the appliance salesman. Is it more wrong to kill the doctor than it is to kill the appliance salesman?
Author:  bwave [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
LordQuackingstick wrote:
Let's say that you have a doctor and an appliance salesman. The doctor is, more likely than not, going to change more lives and accomplish more than the appliance salesman. Is it more wrong to kill the doctor than it is to kill the appliance salesman?


It is wrong to kill any human because of the kind of ripple effect every life has. The appliance salesman sells the doctor the appliances he needs to make food to stay alive, so he can save more lives.

But most people dont just say "Let's kill animals, lol". They do it for food, or to limit the population, or for defense.
Author:  LordQuackingstick [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Then the ripple effect means it is equally wrong to kill any animal without reason, thus destroying HHFOV's argument.

Didymus wrote:
I'll make a deal with you, Quackingstick, when the animals are able to speak up for themselves, and establish their own equality with us, and defend their own rights by word and deed, then I'll believe their our equals. Until then, they are here to be our food, pets, and amusement.


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."
Author:  bwave [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
LordQuackingstick wrote:
Then the ripple effect means it is equally wrong to kill any animal without reason, thus destroying HHFOV's argument.


*Facepalm*
No, the ripple effect just showed that using a doctor and an appliance salesman to represent a human and an animal was an incorrect analogy. In the long run, the doctor and the appliance salesman all do the same amount of good (Gears in a machine), while the animal only does good for itself.
Author:  Inverse Tiger [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
LQ wrote:
Are you saying they should learn to talk to gain respect in people's eyes?

It is silly to say that animals should be able to speak up for themselves within our societal framework to be considered our equals, and it's sad that that seems to be the first thing a lot of critics of "animal rights" go to first. It just doesn't make any sense as an argument. Speech as we know it is only something we have, but that doesn't mean that other animals aren't sentient to some degree. They might be, or they might not be. We really have no way of knowing. Just because they can't communicate with us doesn't mean anything. It could be that we're just so different that communication isn't possible.

For a similar reason, though, you can't give animals equality with us or rights either. Yes, humans are animals, but things like "equality" and "rights" are constructed by human society for human society. Trying to apply them to other species doesn't work for the simple reason that they're not the same species and have different positions in nature and different or no social structures.

That's not to say we should kill them all. There are plenty reasons we shouldn't kill animals randomly and should work for conservation, but they're mostly practical, not this theoretical nonsense or over-idealized emotional hippie talk.
Author:  bwave [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
As a tiger, you are biased.
Author:  Inverse Tiger [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
ACK YOU GOT MEH!
Author:  LordQuackingstick [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
bwave wrote:
LordQuackingstick wrote:
Then the ripple effect means it is equally wrong to kill any animal without reason, thus destroying HHFOV's argument.


*Facepalm*
No, the ripple effect just showed that using a doctor and an appliance salesman to represent a human and an animal was an incorrect analogy. In the long run, the doctor and the appliance salesman all do the same amount of good (Gears in a machine), while the animal only does good for itself.


Animals will help one another.

And here's a crushing blow: the Greater Honeyguide. This bird will guide honey-hunting humans to bee's nests that it cannot get to alone. This bird is doing good for another species, in exchange for the comb left behind by the hunters, like the money a salesman or doctor receives.
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Quote:
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.

But the fact we attach meaning to such things demonstrates yet another quality of humanity: abstract thinking. Even the very fact that we are able to discuss the topic of this thread.
That's true, we're only animals because of how we define an animal. If we wanted to change the definition so we weren't, we could.
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
IT speaks the truth--the primary difference I see between humans and the rest of the animal world is not necessarily intelligence, but capacity for expression and communication.

Imagine if we didn't have the technology for paralyzed people like Stephen Hawking. Here would sit a man who, in his entire lifetime, had realized so many revolutionary things about our universe, but would be unable to communicate them to anyone else because of his disability.

Now who says something similar doesn't happen in other animals? I'm not saying that it's certain that my dog is rationalizing the universe the same way Hawking is, but what if one dog realized the benefit of using a simple, crude tool for something? The dog would essentially die with that knowledge unshared because it lacks the capacity to communicate it to others of its own kind.

But because Ogg the Caveman was able to show his brother Ugg how much more effective a large stick was at killing prey than his own bare hands, our species started its progress towards dominance through technology, medicine, and logic.

And one more thing: If you truly disbelieve that humans are still animals, then you'll have to argue about 160 years worth of taxonomy--stuff that even predates Darwin.
Author:  bwave [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
LordQuackingstick wrote:
Animals will help one another.

I've never heard of a non-human animal doing a selfless act. They always want something out of everything they do. even when a dog does something that seems selfless, it is usually just for it's owner, who gives it food.

LordQuackingstick wrote:
And here's a crushing blow: the Greater Honeyguide. This bird will guide honey-hunting humans to bee's nests that it cannot get to alone. This bird is doing good for another species, in exchange for the comb left behind by the hunters, like the money a salesman or doctor receives.


OMG! A crushing blow!

Actually, you just proved my above point. The greater honeyguide is just looking to get a comb out of it. It's not by any means beign nice to us, or hoping to make our lives easier. It just wants something, and knows we can help it. It's called a symbiotic relationship. If it wasnt getting the honeycomb, the bird wouldnt help at all.
Author:  LordQuackingstick [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
bwave wrote:
LordQuackingstick wrote:
Animals will help one another.

I've never heard of a non-human animal doing a selfless act. They always want something out of everything they do. even when a dog does something that seems selfless, it is usually just for it's owner, who gives it food.

LordQuackingstick wrote:
And here's a crushing blow: the Greater Honeyguide. This bird will guide honey-hunting humans to bee's nests that it cannot get to alone. This bird is doing good for another species, in exchange for the comb left behind by the hunters, like the money a salesman or doctor receives.


OMG! A crushing blow!

Actually, you just proved my above point. The greater honeyguide is just looking to get a comb out of it. It's not by any means beign nice to us, or hoping to make our lives easier. It just wants something, and knows we can help it. It's called a symbiotic relationship. If it wasnt getting the honeycomb, the bird wouldnt help at all.


I realize this; it is, indeed, a symbiotic relationship. But can you honestly say that most people are willing to work for free?
Author:  bwave [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 5:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
LordQuackingstick wrote:
I realize this; it is, indeed, a symbiotic relationship. But can you honestly say that most people are willing to work for free?

Most people dont got to 9 to 5 jobs for free, but most people would do some work for free.

People who volunteer at soup kitchens, volunteer firefighters, ANIMAL shelter volunteers, people just helping out their neighbor, and other such stuff.
Author:  LordQuackingstick [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 5:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
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?
Page 1 of 8 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/