Proof that humans are not animals

[CaughtInThe]

Of course I do. Mensa-level arthropods. They created what us rednecks would call "moon-ships" They currently inhabit Proxima Centauri.

Are you God?

 

[poppopfox]

Nope, that's false.

Zoology is an arbitrary system of classification, which groups living things into categories based on their biological similarities.

But simply because human bodies have biological similarities with the bodies of creatures such as chimpanzees, does not mean they have to be classified as animals, or why completely different systems of classification can't be invented altogether.

AI Overview

View attachment 67585601
Male chimpanzees frequently use physical aggression and violence to sexually coerce females, with studies showing this behavior increases their chances of mating and siring offspring. This aggression can involve brutal attacks, hair pulling, and forceful separation to control female sexuality and limit their mating options with other males. While female chimpanzees try to mitigate this by mating with multiple males to create paternal uncertainty, male coercion can significantly influence female choice and reproductive success.

While we may share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, chimpanzees engage in mating behavior which would be consider "rape" if humans engaged in it, and rightfully be viewed as repulsive, even if it allowed someone to reproduce.

If humans were animals, then we would not have a problem with rape if it allowed a member of the species to reproduce and succeed at natural selection.

The fact that we value moral sentiments, such as "rape being wrong" more than we value biological impulses, such as the drive to reproduce, proves that humans are not animals.

 

[Fletch]

This is a new low in really, really stupid posts.

Well, he is a communist. What did you expect?

 

[LouC]

Proof that humans are not animals.​

I don't know what it looks like, but I bet I will recognize it when I see it.

 

[Gordy327]

What an odd conclusion based on such a narrow observation. Many animals do not feature rape as a reproductive method and instead have elaborate courting rituals prior to reproduction and/or mate for life. Conversely, some human beings don't have a problem with rape and don't mate for life.

It makes one wonder who the real "animals" are.

 

[Rambozo]

I offered you a fact. You want to believe what you want to believe, and I can't change that. All I can do is post the fact that humans are animals. Anyone can accept that or not.

You erroneously state it as a fact, while conveniently ignoring the evidence and explanations to the contrary. But I'll try to explain it again.

It is not a "fact" that humans are animals anymore than it is a "fact" that a Lamborghini is a "4 wheeled thing".

It may be a fact that a Lamborghini has 4 wheels, but you are arbitrarily deciding to classify it based on its number of wheels, and put it in the same category as other things with four wheels, like Hot Wheels cars. While conveniently ignoring the fact that a Lamborghini has other traits which are remarkably different than Hot Wheels cars, such as its engine and horsepower.

You conveniently ignore, for example, that humans have much higher levels of needs on Maslow's hierarchy than physiological needs, such as survival and reproduction. While presumably animals don't. Why is that?

 

[Fearandloathing]

Then you'll have to refute it.

Some animals rape as a means of reproducing.

If you believed that humans were animals, then you wouldn't have a problem with rape if it allowed reproduction.

The fact that you have a problem with rape proves that humans are not animals.

Logic is not your strong suit.

 

[Rambozo]

I will cut to the chase: The bible makes a distinction between 'Man' and animals. Therefore, Christians do not believe humans are animals.
Which just shows that humans wrote the bible.

Believing that humans are not animals is an exhibition of egotistical behavior. The bible asserts that ego amounts to pride, and pride is a sin in the bible. Claiming that humans are not animals is something a human would claim.

There is no need to define animals in this argument. The argument that humans are not animals is just one of many contradictions in the collected works called the bible.

Claiming that a supercomputer is not a calculator is something a supercomputer would claim.

But it doesn't change the objective reality that a supercomputer has vastly higher computing power than a calculator or abacus does. The mere fact that all of those things "perform calculations" does not mean they have to be reduced to that categorization.

 

[Rambozo]

This argument debunks itself. Humans have been known to engage in all of this behavior.

Yes, you can find examples of humans engaging in anything. Humans have a more complex consciousness than animals, have free will, and so on. So, presumably, humans are capable of engaging in a wider range of behaviors than animals, while animals presumably are only capable of acting on instinct. (This is why behavior which animals engage in, such as sexual aggression, isn't viewed as morally wrong for them, even though it would be for humans. Because animals presumably aren't capable of moral reasoning and sentiments, and merely act on instincts).

But I'm assuming you are against rape. So tell me why that is?

The fact that you are capable of having a moral objection to something which potentially allows reproduction shows you are not an animal.

 

[Helix]

You erroneously state it as a fact, while conveniently ignoring the evidence and explanations to the contrary. But I'll try to explain it again.

It is not a "fact" that humans are animals anymore than it is a "fact" that a Lamborghini is a "4 wheeled thing".

It may be a fact that a Lamborghini has 4 wheels, but you are arbitrarily deciding to classify it based on its number of wheels, and put it in the same category as other things with four wheels, like Hot Wheels cars. While conveniently ignoring the fact that a Lamborghini has other traits which are remarkably different than Hot Wheels cars, such as its engine and horsepower.

You conveniently ignore, for example, that humans have much higher levels of needs on Maslow's hierarchy than physiological needs, such as survival and reproduction. While presumably animals don't. Why is that?

What level of the hierarchy is the pressing need of some animals to erroneously believe they aren't animals?

 

[ataraxia]

No, we're important. There's no animal as remotely important, nor has there ever been. Dang near every species on planet earth is at the mercy of humanity. We actually sit in air-conditioned, LEDed boardrooms, drinking half-caff lattes, prompting enterprise-focused AI to run cost-benefit studies on where to drill, kill, or destroy. Monkeys throw feces at each other, and we're impressed. We have literally deforested, asphalted, polluted, harvested, mass extinguished, eroded, depleted the earth's crust into a position of utter submission. And we sit in those same board rooms and can actually decide whether or not we want to continue. Think about that for a second. Unlike EVERY OTHER ANIMAL, we actually decide what the future on planet earth looks like, not only humanity but for every other species in existence on planet earth. Maybe for species we've yet to create.

Humans have no equal. We control it all, and nothing is even close. To say humanity isn't important patently absurd.

At one time T Rex held that position. Before that it was trilobites That doesn't mean they were not animals. Different organisms have evolutionary advantage in different periods. It just so happens that Homo sapiens is hold that title right now.

It's just different traits being best fitted for different environments. And the environment is always changing.

 

[Helix]

Here are some animals.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

AI Overview

View attachment 67585601
Male chimpanzees frequently use physical aggression and violence to sexually coerce females, with studies showing this behavior increases their chances of mating and siring offspring. This aggression can involve brutal attacks, hair pulling, and forceful separation to control female sexuality and limit their mating options with other males. While female chimpanzees try to mitigate this by mating with multiple males to create paternal uncertainty, male coercion can significantly influence female choice and reproductive success.

While we may share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, chimpanzees engage in mating behavior which would be consider "rape" if humans engaged in it, and rightfully be viewed as repulsive, even if it allowed someone to reproduce.

If humans were animals, then we would not have a problem with rape if it allowed a member of the species to reproduce and succeed at natural selection.

The fact that we value moral sentiments, such as "rape being wrong" more than we value biological impulses, such as the drive to reproduce, proves that humans are not animals.

That's not proof, it's an opinion.

 

[Rambozo]

What level of the hierarchy is the pressing need of some animals to erroneously believe they aren't animals?

The same level of the hierarchy which presses supercomputers to acknowledge the fact that they aren't calculators, or that Lamborghinis aren't Hot Wheels cars.

Saying "humans are animals" over and over again isn't going to make that categorization valid, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, so just stop it already, and admit that you're incapable of processing the evidences that have been presented to you.

 

[ataraxia]

Yes, you can find examples of humans engaging in anything. Humans have a more complex consciousness than animals, have free will, and so on. So, presumably, humans are capable of engaging in a wider range of behaviors than animals, while animals presumably are only capable of acting on instinct. (This is why behavior which animals engage in, such as sexual aggression, isn't viewed as morally wrong for them, even though it would be for humans. Because animals presumably aren't capable of moral reasoning and sentiments, and merely act on instincts).

It's all just a difference of degrees, not of kind. Humans have a bigger cerebral cortex. Elephants are just bigger.

But I'm assuming you are against rape. So tell me why that is?

It's not evolutionarily very helpful. See post #38.

The fact that you are capable of having a moral objection to something which potentially allows reproduction shows you are not an animal.

It's just about pragmatic considerations.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

AI Overview

View attachment 67585601
Male chimpanzees frequently use physical aggression and violence to sexually coerce females, with studies showing this behavior increases their chances of mating and siring offspring. This aggression can involve brutal attacks, hair pulling, and forceful separation to control female sexuality and limit their mating options with other males. While female chimpanzees try to mitigate this by mating with multiple males to create paternal uncertainty, male coercion can significantly influence female choice and reproductive success.

While we may share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, chimpanzees engage in mating behavior which would be consider "rape" if humans engaged in it, and rightfully be viewed as repulsive, even if it allowed someone to reproduce.

If humans were animals, then we would not have a problem with rape if it allowed a member of the species to reproduce and succeed at natural selection.

The fact that we value moral sentiments, such as "rape being wrong" more than we value biological impulses, such as the drive to reproduce, proves that humans are not animals.

If we're not of this World, where did we come from?

 

[ataraxia]

The same level of the hierarchy which presses supercomputers to acknowledge the fact that they aren't calculators, or that Lamborghinis aren't Hot Wheels cars.

Saying "humans are animals" over and over again isn't going to make that categorization valid, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, so just stop it already, and admit that you're incapable of processing the evidences that have been presented to you.

It's like saying Lamborghinis are not cars.

 

[Rambozo]

It's like saying Lamborghinis are not cars.

The point is that Lamborghinis are astronomically distinct from typical cars, such as how they have much more powerful engines with much higher horsepower.

So it's not a matter of "ego". That would be pretending that all cars are identical, and that a Lamborghini views itself as "different" from other cars for no reason at all. When the differences are an objective reality.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

The point is that Lamborghinis are astronomically distinct from typical cars, such as how they have much more powerful engines with much higher horsepower.

But they're still cars, just as humans are still mammals.
Congrats though. Your troll has certainly reaped fruit in your quest for interaction.
Kudos!!

 

[Helix]

The same level of the hierarchy which presses supercomputers to acknowledge the fact that they aren't calculators, or that Lamborghinis aren't Hot Wheels cars.

Saying "humans are animals" over and over again isn't going to make that categorization valid, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, so just stop it already, and admit that you're incapable of processing the evidences that have been presented to you.

I already stated that humans are animals because that's a fact. I suppose that you could enroll in a basic biology class and spend your blue book trying to argue that humans aren't animals, but you'd still flunk the test if you did that. Passing biology was apparently somewhere in my hierarchy of needs.

 

[Rambozo]

But they're still cars, just as humans are still mammals.
Congrats though. Your troll has certainly reaped fruit in your quest for interaction.
Kudos!!

You're defining humans as mammals based on the fact that that humans' physical bodies have similarities to those of other mammals.

While ignoring the fact that human consciousness is a much more significant part of being human than what one's physical body is. And that human consciousness is presumably vastly more complex than those of animals.

 

[Rambozo]

I already stated that humans are animals because that's a fact. I suppose that you could enroll in a basic biology class and spend your blue book trying to argue that humans aren't animals, but you'd still flunk the test if you did that. Passing biology was apparently somewhere in my hierarchy of needs.

I've already explained that stating it as "fact" over and over again isn't going to change anything.

Your biology class is wrong, that's what I'm saying.

If you went to school in the Middle Ages, you'd be saying that it's a "fact" that the earth is the center of the universe, but that doesn't mean that it's true either. Things aren't "factual" because you were told they were in school. That's not how epistemology works.

Zoology puts humans in the same category as animals based on the physical similarities that humans share with animals, while ignoring more important distinctions, such as human consciousness and Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It's a completely outdated way of classifying things. And no one's obligated to use that method of classification. We can invent completely new ones from scratch, if that's our fancy.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

You're defining humans as mammals based on the fact that that humans' physical bodies have similarities to those of other mammals.

While ignoring the fact that human consciousness is a much more significant part of being human than what one's physical body is. And that human consciousness is presumably vastly more complex than those of animals.

And Lamborghinis are significantly lither than normal cars.
But they are still cars.
Just as humans, though (arguably) more intelligent that apes, are still mammals.

 

[ataraxia]

The point is that Lamborghinis are astronomically distinct from typical cars, such as how they have much more powerful engines with much higher horsepower.

So it's not a matter of "ego". That would be pretending that all cars are identical, and that a Lamborghini views itself as "different" from other cars for no reason at all. When the differences are an objective reality.

Sure. No one is denying that Lamborghinis are different from other cars. But that doesn't mean they are not cars. Different car models are just different from each other in degrees of certain characteristics. Doesn't make any of them NOT cars. These are all cars, as different as they are one from the other:




Similarly, in the animal kingdom, animals can have wildly different characteristics. Bats have echolocation. Cheetahs run fast. Whales are big. Humans have more complex brains. Cobras have potent venom.

This doesn't make any of them NOT animals.

 

[Helix]

I've already explained that stating it as "fact" over and over again isn't going to change anything.

Your biology class is wrong, that's what I'm saying.

If you went to school in the Middle Ages, you'd be saying that it's a "fact" that the earth is the center of the universe, but that doesn't mean that it's true either.

Zoology puts humans in the same category as animals based on the physical similarities that humans share with animals, while ignoring more important distinctions, such as human consciousness and Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It's a completely outdated way of classifying things. And no one's obligated to use that method of classification. We can invent completely new ones from scratch, if that's our fancy.

No, sir. Mama's right.