Apes aren't human!!!

GuanYin

Vegeta wrote:

This is a concept I agree with in total, no one has a problem if animals butcher animals naturally in the wild but a lot of people get freaked if humans (we are animals) do it to animals. I'll never understand this.

I wouldn't say "noone has a problem" so much as say that too many people live in the ignorance of the misconception that life in the wild is like Wind In The Willows, The Sulvanian Families and all those other cutesy cartoons wher ethe cute creatures live in harmony and Mother Nature, is a thin, celtic lady with flowers in her hair and birds chirping in her wake.

In reality, an accurate personification of Mother Nature would have her a vicious, clawed bitch who would as soon slit your throat, evicerate you and fertilise the soild with your rotting corpse, than look at you.

Personally I blame Disney.

Zombrex

Demetrius wrote:

Some mentally disabled people when caught in time can have their abilities nurtured.

And a lot can't

The only time a seriously mentally disabled person loses all his/her rights is when she is considered brain dead, ie all higher brain functions have ceases.

Demetrius wrote:

When alls said and done a chimp doesnt have the ability to make that final leap like some people are able to, once they are given a little encouragment or attention.

"Final leap"? What are you talking about?

Demetrius

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

My point is that, humans are animals. People are under some ridiculous notion that we are not, as if 'human' was something different.
Yes, we are no better than these animals, but we are smarter, yes. We have developed to a point where we think murder of humans is wrong, black people, women, etc. Slowly everything is being given more rights and it is about damn time.
We should not kill as we do not need to to survive.

But you just said were were animals. Shoudnt we be giving in to our natural urges, being omnivores?

Zombrex

lostexpectation wrote:

It not just our higher brain function, it numerous things, including the fact that we are us...

"We are us" .... ummm, not exactly a definitive definiation there lost

If we can't even define what makes humanity special then how do we know we are?

simu

Free ape love for all!

Demetrius

Wicknight wrote:

And a lot can't

The only time a seriously mentally disabled person loses all his/her rights is when she is considered brain dead, ie all higher brain functions have ceases.


"Final leap"? What are you talking about?

Well, not every disabled person is braindead. With encouragement in the right envirornment some will progress far beyond that of a chimp. A chimp is still a chimp.

Zombrex

Demetrius wrote:

Why do I consider humans special? I dont see a chimp logging onto the boards, do you?

Well i don't see a 5 year old doing that either, other my 90 year old grand mother with alzhimerses .. does that mean they are not considered as special as us anymore and therefore their rights have decreased?

Zombrex

Demetrius wrote:

Well, not every disabled person is braindead. With encouragement in the right envirornment some will progress far beyond that of a chimp. A chimp is still a chimp.

No disabled person is brain dead, if they were brain dead they wouldn't be disabled they would be legally dead.

A chimp isn't brain dead either.

Demetrius

Wicknight wrote:

"We are us" .... ummm, not exactly a definitive definiation there lost

If we can't even define what makes humanity special then how do we know we are?

Were communicating using lumps of plastic and metal. Chimps would take millions of years to get where we are now. Rights arent going to change their limitations.

GuanYin

Oh good, you're gonna try argue this one....

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

My point is that, humans are animals.

Yes we established that,

People are under some ridiculous notion that we are not, as if 'human' was something different.
Yes, we are no better than these animals, but we are smarter, yes.

Yes, but if you want to render it down to the level you're arguing (which is that we are just smarter animals), then our "smartness" is just an evolutionary weapon that we have developed to survive. It is no different to a Cheetah's speed or a Shark's teeth. We are animals with an evolutionary advantage that puts up high up the food chain. Our smartness is designed to help us breed and survive as a species, therefore we are perfectly justified, as animals, in using it to kill off creatures that act as a resource.

Unless you're then going to argue that "our intelligence is special", which to be honest, is just one step away from the arguing you are trying to counter in the first place.

We have developed to a point where we think murder of humans is wrong, black people, women, etc. Slowly everything is being given more rights and it is about damn time. All humans aren't even extended rights, we are a joke of a horrible, beautiful species of animal.

Actually, this kind of thing is in the animal kingdom too. Some species have tight knit clans, some don't. Some cannibalise, some don't. Some look after tehir own, some don't. Creatures treating other creatures of the species well is just a survival technique. Creatures that will treat their own with compassion and loyalty will still tear anything that doesn't belong around it to shreds.

Unless you argue that we're special animals, and above normal animals.... oh no, wait, thats what you're arguing against.

We are intelligent enough to know that we should not hurt, but we do.

Why shouldn't we hurt animals?

Where is this written?

We are the only animal that inflicts pain knowing it to be pain.

Oh hold on, this makes us "special animals" again. Isn't that what you said we aren't?

All animals know the difference between a dead, wounded and healthy animal.
All predators know how to help the process along. They do it knowingly.

We are just like every other animal, our reasoning and intelligence is at a higher level however with evolutionary psychology playing a lesser role in what we do.

But hold on. You are classing our evolutionary advantage as something other than just an evolutionary skill.

So again, you are classifying us outside "normal animals".

Sorry, you're flowering it up, but you're muddling your own argument.

In every single way you want to try argue, you will find that all human intelligence and instinct has parallels throughout the animal kingdom.

Elephants got size, tigers got teeth and claws, rhino's got armour, cheetah's got speed, we got brains.

IF you want to argue we're animals, then just like the other animals, we use our skills to survive - thats WHY we developed them.

We should not kill as we do not need to to survive.

So, you're saying that we should not use the skills we developed in order to survive for the purpose of survival.

Aren't we just animals though? :rolleyes:

Tar.Aldarion

Demetrius wrote:

But you just said were were animals. Shoudnt we be giving in to our natural urges, being omnivores?

You mean like our natural urges to kill everything, including humans?
Evolutionary pyschology no longer plays such a role as it used to back in the day when we were not as developed monkeys.
We are so lucky, yet we squander our potential. I love this new tool song when it comes to that. http://www.metrolyrics.com/lyrics/2147430444/Tool/Right_In_Two

No, we don't have to give into our urges to be omnivourous anymore, there is even a tribe around today that have been vegan for at least 5,000 years. It's not even definite that we were or are meant to be omnivourous. I do not have an omnivourous diet. I do not need it.

Zombrex

Demetrius wrote:

Were communicating using lumps of plastic and metal. Chimps would take millions of years to get where we are now. Rights arent going to change their limitations.

Higher apes communicate with either other, through complex language (compared to other animals) structures. They also pass on community knowledge from on generation to another. They not only learn they also teach. They adapt intelligently to problems, and use logic and external tools to solve complex problems.

Because they can't build a computer is beside the point. As I said, a 5 year old can't build a computer, and neither does my 90 year old grandmother.

Demetrius

Wicknight wrote:

Well i don't see a 5 year old doing that either, other my 90 year old grand mother with alzhimerses .. does that mean they are not considered as special as us anymore and therefore their rights have decreased?

Youd be surprised what 5 year olds can do.

The difference between us and chimps is that we have the potential to go further, even the frailest members of our species.

Chimps dont. Therefore should not get the same rights as us. Thats all Im saying

Gurgle

Demetrius wrote:

Were communicating using lumps of plastic and metal. Chimps would take millions of years to get where we are now. Rights arent going to change their limitations.

So, if someone took away your lumps of plastic and metal and gave you a bag of sand, a chunk of iron ore and some crude oil you could re-build your PC?

Vegeta

Wicknight wrote:

Well i don't see a 5 year old doing that either, other my 90 year old grand mother with alzhimerses .. does that mean they are not considered as special as us anymore and therefore their rights have decreased?

A minor is anyone under 18 in the eyes of the law and we see loads of kids on here.

I'm sure there are kids of about 10 using the internet. I saw an episode of super nanny where a 7 year old was ordering stuff off the net with his dads credit card

GuanYin

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

You mean like our natural urges to kill everything, including humans?

Please show us exactlt why you think humans as an animal should have a natural urge to kill other humans.

Simians are a social species so in terms of natural urges, so too should we be.

Do you even know anything you're talking about here or is this all just PETA-like propaganda?

Evolutionary pyschology no longer plays such a role as it used to back in the day when we were not as developed monkeys.

What? Evolutionary psychology?

So you're saying the biology that drives instinct just stopped working? Do you know what instinct is or the mechanism of its action?

My god, where do you get this stuff?

No, we don't have to give into our urges to be omnivourous anymore, there is even a tribe around today that have been vegan for at least 5,000 years.

But if we're animals, why shouldn't we?

It's not even definite that we were or are meant to be omnivourous. I do not have an omnivourous diet. I do not need it.

Please back that up with some sort of factual reference if you can.

Demetrius

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

You mean like our natural urges to kill everything, including humans?
Evolutionary pyschology no longer plays such a role as it used to back in the day when we were not as developed monkeys.
We are so lucky, yet we squander our potential. I love this new tool song when it comes to that. http://www.metrolyrics.com/lyrics/2147430444/Tool/Right_In_Two

No, we don't have to give into our urges to be omnivourous anymore, there is even a tribe around today that have been vegan for at least 5,000 years. It's not even definite that we were or are meant to be omnivourous. I do not have an omnivourous diet. I do not need it.

Humans are basically altruistic in nature. It doesnt serve the interests of the species to go around killing everybody. Sure, there are exceptions and large amounts of people have been killed. But we are set apart from other animals in that we can contruct laws and for the most part live by them.

Zombrex

Demetrius wrote:

Youd be surprised what 5 year olds can do.

The difference between us and chimps is that we have the potential to go further, even the frailest members of our species.

Chimps dont. Therefore should not get the same rights as us. Thats all Im saying

So we should grant rights not based on what someone can do, but what they may do in the future?

How does that work for my 90 year old grandmother who will eventually lose more and more of her higher brain functions.

Does she eventually lose her rights as a human being because she has lost the potential to "go further" than she is at the moment?

Legally she retains those rights until she is well passed the higher brain functions of a dog let alone a higher primate. But you seem to be arguing that the thing that makes us special is no longer present in her. So by that logic does she not now lose those rights that she did have?

Demetrius

Gurgle wrote:

So, if someone took away your lumps of plastic and metal and gave you a bag of sand, a chunk of iron ore and some crude oil you could re-build your PC?

Crude oil? Hmm...I could smoke signal and communicate that way:) No chimp can do that.

Zombrex

Vegeta wrote:

A minor is anyone under 18 in the eyes of the law and we see loads of kids on here.

I'm sure there are kids of about 10 using the internet. I saw an episode of super nanny where a 7 year old was ordering stuff off the net with his dads credit card

The point is what makes a human "special" and therefore deserving of certain rights not given to other animals ... if the requirement is that you can communicate on the Internet we are going to run into a few problems ...

monkeyfudge

We get closer to the Planet of the Apes with each passing day.

Great stuff!

Vegeta

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

You mean like our natural urges to kill everything, including humans?
Evolutionary pyschology no longer plays such a role as it used to back in the day when we were not as developed monkeys.
We are so lucky, yet we squander our potential. I love this new tool song when it comes to that. http://www.metrolyrics.com/lyrics/2147430444/Tool/Right_In_Two

No, we don't have to give into our urges to be omnivourous anymore, there is even a tribe around today that have been vegan for at least 5,000 years. It's not even definite that we were or are meant to be omnivourous. I do not have an omnivourous diet. I do not need it.

Ok I don't want to get into an arguement over evolution but we have canines(sp?) and incisors(sp?), these teeth are designed for eating meat, we can digest meat. Our closest relative in the ape world the chimp is an omnivore, I am aware a gorilla is a vegatarian but they are not as closely related or as intelligent as chimps, also a gorilla has the worst penis to body size ratio ever. I'd say there is more evidence in support of omnivore than against it.

The fact that the majority of people in the world are omnivores would imply that the humans on average are indeed omnivores.

Also if someone doesn't want to eat meat I have absolutely nothing against that and applaud their efforts in a world where its just easier to eat meat and other products not having to look into every brand of food you buy to see if animals have suffered in its making.

GuanYin

Likewise, I have nothing against vegetarians or vegans and I eat very little meat myself, but if someone is going to cite some greater good as a reasoning to me, I'd prefer that they actually hadthe slightest clue about what they're talking.

Demetrius

Wicknight wrote:

So we should grant rights not based on what someone can do, but what they may do in the future?

How does that work for my 90 year old grandmother who will eventually lose more and more of her higher brain functions.

Does she eventually lose her rights as a human being because she has lost the potential to "go further" than she is at the moment?

Legally she retains those rights until she is well passed the higher brain functions of a dog let alone a higher primate. But you seem to be arguing that the thing that makes us special is no longer present in her. So by that logic does she not now lose those rights that she did have?

She doesnt lose her rights. Shes still human.

That vital one percent is what gives us all this. Our body, mind and potential

GuanYin

Demetrius wrote:

She doesnt lose her rights. Shes still human.

That vital one percent is what gives us all this. Our body, mind and potential

Incidently lads, you're looking at this all the wrong way when you talk about DNA differences.

Considering the vast majority of our DNA is either conserved throughout the entire mammalian population and in many cases, even beyond OR is junk, the focus on comparing any two organisms shouldn't rest on what is the same, but rather what is different.

Zombrex

Demetrius wrote:

She doesnt lose her rights. Shes still human.

*Groan*

You are using a cyclical justification.

Humans have certain rights over other animals. Why? Because they are human.

That is not a reason.

Demetrius wrote:

That vital one percent is what gives us all this. Our body, mind and potential

Our body is irrelivent.

When a person is brain dead they are legally dead, even if the rest of their body is still fully functional. Once a persons brain fully fails they lose all rights they used to have.

So we get to our mind, the rights are bestowed on the mind of a person, not their body.

We have already estabilished that a person with serious mental deficencies in their brain still is granted the full rights as the rest of us, even if they are mentally disabled from birth and will never develop further (ruling out "potential" as a factor in rights)

So what are we left with. What is so special about our mind, even those that are severely damaged and definitent?

Demetrius

We might be thought to have a soul.

GuanYin

Demetrius wrote:

We might be thought to have a soul.

If we have souls, why wouldn't apes?

Demetrius

psi wrote:

If we have souls, why wouldn't apes?

Our one percent difference sets us apart.

GuanYin

Demetrius wrote:

Our one percent difference sets us apart.

Whu? Wha?

Are you referring to our >1% difference as being something to do with a soul?

Even if you're not then you're missing the point.

Of the >98% homology between human and chimp DNA. The VAST MAJORITY is conserved throughout all mammalian species, some even throughout the majority of life forms.

So if you wish to logically compare the differences between two creatures, the way to do it isn't to say - "look at how much is the same" the way to do it is to ask "well what is it exactly that is different".

The differences between a creatures DNA tell us alot more than the similarities.