This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Creepy fact

Post by 184848

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Skyfire

I hope you live happily telling your wife that you will be home for dinner because it is instinct to go where there is food, and that you will be happy to provide offspring to fill her essential instinct to reproduce, and that every kiss and every moment you felt the remotest attraction was only a game played by millions of years of evolution to ensure the prolonged existence of the species.

Yes, I'm sure she will love that.

LOL. I've yet to use the word "instinct"! Don't put words in my mouth which I did or will not say.

Post by 184848

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 182246

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Laihendi

I want to feel like I really love someone, and believe it; not think of it as a surge of hormones and my need to reproduce.

Which is why the inferior species don't have emotion. They can't think.Is this more of that sarcasm that people like to use so much here?

Post by Skyfire

Is this more of that sarcasm that people like to use so much here?

No. It is the exact crux of the case you are trying to make. Calling fear fear (as an emotion and not as instinct) necessarily requires that you can think you are afraid, and you have had experience of fear before, also knowing then it was fear. This requires that you can think.

We can say quite easily that for the majority of animals, this is not the case. Animals do not consider consequences; it is simply a case of "if case A, I should do B", rather than the human "if case A, I should do B, but would about case D which happens because of doing B? What about case C instead of case A?"

Post by 184848

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Laihendi

Post by vikey

Laihendi never said anything about fear. Try again. And it's quite arrogant for you to consider other animals to be "lesser beings". What makes a human a "greater being"? You may think that it's because humans don't concern themselves with the issues of animals, but do you think animals in general care about what humans have done?

All the accomplishments of humans are only important to humans. Nothing and no one else cares. Just like humans don't care about anything that animals do. You're not better than them, you just don't care about them.

Also, there have been several cases where particularly intelligent gorillas have been taught basic sign language. Here is one of them. So if it can express happiness, sadness, anger, and it can even use language to communicate with humans, how is it a "lesser being" that is incapable of emotion?

Sexual harassment charges against a gorilla.

I totally am on your side and agree with your view on the argument, but that part of your wikipedia link made me rofl.

Koko has been involved in a number of sexual harassment lawsuits. At least three former female employees have claimed that they were pressured into showing their breasts to Koko. They alleged that Patterson encouraged the behavior, often interpreted Koko's signs as requests for nipple display, and let them know that their job would be in danger if they "did not indulge Koko's nipple fetish." Koko has been known to playfully grab both male and female nipples without warning or provocation. Patterson claims that Koko uses the word "nipple" to refer to humans.

All claims of harassment have been permanently dropped as of November 21, 2005 after the foundation and the parties involved reached a settlement.

Jody Weiner, Koko's lawyer, writes about Koko and sexual harassment in the book Kinship With Animals.

"Well, I went in to give the gorilla a banana, but he forced me to show my nipples!"

Post by 182246

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 184848

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by vikey

We went over the language taught apes in anthropology recently, there's a fair amount of doubt in the veracity that they've been actually taught anything. Some feel that the trainers give them subtly clues in the form of body language and loaded questions like "Do you want an apple".

Another falling is that these really don't show anything we didn't know before. We've known for a while now that many animals have vocal and visual expressions with some abitrary meaning. However, the main difference from human speech is the lack of symbolic meaning. The ability of a chimpanzee to correctly recognize the sign of an apple corresponding to the fruit is one thing. The ability of a chimpanzee to use the sign of an apple to represent something along the lines of "the fruit of labor" is quite another.

According to that wikipedia link, he knew 2k english words and over 1k sign language words.

That's not just learning to get the apple, apparently that gorilla used words correctly and didn't just learn to say something and get a treat for it.

Post by Skyfire

Laihendi never said anything about fear. Try again.It was an example, which you should have recognized it as. Use any emotion in place of it. Do try again!

And it's quite arrogant for you to consider other animals to be "lesser beings". What makes a human a "greater being"? You may think that it's because humans don't concern themselves with the issues of animals, but do you think animals in general care about what humans have done?

All the accomplishments of humans are only important to humans. Nothing and no one else cares. Just like humans don't care about anything that animals do. You're not better than them, you just don't care about them.

The irony, yet again, is that animals can not care, so your case is moot. This is specifically what I just said.

You (deliberately?) misconstrue me when you say "superior" and "inferior". They are inferior technologically, and rationally. Which I previously said as much.

Also, there have been several cases where particularly intelligent gorillas have been taught basic sign language. Here is one of them. So if it can express happiness, sadness, anger, and it can even use language to communicate with humans, how is it a "lesser being" that is incapable of emotion?

One: Reread what I said. Two: Stop arguing the specific case and argue the general. When I speak of a specific emotion, I should be construed as speaking about all emotions. Nothing I've yet said, in my mind, is wrong in this case. Where you are wrong is that you are taking the specific case and extending it to the general, which is an easy-to-see logical fallacy. Three: Stop trying to derail the argument by speaking about superiority and inferiority and start trying to answer the arguments I've made.

Post by Laihendi

Vikey, it may be comical, but it only makes him seem more like a human.

And Kath, say that gorilla has the vocabulary of a 5 year old... knows 1,000 signs and understands 2,000 words. That's probably a lot more than many 5 year olds, but for the sake of simplicity... let's go with it. If a gorilla can use a language created by and used by humans just as proficiently as a 5 year old, does that mean that a 5 year old is a lesser creature and is incapable of emotion? Of course not.

Post by Laihendi

Skyfire, you're the one who started classifying creatures and inferior beings. Scroll up if you don't believe it.

And way to go completely ignoring how a mere animal is capable of not only understanding but using a human language.

And you say animals can't care? It seems to Laihendi that you simply can't care about them. As said before multiple times "Just because you can't understand the complexities of animals, it doesn't mean they don't exist".

Where you are wrong is that you are taking the specific case and extending it to the general, which is an easy-to-see logical fallacy.

So you're saying that Laihendi can't use specific cases to back up his arguments? Why? Do you not like it when others have evidence indicating that you're wrong?

Post by 182246

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Haxzor

Ivokk I pretty much agree with you totally. We need to have change otherwise we will cease to exist. But science can help that change.

I would love to live in a romantic world, but it can't exist.
A romantisized world is a utopian world.

It's not just science that made the world less romantic, but politics and womens rights(unfortnate as it is, it's true) also played major parts

Post by Skyfire

Skyfire, you're the one who started classifying creatures and inferior beings. Scroll up if you don't believe it.Yes, but my message was not based on any inherent inferiority with respect to humanity, which you seem to think it was. They are simply inferior technologically and rationally. This I then used to say that they can not feel true emotion. REREAD EVERYTHING AGAIN.

And way to go completely ignoring how a mere animal is capable of not only understanding but using a human language.

Which has what to do with rationality? Which has what to do with the general case? You need to read it, again. Read all of it a 3rd time, because you either won't get it the 2nd or you'll refuse to get it the 2nd.

And you say animals can't care? It seems to Laihendi that you simply can't care about them. As said before multiple times "Just because you can't understand the complexities of animals, it doesn't mean they don't exist".

They can't care because they can not rationalize. Read it all, a fourth time. Is this sounding like a broken record? If it is, you should look at what you're saying, even thinking, and adjust to what I'm saying.

So you're saying that Laihendi can't use specific cases to back up his arguments? Why?

Because using the specific case only proves your argument for the specific case. As you're the one harping about all animals, you need to also use the general case. Which you have not.

It's like arguing that (x-3)(x+3)=0 only has one root at 3. You either need to prove a) that there is also a specific root at -3 or you need to b) prove that there are always roots at certain places on a quadratic curve. The first you have not done, and the analog to the quadratic equation which is required for the second you similarly have not done. I, on the other hand, have come out and said "these things are true in all cases, with respect to emotion".

Creepy fact

Post Reply