RE: The human animal ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


MadAxeman -> RE: The human animal ? (12/7/2008 9:30:16 AM)

When it's done well it is.




cjan -> RE: The human animal ? (12/7/2008 9:32:04 AM)

But, but,but...are you saying my irony is poorly done, lobster face ? Don't make me come over there...




MadAxeman -> RE: The human animal ? (12/7/2008 9:57:53 AM)

It was fine, by American standards probably touched with genius.




cjan -> RE: The human animal ? (12/7/2008 10:40:37 AM)

Just remember, we kicked your asses in the Revolution and can do it again.

I must admit, though, judging by Monty Python, Eddie Izzard and Guy Ritchie, you Brits can be , ironically, quite witty.




MadAxeman -> RE: The human animal ? (12/7/2008 10:51:03 AM)

I accept your genuflection on behalf of all the above, apart from Guy Ritchie who we are looking to marry off again onto another of your females.
Maybe Nicole Ritchie? That would save a lot of admin.




cjan -> RE: The human animal ? (12/7/2008 11:01:49 AM)

You should be proud of Guy. He kicked Madonna's ass, then told her to stuff her $$. I think his movies are quite funny.




MadAxeman -> RE: The human animal ? (12/7/2008 11:13:35 AM)

I heard that some weren't meant to be.




windchymes -> RE: The human animal ? (12/7/2008 4:33:22 PM)

Come to think of it, male animals do seem to enjoy their pissing contests [8|]




SimplyMichael -> RE: The human animal ? (12/8/2008 6:37:52 AM)

I hear this "humans are unique" crap in university courses all the time.  It flies in the face of reality.

To compare "us" with us being modern humans learning about our past to an animal without such instruction turns science on its head.  If someone were to conduct a study of teaching methods and keep a group of children  trapped in some nature preserve and another group going through some sort of "special" school to show how good the special school was people would scoff as it is clearly a biased experiment.

Humans have a slim delicate edge over some of the primates and by slowly building knowledge have moved past them but that edge is slim.  Animals DO think abstractly, if you can use a mirror and recognize "self" in it, that is abstract, any number of animals have been shown to do so.  Animals certainly have emotions and all the rest of the "special" things we have.

I mean come on, they use Prozac to treat neurotic parrots....what does that tell you?




BossyShoeBitch -> RE: The human animal ? (12/8/2008 7:12:24 AM)

I haven't read the whole thread but my quick answer is that the only difference between the human animal and all other animals is free will. 

Period.




WetBetty -> RE: The human animal ? (12/8/2008 7:13:17 AM)

That some people shouldn't have pets.




jlf1961 -> RE: The human animal ? (12/8/2008 7:16:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WetBetty

That some people shouldn't have pets.


Are we talking human pets like subs and slaves, or those critters with fur, feathers, scales?




celticlord2112 -> RE: The human animal ? (12/8/2008 7:18:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BossyShoeBitch

I haven't read the whole thread but my quick answer is that the only difference between the human animal and all other animals is free will. 

Period.

True. Humans are one of the few animals that do not have free will, it seems.....




WetBetty -> RE: The human animal ? (12/8/2008 7:28:47 AM)

Giving drugs to animals is mad.
Even if the parrotseatemall.




celticlord2112 -> RE: The human animal ? (12/8/2008 7:32:47 AM)

quote:

Giving drugs to animals is mad.

I quite agree....I hate to share.




hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: The human animal ? (12/8/2008 8:17:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin
I am not talking about the furries, but how different are we from animals, I mean we have art, cinema, sport, literature and philosophy, we are supposedly civilised, but are we really that different from animals ?

Primitive people could be likened to animals, albeit human animals, because they lack civility, but is our civility just a mask for the animal beneath ?


I finally got around to taking a peek at this thread, and I'm going to answer without looking at the rest of it.

First - who determines and/or judges civilization?  The winners - ie, those who manage through various means to overcome/conquor any others who happen to be around?  Those who happen to make the claim most loudly or frequently or to sufficient other numbers of humans? Technology? (Can't be that, or None of us would be considered "civilized" up until this past century, really.)  Or are you using something like "plumbing" to determine what is and isn't civilization?  Civility is a mask - a very Thin mask when you put the equation at one of sheer survival, rather than "stuff."  One that's stripped away on a fairly regular and routine basis.

Mechanically - biologically - we are little removed from any other mammal on the planet.  It is species ego which causes us to assume we are the most intelligent, or the most "civilized" species on the planet.  So what is it really that makes us "different"? Is our difference due to Tool Use?   Is it our so called "exclusive" ability to manipulate our environment?  Anyone who's ever been owned by 4 footed children will promptly tell you otherewise on both counts - our pets simply use us As the tools in order to manipulate Their environment!  (Anyone who wants to scoff at this idea take a moment and think about the last time your dog sat at the door whining to be let out so it could toilet, or the cat weaving itself around your legs to get your attention because the food dish was empty!)  Primates of various sorts have been shown both in captivity and the wild to use tools of sorts - crude by our standards, but tools none the less.  Several species both on land and in water have shown significant ability to problem solve - which is a tool We use frequently to determine intelligence even amongst ourselves.

Either way, we are a species with massive ego.




kittinSol -> RE: The human animal ? (12/8/2008 8:30:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach
Either way, we are a species with massive ego.


It also seems that we are also the only specie so far that has developed symbolic thought and imagined divinity. It's our capacity to produce 'useless' things like art, literature and music, that makes us a rather unusual phenomenon.




hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: The human animal ? (12/8/2008 8:48:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach
Either way, we are a species with massive ego.


It also seems that we are also the only specie so far that has developed symbolic thought and imagined divinity. It's our capacity to produce 'useless' things like art, literature and music, that makes us a rather unusual phenomenon.


Ah, but how are we so certain that we're the only species with Symbolic Thought or Imagined Divinity?  Simply because we humans lack sufficient intelligence to learn the language of another species (unlike Primates, who are intelligent enough to learn one of OUR languages!) in order to devine their thought processes - it does not necessarily follow that they lack such specific thoughts.  That assumption, again, is one of human ego.  Who are we to say what is and isn't going through their minds?  Are there now verifable mind readers out there who have been able to do so with other species?  Our capacity to create "useless" things like art and music may not be all that "unique" either.  Again, simply because WE don't recognize it as "art" does not mean that some other species doesn't recognize it as such.  Just because WE don't recognize a vocalization pattern as "music" doesn't mean it isn't such to the species making it.

edited to add :  I'm quite certain that some of our "music" would definately NOT be considered so by the other species around us - it's barely considered such by some of us!




Aneirin -> RE: The human animal ? (12/8/2008 8:57:36 AM)

I was at the National Aquarium last week watching and trying to photograph the fish in a huge room size tank. There was a sea turtle going around in circles, a couple of sharks swimming around in circles, in fact all the fish were swimming around in circles, around a centre rock pillar. Odd thing, the turtle and sharks were going clockwise and the other fish anticlockwise. Anyways, come kicking out time, we got talking with the marine biologist on duty and I could not help but say, ''Don't you think the fish in that tank are bored with their enviroment'', The answer was, from the biologist, '' oh, no, fish don't have the capacity to get bored'', Well, my answer to that was, what exactly does humankind know about the feelings of animals, it is so arrogant of us to assume we are of a higher intelligence.

I look at it this way, if I was a fish in that tank, I would be bored with my enviroment, knowing I can swim in any direction and come up against a barrier of glass, a prison, a zoo for fish.

I was'nt meaning to get confrontational, but the statement annoyed me, one thing I cannot abide, is arrogance from those who dedicate their lives to understanding and caring for animals. We as humans will never understand nature if look at everything else that lives as beneath us and our understanding, perhaps our highly inflated oppinion ofourselves.




MadAxeman -> RE: The human animal ? (12/8/2008 9:01:05 AM)

Maybe they would benefit from a Fintendo?




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125