Home - List All Discussions

Animal rights?

They are all inferior to humans.

by: sweet

How could some conclude that animals are equal to humans?

reply from: rsg007

Perhaps because humans ARE animals.

reply from: LexIcon

Among other arguments for human exceptionalism, Judeo-Christian oriented humans are animals who claim by way of allegedly divine revelation that they are made in the image and likeness of God (See: http://www.wcg.org/lit/gospel/imagegod.htm) whereas non-human animals aren't, and that this is what makes humans entitled to special considerations that would not, as a rule, be extended to non-human animals.
For example, rabid dogs are usually killed, while rabid humans aren't because their lives are more highly valued than the lives of dogs, in large measure because of this culture's foundational Judeo-Christian legal ethic, which is not to say that non Judeo-Christian cultures don't also have their own foundational human exceptionalist, or "speciesist" legal construct that accords more rights to humans than to non-human animals; that they do. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism).
The problem is that ANY argument for human exceptionalism that involves an appeal to divine authority simply won't cut it in a secular court, while the so-called "atheist" argument against human exceptionalism can become a utilitarian nightmare for those whose lives are deemed "not worth living."

reply from: gotcha

AND are so good to eat too! I like my human steaks broiled until crispy. Yummy!

reply from: LexIcon

AND are so good to eat too! I like my human steaks broiled until crispy. Yummy!
You haven't lived until you've had human chittlins!

reply from: gotcha

AND are so good to eat too! I like my human steaks broiled until crispy. Yummy!
You haven't lived until you've had human chittlins!
Ohhh, that sounds SOOO good! Recipe please!

reply from: LexIcon

AND are so good to eat too! I like my human steaks broiled until crispy. Yummy!
You haven't lived until you've had human chittlins!
Ohhh, that sounds SOOO good! Recipe please!
Cook however you please. Steak sauce helps, or catsup, if you're cheap.

reply from: B0zo

I don't get it either.
Most animals I've encountered are fun to be around.

reply from: Banned Member

Humans are animals in the sense that they are genetically composed, have flesh and blood, and bear occasional biological similarities. But animals are never people. Animals are not persons. Animals do not have immortal souls. They do not figure into the salvation of the world. Animals do not experience graces and cannot sin. They are neither good nor evil nor can they discern the difference between the two. Animals DO NOT have rights. We have certain ethical norms for treating animals well and must not create undue deliberate suffering for animals. We do this not because they are "human" but because we are human.

reply from: Shenanigans

Sentience.
That's what puts people above animals in the grand scheme of things.
While people can debate till their blue in the face over whether animals are "self aware" the reality is, most people just transferring or personifying human emotion and mind state into animals. Its cute, fun to do, but animals are not aware that they "are".
The other problem with "well, some animals are sentient, so meh", is that those people always have confused sentience with sapience.
Regardless, just because animals are not aware of themselves as a "self" does not justify unreasonable harm to them, like shoving fire crackers up a dog's arse for jollies. Humanely slaughtering, (if there is such a thing) a Cow for a steak is a different kettle of fish and part of the food chain.
Then of course, you get the silly pro-aborts who say since the foetus is not sentient its life is not worthy of consideration, but then the argument there is simply the foetus (human uterine entity) is human. Thus, its current sentience is not up for debate.
Animals will never be equal to humans in that regards.

reply from: Banned Member

The unborn is still a person. They are a person because they are human. Immediate and continued sentience are not qualifying conditions for being human. I don't think that many people are very sentient when dragged out of bed at 3 am. I'm certain that most humans aren't sentient when they are three sheets to the wind. But they are still persons and still human. No matter how drunk a person gets they are not a cat. A man in a coma will never become a dog. No dog, even the brightest dog on his best day, will ever do algebra, write legislation, compose a symphony or find a cure for a disease.

reply from: newfag

Nearly all (if not all) animals are sentient to some degree by adulthood. One might argue that humans possess a greater degree of sentience than other animals, but such assertions have been challenged relatively recently in our past, and are these challenges have by no means been resolved. There is a correlation between intelligence and higher degrees of sentience, and the notion that we are the most intelligent species has also come under fire. Some studies suggest that dolphins, chimps, or other "higher" forms of life may approach or even exceed our intelligence. We can only say for certain that it appears that few species are significantly near our level of intelligence as we measure human intelligence, but that may or may not mean they are not even more intelligent than we are in other ways more relevant to the niche they occupy in our ecosystems, ways that we do not necessarily deem significant as pertaining to human intelligence.
tl;dr
Humans are certainly not the only sentient species on this planet.

reply from: newfag

Here we have the heart of the issue...

reply from: Shenanigans

I didn't say that sentience is the pre-determining factor that makes a human a person or places them above animals, I was pointing out that sentience is what puts us above the animals. Being human is a given for such rights as personhood being granted to born and unborn, but sentience is part in parcel of being human, it is something we have evolved to be, the human embryo if left alone, and barring any defect of genetics will develop that sentience, the drunk is still sentient the half asleep person is still sentient in some capacity. For circumstances of sleep and coma sentience is moot, its not what determines humanity or rights, its what humans tend to have when awake and free of genetic or traumatic defect.
Barring some spectacular jump in the evolutionary process, a dog isn't going to stand up tomorrow and say "please don't give ME wet dog food, I find it morally detestable". In all evolutaionary likelihood the next animal to evolve sentience will appear long after we've gone out in a puff of radioactive smoke.
Basically, what I'm trying to say, and probably not doing a very good job of it, is sentience seperates us from the animals, but being human is what (should) guarantee us the rights we hold dear.
This is a dangerous argument, because most people can't do those things, I've seen statements like these lead to the devaluing of human life and classing some individuals as "non-persons" and demanding their removal from humanity.
Of course, there is a potential for all humans to do those things, but then "potential" is what the pro-aborts throw around a lot in their sub-standard ramblings.

reply from: Banned Member

Humans are certainly the only sentient species on the planets. Animals may be intelligent and a crow may figure out how to get food off the end of a piece of string when standing on the limb of a tree. However, the crow will never understand why it would look ridiculous if a human were performing the same trick.

reply from: Spinwubby

I can't agree.
I value the life of a seeing-eye dog more than the life of Osama bin Laden.
I'd risk my life to save a cat, but I wouldn't do the same for a sex offender.
Giant Panda or Vanilla Ice? You make the call...

reply from: Shenanigans

Do you have a dog, a cat, a rat? Any pet? Any animal?
Put an animal in front of a mirror, they don't think "hey, that's me" they try and sniff its arse, they respond to it like its another animal.
Sentience and intelligence are not the same thing, they go hand in hand with humans, but not a lot of animals. I had a dog that figured out how to get the door of her kennel off its hinges, but put her in front of a mirror she was barking, growling, and trying to find the reflection's arse to sniff.
People think there is some "evidence" to suggest that pigs and animals like dolphins are "sentience", again its the subtle confusion between intellience, sentience and sapience.

reply from: Shenanigans

I dunno, but Lord Almighty I'd pay to see giant panda vs. Vanilla Ice.

reply from: LexIcon

For the Christian, the Incarnation -the word of God becoming a "human uterine entity"- should be sufficient as an argument as to why "the foetus" should be accorded maximum respect, sentience notwithstanding. That it is not accorded such respect by putative "CHRISTIANS" like Nancy Pelos and her ilk is the scandal of this age.
I honestly believe that the reason why God would choose to make such an entrance into human beingness was to provide an object lesson and a reproof to the practical atheists of our time who wear Christianity as a disguise for the evil that they prefer, which is abortion-on-demand.
"But if your eye be evil, your whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness!" Matthew 6:23

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I just peed a little.
CAGE MATCH!

reply from: newfag

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/FAQs/AnimalSentience.htm

reply from: Banned Member

The wonder and the miracle of the human person lies in both the simple and the profound, the sublime and the ridiculous. A man standing on a shore comtemplating a sunset is as marvelous an achievement as the man writing the symphony. A child learning what his feet do is as impressive as the man who can run the fastest. Appreciating the beauty of the human being is more impressive than all the tricks that the animals kingdom can learn. The human person can be both startling simply and equally intricate and complex. Even the most simple can give and receive love. The receiving of love is perhaps even more impressive that the ability to convet affections. An animals can display loyalty but it can never display, appreciate or return love. An animals bears no human qualities that we ourselves do not project upon them. Any perception of human qualities in animals is merely wishful thinking on our part. Our humanity does not rely on the most impressive things that man can acheive but certainly the most impressive acheivements can be appreciated by even the most simple of persons.

reply from: Shenanigans

You get no argument from me on this. Especially in the follow up gospel passages where Mary visited Liz and the "babe jumped for joy in her [Liz's] womb".
Surely, that's a grand passage to point out to the most stupid of pro-abort christians, as they can say "well, Jesus the foetus was different", and "Job the foetus was different", but how can st. John the Baptist be different, he often claimed he was just a human man, and a voice to announce the one coming after, yet there he was, as a foetus, pointing out just how valuable those precious unborn lives are.
But the pro-aborts don't make any sense on the best of days, so we can't expect much from pro-abort "christians".

reply from: Banned Member

Man is the only creature who weeps. Man is the only creature who laughs.

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: Augustine
An animals can display loyalty but it can never display, appreciate or return love.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
You have virtually no experience with animals, do you?

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
"I had ... two male chimps ... they lived next door to each other in separate cages ... before I used one as a [heart] donor. When we put him to sleep in his cage in preparation for the operation, he chattered and cried incessantly ... when we removed the body to the operating room, the other chimp wept bitterly and was inconsolable for days. The incident made a deep impression on me. I vowed never again to experiment with such sensitive creatures (8)."
- Dr. Christiaan Barnard
The world's first human-to-human heart transplant surgeon after killing a chimpanzee to use as a heart donor

reply from: Banned Member

Actually I spent the first 18 years of my life around dogs and farm animals. I have yet to see anything to make me believe that animals have any concept what love is. As content as they may seem when we lavish attention on them they really are clueless. Look at any animal are try to convey any deep thought to them. Nothing happens. We like to them animals understand but all they really understand is food and water. Sorry, but there's just nobody in there.

reply from: Shenanigans

And that's what I've been going on about, the confusion between sentience and sapience!
Sentience isn't just "feeling pain or being aware of pain" sentience is an awareness of self and how self relates to others, particularly how I am me and you are you and I am not you and you are not me!
Every higher brained animal will feel pain, but not as an emotional response, as an evolutionary protection against death. Biology drives animals to reproduce to continue their species and in particular the individual animal's DNA. That's why so many animals have such complicated mating dances, because they need to win a mate with equally superior DNA et cetera. But this is not any evidence of sentience, its evidence of a very complex evolutaionary process that has taken millions, hundreds of millions of years.
If you kick a dog up the arse, it will either run away or turn and bite your foot off.
It doesn't do those things because you "hurt its feelings" in the emotional sense, it does it because you hurt it, and you pose a threat to it, and if you kill it or pose a threat to it, that will hinder its ability to spread its genes to successive generations.
Its like if you touch a hot element on the stove. Do you keep your hand there while your flesh burns? Of course you don't! (Unless you're some kind of masicist). The nerves in your burning hand send messages to your brain and your brain registers danger and harm and sends the message back to your hand and muscles to move the hand. If you keep it there long enough you could catch fire and then you burn and die, ergo, no chance of spreading genes.
Animals feel pain not on an emotional level. You don't see a lioness sob in the corner of the Serengetti when a new lion comes along and kills or chases off her old mate, and then, as the new lion does, kills the cubs of the previous alpha so he can bring the lioness into heat. She simply puts out and carries a new pregnancy to term for the new alpha.
Pain in animals is a survival tool. It tells the animal there is danger, and to move away from danger or to face danger. Humans have the same response in flight vs. fight.
Domestic animals have learnt to pander to our "emotions". A dog wagging its tail, a cat meowing, which it evolved to do in response to our "talking" to it, cats don't "meow" in the wild. Animals do these things because they instinctively know if they do they get a free feed out of us, that we give them attention, and that's what animals do. Its about a pecking order, its about survival and contiencance of their genetics. Its not about an animal "wanting or needing" our "love". They can get by fine without that. Its the steak and the fish heads they're after.
Humans are very good at giving human emotion to animals. I've done, chances are you've done it, its something we do. But it doesn't mean an animal is grieving like a human would, because we drowned its pups in a sack.
I seriously wouldn't take anything seriously from those people.

reply from: Shenanigans

We're the only ones that feel guilt, too!

reply from: LexIcon

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
"I had ... two male chimps ... they lived next door to each other in separate cages ... before I used one as a [heart] donor. When we put him to sleep in his cage in preparation for the operation, he chattered and cried incessantly ... when we removed the body to the operating room, the other chimp wept bitterly and was inconsolable for days. The incident made a deep impression on me. I vowed never again to experiment with such sensitive creatures (8)."
- Dr. Christiaan Barnard
The world's first human-to-human heart transplant surgeon after killing a chimpanzee to use as a heart donor
Thanks! It is GOOD to reflect upon the truth that chimps CAN, in their own way, grieve.
Can the wicked chimps go to hell?
Maybe that's what sets humans apart.
Comments?

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: Augustine
Look at an animal are try to convey any deep thought to them.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Oh, the irony...

reply from: Banned Member

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
"I had ... two male chimps ... they lived next door to each other in separate cages ... before I used one as a [heart] donor. When we put him to sleep in his cage in preparation for the operation, he chattered and cried incessantly ... when we removed the body to the operating room, the other chimp wept bitterly and was inconsolable for days. The incident made a deep impression on me. I vowed never again to experiment with such sensitive creatures (8)."
- Dr. Christiaan Barnard
The world's first human-to-human heart transplant surgeon after killing a chimpanzee to use as a heart donor
Hogwash!
Anthropomorphication!

reply from: newfag

If you had never seen yourself (a reflection or picture), and did not know what a mirror was, could I reasonably expect you to recognize yourself immediately the first time you saw your reflection in a mirror?
The mirror test is not an accurate indicator of sentience, but for the record, chimps, dolphins, and elephants have learned to recognize their own reflections and distinguish their from others...
Of course they are not the same thing, but as I correctly pointed out, and you apparently agree, there is a correlation between the two. (they "go hand in hand") This is true of all animals. Intelligence as we define it in this context can probably not exist without some degree of sentience, and I would think some level of sentience would be prerequisite for "higher" intelligence as well.

reply from: newfag

http://jhamrick.mit.edu/2010/01/01/sentience/

reply from: newfag

Having kept all manner of pets and been around animals all my life, I beg to differ. Animals form attachments just like people do, and I have seen them grieve the loss of a master who dies, or even if they just go away for a while.
I have personally witnessed what I am convinced are very human qualities in animals that I interpret as being just one indicator of sentience.

reply from: Banned Member

Having kept all manner of pets and been around animals all my life, I beg to differ. Animals form attachments just like people do, and I have seen them grieve the loss of a master who dies, or even if they just go away for a while.
I have personally witnessed what I am convinced are very human qualities in animals that I interpret as being just one indicator of sentience.
No! You feel better for giving love and affection even if those things cannot be returned to you. Leave the room and the animal is not thinking about you. Animals do not long for love as humans do. They are not jealous. They are not compassionate. They are not empathetic.

reply from: newfag

You can't be sure other animals are not self aware, etc, in fact, our best and most solid theory at present is that dolphins, chimps, and elephants are sentient based on our most logical assumptions regarding how to best test for sentience in animals with whom we are unable to adequately communicate for the purpose of this kind of research.
Their sources were given. Do you object to all my sources? I noticed you have made no attempt to substantiate your own claims... You didn't prove them, but you object to evidence supporting my rebuttal based on implied lack of credibility? And is it just the one source you find objectionable?

reply from: newfag

We're the only ones that feel guilt, too!
And how do you know this? Or are you just assuming?

reply from: newfag

Having kept all manner of pets and been around animals all my life, I beg to differ. Animals form attachments just like people do, and I have seen them grieve the loss of a master who dies, or even if they just go away for a while.
I have personally witnessed what I am convinced are very human qualities in animals that I interpret as being just one indicator of sentience.
No! You feel better for giving love and affection even if those things cannot be returned to you. Leave the room and the animal is not thinking about you. Animals do not long for love as humans do. They are not jealous. They are not compassionate. They are not empathetic.
Prove it...Many of our most qualified experts disagree based on our current knowledge from researching the issue.

reply from: LexIcon

Pardon me, but isn't the proposition here that humans are beings who will persist in some form forever, whereas non-human animals are creatures that upon death will cease to exist, and that THIS is the heart of the argument about human exceptionalism?

reply from: SpitMcGee

Well, of course. You're talking about dogs and farm animals, which constitute some of the most moronic species on the planet (it's not like they can help it, though; we bred them that way).
If you want proof of animal intelligence and sentience, look no further than the elephant. They recognize their own reflections in a mirror, hold lifelong relationships, and remember friends and relatives after decades apart. Some people who witness elephant behavior after one of them dies will swear to you that elephants mourn.
That being said, I would not recommend an attempt to befriend a wild elephant, as your chances would not be good if he decided he didn't like you.

reply from: newfag

http://www.answers.com/topic/self-awareness

{read the article and examine the sources provided for yourself)

reply from: LexIcon

Well, of course. You're talking about dogs and farm animals, which constitute some of the most moronic species on the planet (it's not like they can help it, though; we bred them that way).
If you want proof of animal intelligence and sentience, look no further than the elephant. They recognize their own reflections in a mirror, hold lifelong relationships, and remember friends and relatives after decades apart. Some people who witness elephant behavior after one of them dies will swear to you that elephants mourn.
That being said, I would not recommend an attempt to befriend a wild elephant, as your chances would not be good if he decided he didn't like you.
Do you eat the flesh of "moronic species?" I do!

reply from: newfag

I'm arguing against the contention that we are unique and "exceptional" based on sentience because other animals are not sentient. I am challenging the assertion that we are the only sentient species.
That said, I believe it is natural for every species to consider members of their own species to be more important, more worthy of consideration, or whatever. We hold that humans are more significant because we are humans. It's as simple as that. There are many factors influencing this general concept, and so we may differ in how we rationalize our respective positions, but it boils down to a sort of special bias/loyalty, I believe.
The sentience rationalization is not necessarily logically sound, since it is based on conjecture and science actually leans the other way based on current knowledge.

reply from: Ana

You are wrong. I have worked with animals my entire life, and I know better. Animals DO love. They mourn, they miss their pack/tribe/group/family. And if you say differently, you aren't paying attention.

reply from: Ana

Actually. elephants DO weep, usually in response to a death of one of their members. And while many animals don't laugh out loud or shed tears, they absolutely feel sadness and joy.

reply from: LexIcon

I'm arguing against the contention that we are unique and "exceptional" based on sentience because other animals are not sentient. I am challenging the assertion that we are the only sentient species.
That said, I believe it is natural for every species to consider members of their own species to be more important, more worthy of consideration, or whatever. We hold that humans are more significant because we are humans. It's as simple as that. There are many factors influencing this general concept, and so we may differ in how we rationalize our respective positions, but it boils down to a sort of special bias/loyalty, I believe.
The sentience rationalization is not necessarily logically sound, since it is based on conjecture and science actually leans the other way based on current knowledge.
I basically agree with you. Sentience as a clinching argument for human exceptionalism is disproven at the very least by the fact that chimps can be taught to use "sign language" to communicate with their human handlers.
My argument for human exceptionalism, on the other hand, depends on allegedly divinely revealed Judeo-Christian truth, and as such is empirically unproveable, which I suppose is one reason why animal rights advocates like Peter Singer are carrying the day in academia and beyond.

reply from: Banned Member

Elephants don't weep. Whatever biological functions mandate physical reactions to stress I don't pretend to understand but elephants do not weep! Animals do not feel sadness and joy. Their needs as animals are either met or not met, causing different levels of stress, but they do not feel joy, or happiness, or sadness. That's not to say that they do not comprehend presenses or absenses in their environment, but they don't love, they don't miss and they don't remember. Animals do not honor and do not cherish. Animals do not hold dear. Most animals will step over their a dead member of their own species for food. They don't understand their own existance and they certainly don't understand death. Human project because they empathize. Humans can put themselves mentally and emtionally in the place of another creature. Animals do not mourn but humans can mourn in another creatures emotional absense. People pretend that animals feel becaue they cannot accept that others creatures do not feel. Perhaps people do this to make themselves feel better. It's a human quality and one not shared by animals. Animals do not feel our loss.

reply from: Ana

You can keep saying this all you want, but you are wrong. I am as certain of that as I am their Creator. I have worked with performance animals, am a vet tech and a First Responder for the SPCA. I also run an animal rescue. You are not only incorrect, but you are missing out on so much viewing animals as simply computer programs. But that is your loss to have, I suppose.

reply from: Banned Member

You can keep saying this all you want, but you are wrong. I am as certain of that as I am their Creator. I have worked with performance animals, am a vet tech and a First Responder for the SPCA. I also run an animal rescue. You are not only incorrect, but you are missing out on so much viewing animals as simply computer programs. But that is your loss to have, I suppose.
You must suffer from some kind of emotional version of the Stockholm Syndrome. You've been around these creatures so long you have begun to think they are just furry people.

reply from: Shenanigans

Then you are simply projecting. Animals are not "grieving" they are simply responding to a change in their "pecking order". They may seem to be "sad" but that is simply humans placing emotional status to them. An animal is simply adjusting to its singular existance is if it is the last surivor of the group. The animal will then move on to forming other pack relationships with any other member of its species that comes along its path.
Like I said, its a nice thought to think that animals "feel" like we do, but they simply don't.

reply from: Shenanigans

You're being faectious, but I"ll ignore that and simply give a more detailed example.
If I had never seen a mirror before, how long do you think it'd take for me to realise that's me in the mirror and not someone else?
Well, if I touch my nose I'm aware that I am touching my nose, I don't need a mirror to know that. If I put my hand in my hair, I don't need a mirror to know that my hand is in my hair. If you put me in front of a mirror doing actions I know I am doing it won't take long for me, or any cognitively functioning human to realise that the image in the mirror is one of one's self.
If the animal looks in the mirror and starts panting, tilts its head, licks its balls, its not going to realise that its actions are being performed, its going to see another dog, panting, tilting head and licking its balls, its not going to cotton onto the fact that dog in the mirror is it.
I was waiting for someone to bring up that, but as you said, its not an accurate example of indication of sentience, I was simply using it as an easy example.
There is a correlation in humans that sentience and intelligence go hand and hand. There is not a correlation between animals. Some animals may be smart, but they ain't sentient.
Some animals who have a higher functioning brain are only in possession of such because of Darwin's theory of adaption to change, they evolved to be able to do the cute tricks humans fork out their money to go see at the zoo. Its all about food and sex. Animals want both, they do the tricks, they develop a level of intelligence needed for the task that will bring them food. Its like chimps and sticks they shove into ant holes for a feed. Some monkey generations ago had a brain fart and since then the same behaviour has remained ingrained in them. They have not progressed beyond that unless humans have taught them or unless the need has arisen.
The need for our human ancestors to develop a need for tools progressed the same way.
One day, evolution may grant sentience to chimps and what not, but they don't have it now, as much as the animal rights hippies want to think they do.

reply from: Shenanigans

I saw some crap on Animal planet.
But from the further reading I've done on the subject, for there to be a feeling of guilt one has to have an understanding of right and wrong, and must have a form of sentience to grasp the concept of harming another (seperate from self) and also an ability to feel empathy.
As I mentioned before, when a new lion kicks the old Alpha lion out of the Pride he then goes onto kill the cubs of the previous alpha. Now, (assuming you're a man) a young guy came into your house and kicked your arse, then claimed your wife (assuming you're married) and then killed your children, would you not feel guilt that you failed your children and wife? And now your children are dead at the hands of a complete stranger who has gone on to father his own children with your former wife?
Most of this line of thinking, sentience, guilt, sapience, et cetera, its based on pretty solid logic. I don't need to walk up to the local bull dog and ask nicely if he's aware he's him.

reply from: Shenanigans

There's currently a nuclear arsonal sitting around various countries capable of wiping out every major city on the planet a few times and then some. There are viruses, our weakening immune system, they recently proved that an astroid destroyed the dinosaurs, with major earth quakes and tsuamnis and other natural disasters doing the rounds it would be arrogant to assume humanity will continue forever.
With the exception of a massive nuclear exchange, there will be another form of life that will take our place. Evolution is a slow process, so it could be millions of years after we've popped our collective clogs that the Dr. Zaius will be doing the rounds. And even with a nuclear war, there's still a possibilty that some form of life will crawl its arse out of the sludge to start the process again.
As a species, we need to drop this "we're going to live forever" bullocks. As individuals we're going to die, each country will pass, and eventually our entire species will be gone.
And who knows, humanity could evolve to something different. We just need the enviornmental push to do so.

reply from: Shenanigans

You've essentially just biased yourself. Of course you're going to acknowledge animals in that way, you've seen them in horrid situations. All you've proven by your acknowledgement of your position is express what Augustine has been saying, humans have empathy, we can place ourselves into the position of others, including animals, and we project our emotions onto animals and others.

reply from: Ana

First of all, that was rude and unnecessary. You don't need to denegrate years of work because it's not work you appreciate.
Second of all, you're still wrong.

reply from: Ana

You've essentially just biased yourself. Of course you're going to acknowledge animals in that way, you've seen them in horrid situations. All you've proven by your acknowledgement of your position is express what Augustine has been saying, humans have empathy, we can place ourselves into the position of others, including animals, and we project our emotions onto animals and others.
I've seen them in all kinds of situations, both good and bad. Simply because you don't want to see it doesn't mean it's not there. I'm not sure why you want to discount any science or personal agreement that disproves your point, but people who work up close and personal with animals know better. Period.

reply from: MrWin

The difference between humans and animals is that humans suck and will ruin everything they ever get, animals are more confined to dealing with themselves and other animals rather then sticking their noses in everyone elses affairs.

reply from: SpitMcGee

You're being faectious, but I"ll ignore that and simply give a more detailed example.
If I had never seen a mirror before, how long do you think it'd take for me to realise that's me in the mirror and not someone else?
Well, if I touch my nose I'm aware that I am touching my nose, I don't need a mirror to know that. If I put my hand in my hair, I don't need a mirror to know that my hand is in my hair. If you put me in front of a mirror doing actions I know I am doing it won't take long for me, or any cognitively functioning human to realise that the image in the mirror is one of one's self.
If the animal looks in the mirror and starts panting, tilts its head, licks its balls, its not going to realise that its actions are being performed, its going to see another dog, panting, tilting head and licking its balls, its not going to cotton onto the fact that dog in the mirror is it.
An elephant who has observed his reflection before will react to changes in his appearance (for example, a colored dot marked on the forehead) by reaching with his trunk to touch it. Chimpanzees have been observed doing this as well.
I love dogs, but they are fool animals. To generalize the intelligence of all animals based on the behavior of dogs is faulty, because dogs aren't like wild animals. They have not been shaped by natural evolution, but by artificial selection.

reply from: BossMomma

what makes us better than animals? We ARE animals.

reply from: Banned Member

I agree that we are not necessarily better than the rest of the animals.
We are definitely more clever, cunning, dangerous, inquisitive, inventive, introspective, creative, tenacious, communicative, adaptable, calculating, deceitful, musical, competitive and resourceful than any of the other animals.
But, depending of course upon your definition, it doesn't necessarily make us better.

reply from: Banned Member

It's not the humans ability to do good or evil that makes him extraordinary but the ability to discern and choose between them.
Animals do neither good nor evil. There is no nobility or greatness in that kind of ignorance.

reply from: Shenanigans

And what makes you think I haven't looked for "it"? I just happen to now acknowledge from the research available and personal experience that whatever "response" animals give to whatever situation, its not based on any kind of higher form of emotional response. Its simply animalistic nature built into them by millions of years of evolution. No love, no compassion, no guilt, no hate. Animals don't have those feelings. They "feel" biological needs, to crap, to eat, to shag, to sleep.
The same can be said of those who beleive animals have some kind of emotional ability/sentience. You guys don't want to admit you're fuzzy warm feelings about animals are wrong. You speak of me disagreeing with other opinions that are not my own, yet Augustine who has stated he has experience with animals, and me, I have lots of experience with animals, and others like us, because we don't accept animals have sentience or "emotionals" according to animal lovers we just "don't want to see it".
Its not that I don't want to see it, its just not there. I've had enough experiences with animals, seeing them in the good, the bad, and the ugly to know 100% beyond any doubt that they are just organic machines with a programming that is millions of years old, and they only way they expand beyond that is if humans offer them a treat to wag their tail or jump out of water and through a hoop.

reply from: Shenanigans

I've already admitted to the mirror example as being a poor, if not over simplified example, but an animal being able to pin point a dot on its head is certainly no proof of sentience.

reply from: B0zo

There's a huge chasm separating the only rational animal (man) from all other animals. The most magnificent beast which ever lived is far less than the most horrible man or woman who ever lived.
However, I'm not going to say that an animal is just a machine with fur. I don't think that so many of us who are so heartbroken when we lose a beloved pet are simply fooled by an animated Teddy Bear. There's more to it than that.

reply from: Banned Member

One of the huge differences between humans and primates was shown in a demonstration between chimps and small children. Chimps were unable to follow the inferences relayed through contact. When an object was hidden, the child could figure out where the object was when someone looked at the object. The children in the test could be tipped off in this way time after time after time. The chimps, never got it. They never picked up on eye contact and could never visually pick up the clue. The human person exceeds the sum of the parts. The human being is greater than a mere creature. A man and all that makes a man is more than grey matter.

reply from: sweet

what makes us better than animals? We ARE animals.So, do you think you are equal to a dog? Would you let a dog be your boss?--would you work for a dog? can a dog hire you? can a dog pay your wages?

reply from: B0zo

what makes us better than animals? We ARE animals.So, do you think you are equal to a dog? Would you let a dog be your boss?--would you work for a dog? can a dog hire you? can a dog pay your wages?
I think you need to rephrase your question.
Humans ARE animals.
Your question is like asking whether apples are better than fruit.

reply from: SpitMcGee

I've already admitted to the mirror example as being a poor, if not over simplified example, but an animal being able to pin point a dot on its head is certainly no proof of sentience.
No, but it does indicate a degree off self-awareness. To recognize oneself requires as such. The elephant does not see another elephant staring back at him; he sees himself. This is considered the basis for empathy and altruism.

reply from: Banned Member

Could you please explain what you mean exactly.

reply from: BossMomma

Well quite frankly you don't see Animals destroying the planet with pollution and deforestation do you? You don't see young animals joining gangs in a last ditch attempt to belong to a family do ya? Animals are great and noble as they dance with natures balance while we humans destroy it with almost every step we take.

reply from: BossMomma

what makes us better than animals? We ARE animals.So, do you think you are equal to a dog? Would you let a dog be your boss?--would you work for a dog? can a dog hire you? can a dog pay your wages?
Did you know that dogs operate under a pack system and that the human is supposed to establish themself as top dog? And actually, dogs did once pay my wages, I made thousands breeding Italian greyhounds as a teen. We need dogs, the blind, deaf and, crippled need them, police need them, the military need them, customs agents need them..they however don't nessesarily need us.

reply from: sweet

So do you consider yourself equal to a dog? Why?

reply from: sweet

So, do you think you are equal to a dog? Would you let a dog be your boss?--would you work for a dog? can a dog hire you? can a dog pay your wages?

reply from: sweet

I've already admitted to the mirror example as being a poor, if not over simplified example, but an animal being able to pin point a dot on its head is certainly no proof of sentience.
No, but it does indicate a degree off self-awareness. To recognize oneself requires as such. The elephant does not see another elephant staring back at him; he sees himself. This is considered the basis for empathy and altruism.So, do you think you are equal to a dog? Would you let a dog be your boss?--would you work for a dog? can a dog hire you? can a dog pay your wages?

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Can a fetus do those things?
I guess a fetus must be worth less than a human being.

reply from: sweet

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Can a fetus do those things?
Sure. your current Boss is a fetus who grew into an adult and so are you--correct?

reply from: B0zo

Well quite frankly you don't see Animals destroying the planet with pollution and deforestation do you? You don't see young animals joining gangs in a last ditch attempt to belong to a family do ya? Animals are great and noble as they dance with natures balance while we humans destroy it with almost every step we take.
You said humans are animals.
So we do see animals doing those things, or at least you see it that way. (I don't believe any animals are "destroying the planet.")
Anyway...as YOU said, humans are animals, so how is it that they are no longer part of "nature's balance"?
This is funny, but makes a good point. (R rated language).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

reply from: sk1bianca

how much self-awareness has a newborn baby? is it ok to kill newborn babies?
actually, certain dog breeds DO need humans. for example, dogs that need regular grooming or bulldogs.

reply from: BossMomma

So, do you think you are equal to a dog? Would you let a dog be your boss?--would you work for a dog? can a dog hire you? can a dog pay your wages?
I wouldn't let a dog be my boss anymore than I'd let you be my boss. No a dog would not hire me or pay my wages because animals have no need for money. Some dogs do boss their human's around, I know a woman who spends $60 a week on these lil Beniful dinners, she buys it clothes and designer collars, that maltise goes everywhere with her and is treated better than most treat their children.

reply from: BossMomma

Well quite frankly you don't see Animals destroying the planet with pollution and deforestation do you? You don't see young animals joining gangs in a last ditch attempt to belong to a family do ya? Animals are great and noble as they dance with natures balance while we humans destroy it with almost every step we take.
You said humans are animals.
So we do see animals doing those things, or at least you see it that way. (I don't believe any animals are "destroying the planet.")
Anyway...as YOU said, humans are animals, so how is it that they are no longer part of "nature's balance"?
This is funny, but makes a good point. (R rated language).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
Meant non-human animals smart ass, you know damn well what I mean. Human beings are the only animals that consume without producing. Non-human animals work in harmony to keep the enviroment stable and healthy, human animals destroy it for convenience.

reply from: BossMomma

how much self-awareness has a newborn baby? is it ok to kill newborn babies?
actually, certain dog breeds DO need humans. for example, dogs that need regular grooming or bulldogs.
I live in the country, we have packs of wild dogs that do quite well for themselves without any aid from humans. Dogs don't need grooming, we simply implement it upon them for appearences. All dogs from the great dane to the chihuahua were descended from one wild canid or another.

reply from: B0zo

You did the same thing with the OP.
Anyway, how is it that human animals are not acting in harmony with nature, since we are part of nature?
And what do you mean by "consuming without producing"?
We build houses and grow food. How is that not producing?

reply from: sk1bianca

that was in the past, when there weren't so many dog breeds. some of them need grooming for survival. if they are neglected or abandoned, their fur can become so dirty and matted that they would develop skin infections and die. i've seen stuff like this on animal planet. it's horrible and it's punished by the law.
i'm waiting for a pro-choicer to answer my question.
a newborn baby has less self-awareness (did i get it right?) than certain animals (chimps, elephants, whatever...), but isn't much different than a 3rd trimester fetus. is it ok to kill newborn babies?

reply from: newfag

I never really thought about it that way, but I guess you're right. It must be OK to kill newborns. You make an excellent argument!

reply from: sk1bianca

thanks for proving my point. when it comes to killing others for convenience, any reason is good enough for you pro-death creeps.

reply from: sweet

Heeeeeeey, why wouldn't you let me be your Boss? What if i'm good at barking like a dog? No, seriously, you have to know that humans are human and animals are animals...you are not a dog, not equal to a dog, but superior to a dog...that's a compliment i think

reply from: BossMomma

You did the same thing with the OP.
Anyway, how is it that human animals are not acting in harmony with nature, since we are part of nature?
And what do you mean by "consuming without producing"?
We build houses and grow food. How is that not producing?
What we produce destroys the enviroment for other species, why do you think so many animal species are endangered? Why do you think we have global warming? A bird might eat a berry, crap the seeds out and grow another plant, but a human eats a big mac, throws the wrapper in the trash and it winds up in a landfill doing no good for anyone.

reply from: BossMomma

Heeeeeeey, why wouldn't you let me be your Boss? What if i'm good at barking like a dog? No, seriously, you have to know that humans are human and animals are animals...you are not a dog, not equal to a dog, but superior to a dog...that's a compliment i think
A horse is not a dog, but a horse and a dog are still animals. A chimpanzee and a human are 97% genetically identical and both are classified as primates thus we are animals. And I wouldn't let you be my boss because your obviously not that bright and I refuse to take orders from someone less intelligent than myself.

reply from: B0zo

A lot of species have come and gone even before man was on the scene. And they will continue to do so.
And I don't buy that we have "global warming," though I give Al Gore a lot of credit for being smart enough to milk his scam for all its worth and make big bucks for himself.
So did nature goof by allowing man to dominate?

reply from: Banned Member

http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/16272/APE-HUMAN_GENETIC-SIMILARITY_FALSEHOOD,_THE
Drawing up the human gene map within the framework of the Human Genome project was a major scientific development. However, evolutionist publications have distorted a number of the project's results. It is claimed that the genes of chimpanzees and humans bear a 98% similarity and assumed that this shows their closeness, which is used as evidence for the theory of evolution.
However, this is in fact a false proof that evolutionists exploit by making use of society's lack of information on the subject.
First of all, the concept so frequently touted by evolutionists - that 98% similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA - is a deceptive one. In order to claim that the genetic structures of human beings and chimpanzees bear a 98% similarity, the entire chimpanzee genetic code would have to be mapped, in the way the human one has. Then the two would have to be compared, to obtain the results. Yet no such results are yet available: While the human genetic map has been completed, the chimpanzee equivalent has not.
In fact, the "98% similarity between human and ape genes" slogan was deliberately produced for propaganda purposes many years ago. This "similarity" is a highly exaggerated generalization, based on a similarity in the amino acid sequences in between 30 and 40 of the basic proteins present in man and ape.
Sequence analysis of the DNA strings corresponding to these proteins was performed using a method known as "DNA hybridization." and only these limited proteins were compared.
Yet there are around 30,000 genes in human beings and these genes encode some 200,000 proteins. There is thus no scientific justification for claiming, on the basis of a similarity in 40 proteins out of 200,000, any 98% resemblance between human and ape genetics.
The DNA comparison of those 40 proteins is also questionable. Two biologists named Charles Sibley and Jon Edward Ahlquist carried out the comparison in 1987 and published the results in the Journal of Molecular Evolution.31 However, another scientist by the name of Sarich examined their data and concluded that they'd used a method of questionable reliability and had exaggeratedly interpreted the data.32
Basic proteins are essential molecules commonly found in many other living things. The structures of the proteins in all living things, not just of chimpanzees, bear a close similarity to those of proteins in human beings.
For example, genetic analyses reported in New Scientist revealed a 75% similarity between the DNA of nematodes (millimeter-long worms that dwell in the soil) and humans!33 This, of course, does not imply that there is only a 25% difference between human beings and nematodes.
When the genes of the fruit fly species Drosophila were compared with human genes, a 60% similarity was determined.34
Analyses of some proteins seem to show that man is actually closer to very different living things. In one study performed at Cambridge University, certain proteins in terrestrial organisms were compared. Astonishingly, in almost all the specimens involved, human beings and chickens were found to bear the closest relationship to one another. Our next closest relative is the lizard.35
Another example used by evolutionists with regard to the so-called "genetic similarity between man and ape" is that there are 46 chromosomes in human beings and 48 in gorillas. Evolutionists assume that chromosome numbers are an indication of an evolutionary relationship. But in fact, if this logic employed by evolutionists were valid, then man would have a much closer relative than the chimpanzee - the potato! Both human beings and potatoes have exactly the same number of chromosomes: 46.
These examples demonstrate that the concept of genetic similarity constitutes no evidence for the theory of evolution. Not only are the genetic similarities incompatible with the evolutionary family tree proposed, but they actually provide totally conflicting results.
In addition, the similarities discovered are actually evidence for creation rather than for evolution. It is perfectly natural for the bodies of humans and other living things to exhibit molecular similarities, because all living things are made up of the same molecules, use the same water and atmosphere, and consume foods made up of the same molecules. Naturally, their metabolisms - and thus, their genetic structures - will tend to resemble one another. However, this is no evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.
Another example will help elucidate this: All the buildings in the world are constructed from similar materials - bricks, iron, cement, and so forth. But this does not imply that these buildings evolved from one another. They were built independently, using common materials. The same principle applies to living things.
Apart from the superficial similarity between human beings and apes, there is no question of their being closer to each other than to other animals. In terms of ability, a bee producing honeycombs that are geometrical miracles, or a spider weaving a web that is a marvel of engineering, are much closer to man than are apes. In some respects, one can even say that these invertebrates are superior.
Yet the huge gulf between human beings and apes is too vast to be bridged with evolutionist claims and myths. Apes are animals and, in terms of consciousness, are no different to horses or dogs. Human beings, on the other hand, are conscious, possess free will and are capable of thought, speech, reasoning, decision-making and judgment. All these attributes are processes of the soul they possess. It is this soul that gives rise to the major difference between human beings and animals. Man is the only entity in nature to possess a soul. No physical similarity can bridge this widest gulf between humans and other living things.

reply from: Banned Member

Is that why we have gangs? I always figured it's because they were acting out vestigial tribal territorial behaviors. I seen that on Nat Geo.

reply from: spinvortex

Augustine, I don't think you would consider your source credible if you knew a little more about him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar

reply from: sweet

So a Chimp is just as Human as you? you say i'm not that bright? How do you know my skin tone? Well My best friend thinks I'm bright (then again her skin tone is pretty dark) Lol

reply from: sweet

God put man in charge over animals. Water animals were created on the fifth day and Humans and land animals, the sixth day

reply from: SpitMcGee

Could you please explain what you mean exactly.
I might have worded that poorly. By "another elephant" I meant one other than himself.
An elephant looking into a mirror will see another elephant in the same sense that a human being looking into a mirror will see another human. Recognizing his own reflection indicates the ability to distinguish the experience of looking into a mirror from facing another individual, which can only be achieved by some kind of self-awareness. The elephant is able to look at his reflection and say, on some level, "that's me".

reply from: SpitMcGee

how much self-awareness has a newborn baby? is it ok to kill newborn babies?
What does that have to do with anything?

reply from: SpitMcGee

This is a pack of lies.
Apes are MUCH higher than dogs both cognitively and psychologically, as anyone who has studied them will assert.

reply from: Banned Member

Could you please explain what you mean exactly.
I might have worded that poorly. By "another elephant" I meant one other than himself.
An elephant looking into a mirror will see another elephant in the same sense that a human being looking into a mirror will see another human. Recognizing his own reflection indicates the ability to distinguish the experience of looking into a mirror from facing another individual, which can only be achieved by some kind of self-awareness. The elephant is able to look at his reflection and say, on some level, "that's me".
Elephants, Apes and Dolphins apparently eh?
Do the females linger longer?

reply from: Banned Member

Anthropomorphisation is problematic and runs rampant. Just ask a Cat owner.
Humans are the only animals that consider their existence in the context of eternity. We are matter that contemplates itself. This is, IMHO, the most unique of all human attributes. I feel this truly sets us apart and above all creatures on the planet in at least in this one respect.

reply from: sweet

Could you please explain what you mean exactly.
I might have worded that poorly. By "another elephant" I meant one other than himself.
An elephant looking into a mirror will see another elephant in the same sense that a human being looking into a mirror will see another human. Recognizing his own reflection indicates the ability to distinguish the experience of looking into a mirror from facing another individual, which can only be achieved by some kind of self-awareness. The elephant is able to look at his reflection and say, on some level, "that's me".
Elephants, Apes and Dolphins apparently eh?
Do the females linger longer?Lol


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics