First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Animal Equality
Posted 1/6/08 , edited 4/18/08
Animals ARE NOT people.... if they were...... they'd be speaking, and working and living AS WE DO.
And there is a great deal different between animals and humans.... the most obvious, Animals have never created ANY civilization. Humans have.
Therefore... they are not people.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/people
This definition is right, you are wrong... so please stop.

And once again you reference a book written BY HUMANS. either you accept what is written by ALL humans or you don't, you simply cannot have it both ways. You can't refer to a book written by one group of humans because you agree with it then turn around and ignore another book written by humans "because it's written by humans".
I have yet to see a book written by animals (another reason they are not people).

I will never look at animals as people because they aren't people. They are not as intelligent as humans, they will never be as intelligent as humans and they will never be on the same level as humans......... so you aren't giving an opinion, you are making noise.
And lets not forget that Ms. Goodall is EXTREMELY biased.

Please stop talking, you only make yourself look more and more obtuse.

Btw.... PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE try and use proper spelling, grammar and syntax......... reading what you post makes my brain hemorrhage and gives me a migraine.

either way.... I'm done talking to you.
1245 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Frozen over momo...
Offline
Posted 1/6/08 , edited 4/18/08

ShadowGryphon wrote:

Animals ARE NOT people.... if they were...... they'd be speaking, and working and living AS WE DO.
And there is a great deal different between animals and humans.... the most obvious, Animals have never created ANY civilization. Humans have.
Therefore... they are not people.

And once again you reference a book written BY HUMANS.

I will never look at animals as people because they aren't people. They are not as intelligent as humans, they will never be as intelligent as humans and they will never be on the same level as humans......... so you aren't giving an opinion, you are making noise.
And lets not forget that Ms. Goodall is EXTREMELY biased.

Please stop talking, you only make yourself look more and more obtuse.

Btw.... PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE try and use proper spelling, grammar and syntax......... reading what you post makes my brain hemorrhage and gives me a migraine.

either way.... I'm done talking to you.


Yay!
BBQ with this guy!
6347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / SDF-1
Offline
Posted 1/6/08 , edited 4/18/08
Goddamn PETA. Their evil grip has reached this far.

Posted 1/6/08 , edited 4/18/08
PETA = People eating tasty animals....

MEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAT!
6858 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Pluto
Offline
Posted 1/7/08 , edited 4/18/08
Sorry, now we belong here.


applexshampoo wrote:


hq145 wrote:

And what sort of teenage rebellion do they partake in? Ditch school and hang out at the mall? Perhaps it's instinctive to test the boundaries of society? That doesn't show a concept of right and wrong. It also doesn't show that they are questioning "right" and "wrong".


it's not a question of what they partake in, its a question of the animal questioning its parents and thus questioning the right way to do something

so it's not like you said instinctual because they go through an experimenting stage


Give me an instance. What morals are called into question and how does it show them as being aware that there is a "right' and a "wrong" rather than just a "best for the society"?


adultery, the female members start the shun the female who cheated on her partner. she wasn't an alpha female so it has no bearing on the society if she did commit such an act

mutiny, one challenges another authority (questions his way of leading the family) and gets shut down so plans with other members of the family do rise against the alpha male and female. some stayed loyal to the alphas and some did not. those who followed the usurper felt he was right in his actions and they broke off from the family

guilt, having betrayed her mate the female comes forward to get back together with him. all seems okay but will the male accept the children as his own?

thats all i can remember but my girlfriend also says betrayal


That second one is interesting. How do you know it's that they questioned the leadership rather than just actions causing fear for survival causing separation? Or even just the need to separate for food or shelter?



*cough*o rly*cough* I think there are some huge discrepancies in some animal social workings.


can you take the principles of social behaviour in social animals and elaborate? because you could write a paper on it and be world famous for your findings in animal research and sociology


*chuckles* well, no I can't write a paper on them, but you have to admit that many animal societies differ greatly. The "birds of many families and colors" that nest together. The turtles that leave there eggs to find their own way back. Heck, look at schools of fish versus clown fish. Every society grows according to the needs of its subjects, so your assertions that every social creature has the same society is flawed.



And yet we now have innovations not based on anything in the animal kingdom. Originality is ours.


originality? it's still based on what we learnt from the animal kingdom, we would be nothing with out them to teach us certain skills and probably would have died out by now. how can originality be ours when our whole way of living is based on the animal kingdom.

we owe them a lot more than we give credit for


And what did we base rockets on? Cars on? Computers on? The wheel on? I'll grant you that there are parts of our behavior very similar to other animals. And there will of course be inventions and concepts based on the study of animals. But the "based on" is where we show our evolutionary superiority.




And I meant it. If they were aware of "right"' and "wrong" as humans are rather than just having a compilation of learned behaviors and instinct, this conversation would be over. But they don't. You've yet to prove they do. And let's face it, there's no way to prove that save through a history of existence without "justice" being meted out by the animals.


i’ve provided you with answers to all your points on the connection between us and the animal kingdom, also i've given you a source to watch. if you want to ignore that then fine but you've yet to refute anything i've said

by the way, when will you have your sociology degree? i'll have mine in 3 years


O_o; You did not just throw a few sociology classes in my face. Animal instinct is self preservation. All "ethics" or "morals" you see in animals is just that instinct put into motion. And you have yet to prove THAT wrong. They instinctively act in a way that will preserve their species. So when an animal questions or tries to take leadership, this isn't a power play, it's merely questioning the Alpha male/female.. whatever.. to ensure that the society has the strongest possible leader. Shunning a female that betrays her mate can also be seen as preservation as that sort of behavior on a large scale would hurt their society with the fathers refusing to protect children they don't know to be theirs, the species would die out. Everything they do can be seen as instinctive preservation. Prove me wrong, Mr. Sociology degree.

1352 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/7/08 , edited 4/18/08
animals eat animals. simple as.

'why is there such a distinguished line between humans and animals?'

take a look around you? The human race ahas achieved amazing things, when cats or dogs or whatever animal starts producing planes, trains, cars and microchips maybe that question won't sound so ridiculous.

The most different thing about humans to animals, bar the obvious, is that rather than adapting to suit or environment, we reshape and build around it to suit us.

People don't like some animals cos they're ugly or gross. Maggots are not as nice as kittens for example. we lay out mousetraps because they get into the food and stuff, my school had a mouse problem - they were eating the coursework in the art cupboard- birds generally tend stay outside.
Posted 1/7/08 , edited 4/18/08

phillia wrote:

....Maggots are not as nice as kittens for example


Yet here's an irony for ya.
Maggots have proven very very useful in the treatment of burn patients as they eat the burned,necrotic and dying flesh and so that new healthy flesh can grow back.
Posted 1/7/08 , edited 4/18/08
no way lygers totally pwn lions and tigers
1031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / in and around you...
Offline
Posted 1/7/08 , edited 4/18/08

Safuranmodoki wrote:

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

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??

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

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

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

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?? 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


wat da fuck...discrimination based on wat you like?
your examples are like "Do you like Coke more or Pepsi..." or "Do you like Ford more or Chevy..."
everyone has a preference and its not discrimination, now if you were to beat cats cause you like dogs better, then its discriminating

28 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / amerrrca
Offline
Posted 1/7/08 , edited 4/18/08
First off Arabs can be palomino
Cause palomino is a color not a breed
And 2nd off
Just because I like one animal more than another dosent mean I'm rascist
I like some people more than others not based by the color of their skin
And as long as everyone is differnt there will be rasicm
1028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 1/7/08 , edited 4/18/08
LOL, funny thread. Maybe someone should create a 'Vegetable Equality'

'Do you like carrot or brocolli?'

'Eat your greens! No discrimination!'
45424 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F / Japan
Offline
Posted 1/7/08 , edited 4/18/08

Safuranmodoki wrote:

yet theyre still different races shouldnt it be all down to their personality, whether it be a wolf or a rat?



vajmichael wrote:

I doubt we are all equal but if it's to respect life, I could understand.

Some are seen as pests while others are considered more majestic. Safuranmodoki, do you still swat flys and mosquitos?


never >< i hate it when ppl do that, no matter how pesky, theyre still lives, they shouldnt be done away with that easily and without a second thought


You may hate that people do that and, trust me, I used to be a zoology major and I love animals/insects and respect them as well but as far killing mosquitoes and flys, etc...there are reasons why people do kill them and its not just because they are pesky. There are plenty of mosquitoes and flies around. Not only that, they carry around a lot of diseases and as for personal experience, I have a skin allergic reaction when I do get bitten (by a mosquito). For flies, they are pretty nasty and from studying them before, they're not something you just want around (which i mean more on your food, etc). Every animal, insect, and plant plays an important role in our ecosystem and everyday life but I can say this much.. I wouldn't think twice about killing a fly or mosquito...I'd definitely kill them. Not because I don't care about their life but think about it this way...one mosquito can kill hundreds of lives...The West Nile Virus....it does exist and it is a problem.
Posted 1/7/08 , edited 4/18/08
I could have sworn I made this same point.

I guess I was talking to myself.
25255 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / Hell
Offline
Posted 1/7/08 , edited 4/18/08

bruevitz wrote:

LOL, funny thread. Maybe someone should create a 'Vegetable Equality'

'Do you like carrot or brocolli?'

'Eat your greens! No discrimination!'


i tottaly agree with you..........i think people creat weird and funny trend sometimes.........oh yeah.........its TREND NOT THREAD......ok....lol
1200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / sydney, australia
Offline
Posted 1/8/08 , edited 4/18/08

hq145 wrote:



That second one is interesting. How do you know it's that they questioned the leadership rather than just actions causing fear for survival causing separation? Or even just the need to separate for food or shelter?


because unlike us they the people who made the show are animal experts and i am sure are well verse in the motives of meerkats since they just spent 10 odd years documenting them


*chuckles* well, no I can't write a paper on them, but you have to admit that many animal societies differ greatly. The "birds of many families and colors" that nest together. The turtles that leave there eggs to find their own way back. Heck, look at schools of fish versus clown fish. Every society grows according to the needs of its subjects, so your assertions that every social creature has the same society is flawed.


please point out were i said every social creature has the same society? i said they had the same core principles of social behaviour


And what did we base rockets on? Cars on? Computers on? The wheel on? I'll grant you that there are parts of our behavior very similar to other animals. And there will of course be inventions and concepts based on the study of animals. But the "based on" is where we show our evolutionary superiority.


all those things you just mentioned are no behaviours and thus have no validity in this conversation


O_o; You did not just throw a few sociology classes in my face. Animal instinct is self preservation. All "ethics" or "morals" you see in animals is just that instinct put into motion. And you have yet to prove THAT wrong.


no, you can't prove that wrong because its true. what i did show you and you probably got confused is that all "ethics" and "morals" you see in humans is just instinct put into motion. We are not higher than the animal kingdom and anything that suggests otherwise comes under the term of human egoism. to say that humans are evolved beyond instinctive behaviours is wrong,. what i tried to show you was the link between human behaviour and animal behaviour. links that are very real and well documented not to mentioned widely accepted in sociology circles

in fact some sociologists are not even convinced separated survival behaviour in humans


They instinctively act in a way that will preserve their species. So when an animal questions or tries to take leadership, this isn't a power play, it's merely questioning the Alpha male/female.. whatever.. to ensure that the society has the strongest possible leader. Shunning a female that betrays her mate can also be seen as preservation as that sort of behavior on a large scale would hurt their society with the fathers refusing to protect children they don't know to be theirs, the species would die out. Everything they do can be seen as instinctive preservation. Prove me wrong, Mr. Sociology degree.


the same argument could be said for human behaviour and i tire of this because you will not accept to take out human egoism which is a basic principle of sociology when looking at society and behaviour.

if you just give up trying to defend your point from a human egoist angle then you will see my points are not only are valid but true. if you can not look beyond your own human self-importance than i see no reason to continue with conversation. we will just be going around in circles
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.