Gordy327
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2022
- Messages
- 34,438
- Reaction score
- 32,450
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
And it happens in homo sapiens, regardless of "morality." You just defeated your own "argument."
And it happens in homo sapiens, regardless of "morality." You just defeated your own "argument."It's been more than documented that sexual coercion exists in the animal kingdom:
People are able to come up with rational moral objections to behaviors such as rape.Moral objections or not has nothing to do with the biological classification of animal.
Still has ZERO to do with scientific classification and nomenclature. Your desperation is obvious.People are able to come up with rational moral objections to behaviors such as rape.
Even if you want to argue that some animals are capable of limited amounts of reason, that reasoning ability is something which typically distinguishes humans from animals, just as an example.
Its irrelevant to the definition of animal. You are the one with backwards beliefs. People used to balk at the suggestion we are animalsPeople are able to come up with rational moral objections to behaviors such as rape.
Even if you want to argue that some animals are capable of limited amounts of reason, that reasoning ability is something which typically distinguishes humans from animals, just as an example.
No, it's simple. Humans are capable of coming up with objections to it.And it happens in homo sapiens, regardless of "morality." You just defeated your own "argument."
Are they?Whatever capabilities animals have are quite limited in comparison to human capabilities.
No human could lift hundreds of times its body weight. Other animals do.No animal could produce the works of Michelangelo, for example.
You’re demonstrating an absolute ignorance as to the rest of the animal kingdom and pretending that every other species doesn’t demonstrate many of the same exact traits humans do.What you're doing is simply finding similarities between humans and animals, and putting them into the same category based on similarities, while negating the differences.
I guess you’ve never watched a mother correct their offspring in ANY animal species.No, it's simple. Humans are capable of coming up with objections to it.
So, unless you're suggesting that animals are also capable of some type of proto-morality, presumably animals can't object to it, but merely engage in it during the course of natural selection.
You're equation of backwardness with chronology is erroneous.Its irrelevant to the definition of animal. You are the one with backwards beliefs. People used to balk at the suggestion we are animals
Again, you can suggest that animals are more like humans, if you want to. But you're not going to reduce humans to the level of animals.I guess you’ve never watched a mother correct their offspring in ANY animal species.
Have you ever interacted with animals?
It still occurs regardless of "objections." So ypur point, whatever that is, falls flat!No, it's simple. Humans are capable of coming up with objections to it.
So, unless you're suggesting that animals are also capable of some type of proto-morality, presumably animals can't object to it, but merely engage in it during the course of natural selection.
Humans are biological organisms,Again, you can suggest that animals are more like humans, if you want to. But you're not going to reduce humans to the level of animals.
I'm arguing that humans are distinct enough from animals, in non-biological ways, that they merit a unique category. And I haven't heard any one of you explain why you insist on putting humans and animals into the same category.
Such bullshit. Selectively responding is disingenuous. If you're not going to address points as I bring them up, don't think I'm going to respond to this.Whatever capabilities animals have are quite limited in comparison to human capabilities.
You’ve yet to point to any way that humans are materially “different” or “special”.Again, you can suggest that animals are more like humans, if you want to. But you're not going to reduce humans to the level of animals.
I'm arguing that humans are distinct enough from animals, in non-biological ways, that they merit a unique category. And I haven't heard any one of you explain why you insist on putting humans and animals into the same category.
No, it can't. In all of history, it hasn't, and there are reasons for that. Unless, perhaps, you're talking about a more advanced alien species, or something of that nature.And that can quickly change
No, humans are not biological organism. A human body may be a biological organism, but that is arguably one of the least defining parts of what it means to be human to begin with. Human consciousness, is arguably a far more significant defining feature.Humans are biological organisms,
Just like every other organism on the planet. Humans are already classified in taxonomic nomenclature.
I made no such attempt. I said morality is irrelevant to the definition of animal. People drew darwin as an ape because they were disgusted by the suggestion that we are primates.You're equation of backwardness with chronology is erroneous.
Trying to equate people with animals is objectionable, and typically attempts to reduce human behavior to physiological behaviors such as survival and reproduction, when all of the evidence indicates that these behaviors are at the bottom of humans' hierarchy of needs.
Again, you can elect to categorize people that way if you want to. But it doesn't change the myriad of characteristics which make people who they are. And the psychological characteristics are arguably far more interesting than the biological ones.I made no such attempt. I said morality is irrelevant to the definition of animal. People drew darwin as an ape because they were disgusted by the suggestion that we are primates.
There is no reduction going on we are just the animal most capable of reasoning lol.Again, you can suggest that animals are more like humans, if you want to. But you're not going to reduce humans to the level of animals.
I'm arguing that humans are distinct enough from animals, in non-biological ways, that they merit a unique category. And I haven't heard any one of you explain why you insist on putting humans and animals into the same category.
In a taxonomic sense of animals that is irrelevant. There is no reducing to anything. Humans are just the most capable animals of doing certain things.Again, you can elect to categorize people that way if you want to. But it doesn't change the myriad of characteristics which make people who they are. And the psychological characteristics are arguably far more interesting than the biological ones.
Some people claim the purpose of life is survival and reproduction (which is what people presume the needs of animals are).There is no reduction going on we are just the animal most capable of reasoning lol.
ummm no…. Bacteria need to reproduce and survive, protists and plants need to reproduce and survive that doesnt make them animals. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is irrelevant to the definition of animal. Humans are animals with different needs.Some people claim the purpose of life is survival and reproduction (which is what people presume the needs of animals are).
This is simply untrue, as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs demonstrates.
So unless you can demonstrate that animals have the same needs in Maslow's Hierarchy that humans do, I would say that that is a striking difference.
Humans haven’t gone extinct in all of human history?No, it can't. In all of history, it hasn't, and there are reasons for that. Unless, perhaps, you're talking about a more advanced alien species, or something of that nature.
Its all biological, down to the last cell. All you've demonstrated us that you have no idea what you're talking about. Which is why your BS here is so laughable and to be ignored and forgotten.No, humans are not biological organism. A human body may be a biological organism, but that is arguably one of the least defining parts of what it means to be human to begin with. Human consciousness, is arguably a far more significant defining feature.
That's why your taxonomy doesn't work, since it is only classifying humans by their physical traits and behaviors, rather than by their psychological characteristics. (And, I've already demonstrated that people aren't their physical bodies, for example).
It's akin to defining a car based on its chassis. When, in reality, its engine is arguably much more of a defining feature than its chassis.
Yes, we most definitely are.No, humans are not biological organism.
You identify some new human that IS NOT a biological organism?A human body may be a biological organism, but that is arguably one of the least defining parts of what it means to be human to begin with.
Human consciousness, is arguably a far more significant defining feature
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?