First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Animal Equality
2160 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / somewhere with in...
Offline
Posted 1/4/08

projectcedric wrote:


From Merriam Online Dictionary:


Personality

1 a: the quality or state of being a person b: personal existence
2 a: the condition or fact of relating to a particular person; specifically : the condition of referring directly to or being aimed disparagingly or hostilely at an individual b: an offensively personal remark <angrily resorted to personalities>


Note: the word "person" (underlined) in the definition, i.e. it has to be a person.

From the same dictionary:

Person
1: human individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson><spokesperson>

Note: the word "human". It must be a human.

From the same dictionary:

Human
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens: man; broadly : hominid


Conclusion: "personality" is not the same as individual trait. "Personality" is a trait or characteristic of a specific species in a specific order of animals: Homo Sapiens. Which is us.


s'nice to live by the book and all but maybe u should open your mind a bit more, by specifically stating animals dont have personalities, arent u saying theyre inferior to us?? thats a show of racism dont u think?

of course, its racism onli by my reasoning, i understand perfectly if u DO think animals are below us or otherwise, i kno everyones different and thus, have different views
2923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/4/08

sheighton wrote:


Question away, but science has clearly shown that what I said is true. How? Science has said over the years that humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos share roughly 98% of their genomes in common and recent analysis of the genomes has shown all three to have a common ancestor. So, yes my statement is correct and you hypothesis is partially so...We don't know what that common ancestor was exactly but we do know that it was an ape...


It was an evolved version of an ape. Not an ape. It could have been possibly mixed with some other species within that gap, and thus not relating to the modern ape anymore.

Also, there are journals that say that we also share genomes with other animals like mice and dolphins. Although I greatly doubt the reliability of those studies, point being, in genetics and evolution, you cannot use the fact that we share a plenty amount of genomes means we came from the same species. It could be parallel evolution.


sheighton wrote:
As for the use of "person" I love your little dictionary use, but I think that is being a bit limiting don't you? I mean what makes humans so important anyways? Is it that we use fire and tools? Or maybe that we have opposable thumbs? Look at it this way, without fire we would have no cooked food and thus a heavily muscled jaw. Heavily muscled jaws exert more pressure upon the cranium thus reducing the the size of the brain. So therefore it is likely that we never would have developed the use of complex tools, language, or thought...So what does that make us? A one in a billion long shot that just happened to have things go its way? And not just once, no but time and time again? Yeah, I'd say that's about right...


And that is why the word "person" was invented by the human society : to differentiate us from the rest because those things happened. So we need to use the word accordingly and appropriately especially in the context of questions such as "racism" which deals with the human society.

Limitation is not the issue here, but separating humans from the rest of the animal kingdom because after all, this is our society that we are talking about.


Safuranmodoki wrote:


projectcedric wrote:


From Merriam Online Dictionary:


Personality

1 a: the quality or state of being a person b: personal existence
2 a: the condition or fact of relating to a particular person; specifically : the condition of referring directly to or being aimed disparagingly or hostilely at an individual b: an offensively personal remark <angrily resorted to personalities>


Note: the word "person" (underlined) in the definition, i.e. it has to be a person.

From the same dictionary:

Person
1: human individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson><spokesperson>

Note: the word "human". It must be a human.

From the same dictionary:

Human
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens: man; broadly : hominid


Conclusion: "personality" is not the same as individual trait. "Personality" is a trait or characteristic of a specific species in a specific order of animals: Homo Sapiens. Which is us.


s'nice to live by the book and all but maybe u should open your mind a bit more, by specifically stating animals dont have personalities, arent u saying theyre inferior to us?? thats a show of racism dont u think?

of course, its racism onli by my reasoning, i understand perfectly if u DO think animals are below us or otherwise, i kno everyones different and thus, have different views


Again. "Racism" is not the correct question for this. You cannot say I'm racist just because I segregate myself from the rest of the animal kingdom (assuming that I do). "Racism" cannot exist in an inter-species context. It's not the same question as "discrimination against Chinese".

It's more like "discrimination against particular species". And the intensity of that question is different from "Racism".

And yes, I personally think animals are below us. And I dont think that's necessarily a bad thing. Nature has allowed us to evolved thus far for a particular reason.

~Please use the edit button next time. Double posting is not allowed.
12887 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Through the looki...
Offline
Posted 1/4/08

projectcedric wrote:

It was an evolved version of an ape. Not an ape. It could have been possibly mixed with some other species within that gap, and thus not relating to the modern ape anymore.

You are guessing, nothing more...Sorry. Guessing is going to hurt your credibility.


Also, there are journals that say that we also share genomes with other animals like mice and dolphins. Although I greatly doubt the reliability of those studies, point being, in genetics and evolution, you cannot use the fact that we share a plenty amount of genomes means we came from the same species. It could be parallel evolution.

Again, guessing and apparently not citing any reliable journals (note that I have reliable journals in this house and none of them say that outright - reason for having the journals is that my dad used to be a professor of Cultural Anthropology)...


And that is why the word "person" was invented by the human society : to differentiate us from the rest because those things happened. So we need to use the word accordingly and appropriately especially in the context of questions such as "racism" which deals with the human society.

No creation made by man is perfect, therefore it is flawed. That is unless you want to start arguing that man is God...?


Limitation is not the issue here, but separating humans from the rest of the animal kingdom because after all, this is our society that we are talking about.

Limitation is the issue. We create a sense of superiority for ourselves only because our brain makes us higher on the food chain. We are smart animals yes, but man is an animal nonetheless.
2923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/4/08



sheighton wrote:
Again, guessing and apparently not citing any reliable journals (note that I have reliable journals in this house and none of them say that outright - reason for having the journals is that my dad used to be a professor of Cultural Anthropology)...


So are you. Post on your dad's journals and whatever books you have and prove me wrong. Otherwise, I can't just take what you say either just because your dad is a professor or whatever. Such low class way of presenting an argument.

Of course these are all just guesses. You think you've lived long enough to see through evolution? They're theories! That's why we question them.


sheighton wrote:
No creation made by man is perfect, therefore it is flawed. That is unless you want to start arguing that man is God...?


So what if it is flawed? Wth!! Where do you pull all these contexts from like God and stuffs from? The issue is not whether it is "perfect", or "flawed" or if its the absolute truth. The issue is that its in the context of the human society. Regardless of whether man is god or man is flawed or whatever.

Goodness. Out of context, man.


sheighton wrote:
Limitation is the issue. We create a sense of superiority for ourselves only because our brain makes us higher on the food chain. We are smart animals yes, but man is an animal nonetheless.


Again. Same argument: human society context. So what if we are animals? There is no known society that has all the animals conversing and doing politics, and discussing about racial issues whatsoever. This is about us, the human society. You have to put parameters.

15332 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/4/08
swt animals are not equal cuz they are different speices and have a food chain
12887 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Through the looki...
Offline
Posted 1/4/08

projectcedric wrote:

So are you. Post on your dad's journals and whatever books you have and prove me wrong. Otherwise, I can't just take what you say either just because your dad is a professor or whatever. Such low class way of presenting an argument.

Sorry but your's was too...Unproven statements without support...A moderator in a debate would throw out the topic. And as neither you nor I am likely to go to the large amounts of effort to back ourselves up on this, I recommend that we drop this particular piece.



sheighton wrote:
No creation made by man is perfect, therefore it is flawed. That is unless you want to start arguing that man is God...?


So what if it is flawed? Wth!! Where do you pull all these contexts from like God and stuffs from? The issue is not whether it is "perfect", or "flawed" or if its the absolute truth. The issue is that its in the context of the human society. Regardless of whether man is god or man is flawed or whatever.

Goodness. Out of context, man.

Not out of context. Often in debates/arguments such as this one, the question of God/Creation/Evolution is brought into play, and thus my question has just as much validity as any statement/question involving Evolution...As for society, I have already said that we create artificial constructs of superiority for ourselves, race being an example, the "superiority" of mankind being another.



sheighton wrote:
Limitation is the issue. We create a sense of superiority for ourselves only because our brain makes us higher on the food chain. We are smart animals yes, but man is an animal nonetheless.


Again. Same argument: human society context. So what if we are animals? There is no known society that has all the animals conversing and doing politics, and discussing about racial issues whatsoever. This is about us, the human society. You have to put parameters.

Read a bit more carefully...I said that we are smart animals. All of what you stated just so happen to go along with developments that we have created merely because we chanced upon the use of fire...

Sorry but you are going to have to do a lot better to get anywhere in this one...


astralmage wrote:

swt animals are not equal cuz they are different speices and have a food chain

Technically speaking we are a super predator and we still do exist in the same food chain....
12887 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Through the looki...
Offline
Posted 1/4/08

projectcedric wrote:


sheighton wrote:
Read a bit more carefully...I said that we are smart animals. All of what you stated just so happen to go along with developments that we have created merely because we chanced upon the use of fire...


I... dont quite seem to understand the point of this. Yes, we are smart animals and we did probably chance upon the use of fire. Prometheus' fault. And?


Note: I agree with the first part of your post.

Now then, why do I say that humans likely "chanced" upon fire? Think of how fire is most often created within nature...The answer is a simple one: lightning. Early humans or proto-humans likely saw lightning start fire, and figured out that fire burned things. After a wildfire, they might have chanced upon some animal that had been caught in the flames and, shall we say, "char-broiled"...This then gave them an idea, which they then went about trying to set into practice. It was likely then connected with finding that when certain stones strike each other, sparks are created, and that these sparks are capable of causing fire in dry timber. Add it all up and suddenly you have humans cooking meat, when only mere generations before their ancestors had not been. Cooked meats/foods have a softer texture than raw meats/foods and thus reduce the need for heavily muscled jaws, which reduces cranial pressure, and thus leads to our brains evolving as they have. - Note that this bit about cooked foods impacting the way human jaws develop over time is a proven fact. In the early 20th century, researchers studying Inuits noticed that many individuals developed overbites after being fed canned foods (often very soft contents) over many years.
2923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/4/08

sheighton wrote:


projectcedric wrote:


sheighton wrote:
Read a bit more carefully...I said that we are smart animals. All of what you stated just so happen to go along with developments that we have created merely because we chanced upon the use of fire...


I... dont quite seem to understand the point of this. Yes, we are smart animals and we did probably chance upon the use of fire. Prometheus' fault. And?


Note: I agree with the first part of your post.

Now then, why do I say that humans likely "chanced" upon fire? Think of how fire is most often created within nature...The answer is a simple one: lightning. Early humans or proto-humans likely saw lightning start fire, and figured out that fire burned things. After a wildfire, they might have chanced upon some animal that had been caught in the flames and, shall we say, "char-broiled"...This then gave them an idea, which they then went about trying to set into practice. It was likely then connected with finding that when certain stones strike each other, sparks are created, and that these sparks are capable of causing fire in dry timber. Add it all up and suddenly you have humans cooking meat, when only mere generations before their ancestors had not been. Cooked meats/foods have a softer texture than raw meats/foods and thus reduce the need for heavily muscled jaws, which reduces cranial pressure, and thus leads to our brains evolving as they have. - Note that this bit about cooked foods impacting the way human jaws develop over time is a proven fact. In the early 20th century, researchers studying Inuits noticed that many individuals developed overbites after being fed canned foods (often very soft contents) over many years.


I also agree with most of what you said, but they are all once again, theories. Nothing more than intelligent guesses.

Now, assuming that we take all that you've just described as truth.. what then?
How does that relate back to your original argument which is... I cant remember what actually?
2833 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Chicago
Offline
Posted 1/4/08

vajmichael wrote:

Do you eat vegetables only then? If you are offered the cooked flesh of a slain animal would you eat it?


But eating meat is all part of survival. Sharks eat other fish---for what? For surviving longer.
36 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Brisbane
Offline
Posted 1/4/08
Let us not use the word "personalaties". Let us use the word EMOTION, animals experiance every emotion we do, they care for their offspring, they care for each other, also a society among animals would be a good example of wolves and their pecking order. Also would you not say since animals have not developed politics they have been a tad smarter than us. We got to smart for our own good, overpopulated it is a matter of time before WW3 happens, and we have destroyed the earth with now scientist predicting that the North Pole is going to be ice free by 2014. I think animals should be equal, do not try use word personality it is crap.
1706 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 1/4/08
Haha. Preferring cats over dogs is not the same thing at all as being racist. No offense, but where would anyone get such a ridiculous idea?

It's as simple as this: Dogs and cats are not different races. They are different species. It's not about color of fur or shape of ears, it's their entire being that's different. You're not racist for liking trees more than grass, are you?

And there's nothing at all wrong with having preferences. There's dog people and cat people, it's the people who hate both cats and dogs that we need to be concerned about.
3077 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 1/4/08
uhmm wrong choice of words though, "personalities" can only be used when talking about a person, and i think you should use the term "species" rather that race since race is normally used in a concept regarding societies..

basically your question is just like "why do you like spaghetti more than pizza?" or "do you prefer the color purple over yellow?" discrimination is not always the issue since in almost everything we have something we favor more than the other. for me. i favor dogs over cats since i had dogs as pets and cats tried to attack me when i was a kid i think it's just something that comes naturally to us. we can't force ourselves to love all the animals but we can protect and take care of them.

and for the bird feeders and mouse trap thing, well you won't see wild birds destroying your clothes/things and leaving poop all around your house now would you? just like these wild birds, mice are not supposed to be inside your house either. there are traps that use cages which is in my opinion a better way of keeping them out of the house instead of killing them.
21991 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / boring, bland ohio
Offline
Posted 1/4/08
that isn't racism. You should rephrase your argument into preferences for certain species, and yes I like cats better than slugs. That doesn't make me a bad person.
Posted 1/4/08

Safuranmodoki wrote:
its been kinda bothering me for a while and i'd just like to divert ppl's attention towards 'animal racism'

Doesn't exist, can never exist. "animal" is not a race, therefore "animal racism" is a non-subject.
You can't even say discrimination, why? simple, you are attempting to attribute Human emotions and intelligence to that which has none.
A dog simply wouldn't care if you like a cat more, a dog can't even begin to comprehend the idea of "discrimination".
A dogs world is very simple: Wake up, eat, run outside, relieve itself, play, eat, drink water, clean itself, run around some more, play with it's owners, eat, drink wanter, sit with it's owner on the sofa, go to sleep. Start the process all over the next day.
This is pretty much ubiquitous for all animals.


we all agree that racism is wrong and that asians, americans, irish or swedish or watever race u are, we are all equal, i kno racism is still a problem but at least we try to stop it.. but wat about racism towards animals?? we ARE animals ourselves, why is there such a distinguished line between animal and human??

Where do I begin ?!
Ok... the -first- line.... the fact that you are using a computer.
-Second line-: the fact that you can -think- to come up with a topic like this one
-Third Line-: We are self-aware and conscious of our actions.
need I go on ?
And Man is not an animal, we are above them in every way possible.

Second, American, Irish and Swedish .... these are not races, they are nationalities.
Asian is a race, Caucasian, Negro, European, Arabic, Jewish... these -are- races.


why are there such questions as "Do you like Cats more or Dogs?"

Because some people prefer one animal over another and they have the right to do so.
There is no discrimination inherent or implied in that choice, it's just a matter of personal preference. Again, an animal cannot and would not understand what discrimination is.
But to put this in perspective I offer the following:
I like Metal and not rap..... does that mean I dislike black people ?
If you say yes, then what of the black people who do not like rap ?
And if someone dislikes metal, does that mean said person dislikes white people or guys with long hair?
If so, then what of the white people and guys with long hair who don't like metal or rock?

Do you see my point ?
You're trying to insert discrimination in place of personal preference, thereby making someones personal choices wrong and forcing them to think, like and act as you would.



then lemme ask you, "Do you like Asians more or Americans?"
slightly offended, perhaps??

Answer: I like the Japanese more than Americans.... and I'm American.
and if someone is offended by this..... tough. Not my problem.


and to the horse lover: why do u like Arabians more than Palaminos?
(not picking on horse lovers on purpose)

again, personal preference.


sure, i understand that u may admire the brutalness of the shark or envy thepower of the tiger or take pleasure in the wonderful array of colours exotic birds have to offer, you may admire something the wolf has that the newt duznt... but in the end, arent we all equal??

No.... we aren't.


why do we set out bird feeders and lay out mouse traps?? why do we favour one animal and shun another??

edit: if u disagree with the term 'racism' then we'll say discrimination


You are looking for disparity where none exists.
On top of which..... it seems as though you are trying to force people into doing something they may not want to do.
Why do people set out bird feeders and lay out mouse traps? simple.... Birds tend to stay outside, stick to the feeders and leave well enough alone.
(Wild) Rats and mice tend to chew their way into homes, spread disease, ruin food and just act destructive in general.

You say equality...... but how are animals equal to Humans ?
Can they speak?
can they operate a vehicle?
can they build houses?
Have animals created civilizations ?

The answer to these questions is obviously "no"

Now, should animals be treated with kindness and compassion ? I give a hearty and resounding "yes!" to that question.
But equality? no.... an animal simply cannot comprehend it.

For there to be equality there first has to be something there to -make- us equals.... and between man and animal........ that essential link simply isn't there.




wolzen wrote:
you're fucking retarded...
pardon my language but those words perfectly suit you


You claim to be 38 (something I doubt btw) and you tell a 15 year old girl who is asking a valid, if slightly misguided , question she's retarded ?!
WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU BOY?!
I would suggest that your word better suit YOU, wolzen!

This Girl is entitled to her opinion, and it -behooves- us to offer her a different view point WITHOUT insults and idiocy.

Gaburiera-chan, Wolzen
You owe this girl an apology!

And to sheightonImage and projectcedric: You're both arguing the THEORY of evolution.
Small problem, 2 in fact.
One: the THEORY of evolution is just that...... -only- a theory, you know, something that has yet to be proven ?
the·o·ry /ˈ[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
[Origin: 1590–1600; < LL theōria < Gk theōría a viewing, contemplating, equiv. to theōr(eǐn) to view + -ia -y3]

—Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory)

And two: there is a reason why the link between man and ape can't be proven.... it's never been found.
Plenty of frauds have surfaced, but nothing solid, hence the reason it's call "the Missing Link".

But, this is off topic, so stay on target guys.

===
One other thing projectcedric.
The word "personality" has multiple accepted definitions, so if you're going to argue, at least be honest and not use ONLY that with suits your purposes, it's dishonest and cowardly.

And BOTH definitions are correct.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personality


per·son·al·i·ty /ˌpɜrsəˈnælɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pur-suh-nal-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the visible aspect of one's character as it impresses others: He has a pleasing personality.
2. a person as an embodiment of a collection of qualities: He is a curious personality.
3. Psychology.
a. the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of an individual.
b. the organized pattern of behavioral characteristics of the individual.
4. the quality of being a person; existence as a self-conscious human being; personal identity.
5. the essential character of a person.
6. something apprehended as reflective of or analogous to a distinctive human personality, as the atmosphere of a place or thing: This house has a warm personality.
7. a famous, notable, or prominent person; celebrity.
8. application or reference to a particular person or particular persons, often in disparagement or hostility.
9. a disparaging or offensive statement referring to a particular person: The political debate deteriorated into personalities.
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME personalite (< MF) < LL persōnālitās. See personal, -ity]

—Synonyms 1. See character.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
per·son·al·i·ty (pûr'sə-nāl'ĭ-tē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. per·son·al·i·ties

1. The quality or condition of being a person.
2. The totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person.
3. The pattern of collective character, behavioral, temperamental, emotional, and mental traits of a person: Though their personalities differed, they got along as friends.
4. Distinctive qualities of a person, especially those distinguishing personal characteristics that make one socially appealing: won the election more on personality than on capability. See Synonyms at disposition.
5.
1. A person as the embodiment of distinctive traits of mind and behavior.
2. A person of prominence or notoriety: television personalities.
6. An offensively personal remark. Often used in the plural: Let's not engage in personalities.
7. The distinctive characteristics of a place or situation: furnishings that give a room personality.


Back to the subject.
Posted 1/4/08

ade25 wrote:

no they are not considerin they are made by asians for they are not im black and yeah some have blacks in it jus look



Sorry man, I didn't understand a word of this.



n_n303 wrote:

are you fucking kidding me? This is a joke right? no seriously, someone put you up to this... this thread cant be real. This is basically saying "omg you like pants more than tops you're racist!"

No... -you- are kidding, right ?

Did you even -try- to understand what she's asking ? or are you just being obtuse on purpose?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.