Proof that humans are not animals

[Rambozo]

Your statements display such an idiotically bizarre and uneducated stance, obviously born of anti-intellectualism, that it's shocking.

Homeschooled by an incompetent were you?

No, it's decidedly intellectual.

And your failure to address the point makes me question your intellect.

Why do you find human rights issues more significant than animal rights issues? Do you even know yourself?

 

[Nickyjo]

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.

Trump is a male chimpanzee?

 

[Crakhobarbie]

No, it's decidedly intellectual.

And your failure to address the point makes me question your intellect.

Why do you find human rights issues more significant than animal rights issues? Do you even know yourself?

I asked you earlier, if were not animals, what are we?

 

[Crakhobarbie]

And your failure to address the point makes me question your intellect.

If were not animals, what are we?

 

[Rambozo]

If were not animals, what are we?

Somewhere in between the beasts and the gods.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Somewhere in between the beasts and the gods.

What "god"?
Did your imaginary god f___ a beast?
Is your imaginary god into beastiality?
Doesn't that mean we're 1/2 beast?

 

[Helix]

Then when you've killed a human and served it up for dinner, I'll believe you believe that.

Until then, I would argue that your actions prove you know that humans are special.

Not every animal eats its own species. I'm not a cannibal, but examples of that exist.

 

[Rambozo]

Not every animal eats its own species. I'm not a cannibal, but examples of that exist.

Then when you start a petition asking Donald Trump to pardon a cannibal serial killer, I'll believe that you believe it's simply a matter of difference in taste.

Until then, I'll take it that you know that humans are special, and that killing and eating humans is something entirely different from killing and eating animals.

 

[Helix]

Then when you start a petition asking Donald Trump to pardon a cannibal serial killer, I'll believe that you believe it's no different than killing and serving up animals as food at a restaurant.

Until then, I'll take it that you know that humans are special, and that killing and eating humans is something entirely different from killing and eating animals.

Already addressed, other than the nonsense in the first paragraph.

 

[Rambozo]

Already addressed, other than the nonsense in the first paragraph.

You haven't addressed that well.

If a person wants to kill and eat a human, he simply has a different food preference than you.

Sure, most humans don't do that, but most humans don't practice homosexuality either. Something merely being different than what you would do doesn't make it morally wrong.

So how do you justify legally discriminating against people who want to eat humans?

 

[BabaVoss]

Yes, you can find examples of humans engaging in anything.

Indeed. That alone negates the validity of your position.

Humans have a more complex consciousness than animals…

According to…?

, 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.

No, sorry. You are misinformed.

 

[Rambozo]

Indeed. That alone negates the validity of your position.

Not at all. If you look at human societies, from ancient to modern, you will see that ones which engaged in practices such as cannibalism are a statistical minority, and that there have been prohibitions on it from ancient to modern as well.

And even in societies which did practice cannibalism, there were likely restrictions on it, such as it being limited to cannibalizing members of a rival tribe. There wasn't likely an open license to kill and cannibalize anyone under any circumstances, particularly if they were members of your own tribe.

According to…?

Humans can design supercomputers and rocket ships.

Animals can't.

It's self-evident.

No, sorry. You are misinformed.

So, are you claiming that animals have the same needs on Maslow's hierarchy that humans do? Or that animals have needs beyond physiological ones, such as survival and reproduction.

 

[Luce]

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

Some decent use of adjectives?

"People's Glorious Heroic Revolutionary Human is not a bourgeoisie capitalist running dog animal"?

 

[Luce]

If a restaurant was slaughtering and serving up humans as food, this would be higher on your list of moral objections than state abortion bans.

Bold of you to assume that I am not in favor of cannibalism.

 

[Rambozo]

Bold of you to assume that I am not in favor of cannibalism.

So you're in favor of killing other people and eating them? You believe that should be legal?

Will you do it and post a photo here as evidence?

 

[Crakhobarbie]

So you're in favor of killing other people and eating them? You believe that should be legal?

Will you do it and post a photo here as evidence?

As soon as you post proof of your god f___ing a beast.

 

[Luce]

So you're in favor of killing other people and eating them? You believe that should be legal?

It would certainly make my job easier.

 

[Rambozo]

It would certainly make my job easier.

Tell that to the judge.

But again, when you actually do it, I'll believe you. Until then, your actions speak louder than your words.

 

[Luce]

Tell that to the judge.

Are you kidding? Who do you think is running the grill?

 

[ataraxia]

Okay, even if we agree that humans are different in degree rather than kind, some here seem to be arguing that there is no real difference between humans and other animals, and that our insistence that there is a difference is just a matter of "pride".

I would argue that, objectively, this isn't the case. And that if people really believed that, they would find eating meat just as morally objectionable as eating humans. Or, for that matter, they would have to find killing a mosquito just as morally objectionable as killing a human.

Or, conversely, they would believe that any survivalist behavior, such as rape, that animals engage in is just as acceptable for humans to engage in.

I can’t speak for others, but at least maybe you and I can agree that:

1) Humans ARE different than other animals, but that doesn’t mean that they are not animals (just like Lamborghinis are different than other cars, but that doesn’t mean they are not cars).

2) Behaviors are often not just black-and-white, right-or-wrong, but rather in a spectrum of dysfuntionality. So no, killing an insect is not the same thing as killing a human. But some cultures, like for example the Jains in India, are quite averse to even the idea of harming an insect.

2) Rape is NOT a survivalist behavior. From an evolutionary perspective, it is usually dysfunctional and harmful behavior. That’s why it’s not very widespread in nature.

 

[ataraxia]

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.

Our judgments of right or wrong are not based on just random criteria. They are based on the same criteria than evolution is based on: is a particular behavior functional or dysfunctional to the survival and/ir thriving of the individual organism and species?

It’s just behavior which had evolved more based on instinct in the past has evolved in humans to be able to be modified by their relatively larger cerebral cortex- allowing the behavior and instinct to be more fine tuned to the circumstance at hand. But again, that’s just a difference of degrees from other animals, not of kind.

 

[Rambozo]

Our judgments of right or wrong are not based on just random criteria. They are based on the same criteria than evolution is based on: is a particular behavior functional or dysfunctional to the survival and/ir thriving of the individual organism and species?

Nope, it's been demonstrated that rape can allow a member of the species to survive and reproduce.

We still view that as morally wrong.

And, as I've already pointed out, Maslow's hierarchy of needs reveals that humans highest levels of needs are not merely physiological needs, such as survival and reproduction.

It’s just behavior which had evolved more based on instinct in the past has evolved in humans to be able to be modified by their relatively larger cerebral cortex- allowing the behavior and instinct to be more fine tuned to the circumstance at hand. But again, that’s just a difference of degrees from other animals, not of kind.

Moral philosophy is a complex topic, but there are many rational moral arguments.

Morality isn't simply based on what one instinctively "feels" to be desirable or undesirable. One, for example, can feel a biological impulse to cheat on their spouse, but most people would believe this to be immoral.

 

[Lursa]

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.

What authority says this (the bold)? Please provide a citation? If you want to cite Maslow, cite the quote.

 

[ataraxia]

Nope, it's been demonstrated that rape can allow a member of the species to survive and reproduce.

We still view that as morally wrong.

And, as I've already pointed out, Maslow's hierarchy of needs reveals that humans highest levels of needs are not merely physiological needs, such as survival and reproduction.

Moral philosophy is a complex topic, but there are many rational moral arguments.

Morality isn't simply based on what one instinctively "feels" to be desirable or undesirable. One, for example, can feel a biological impulse to cheat on their spouse, but most people would believe this to be immoral.

Evolution doesn’t care about the individual- only the survival and propagation of the species. Rape or cheating on your spouse is not conducive to that.

While it’s true that rape can, in some isolated cases, result in reproduction, it’s not a stable, sustainable, or widespread reproductive strategy, especially among such highly social species like primates.

In most social species (including humans), it creates hostility, social exclusion, and retaliation, which actually lowers survival and reproductive chances overall. That’s why you don’t see it as a dominant evolutionary strategy among primates.

Like many primates, humans have evolved to live in complex cooperative societies where trust, reciprocity, and fairness matter far more for long-term flourishing of the species than raw reproductive success. Cheating or coercion undermines the very social bonds that humans rely on to thrive. So even if reproductive impulses are piwerful and important to species propagation, such social behavior, like not being a rapist, is even more important for managing life in a way that sustains stable, functional, even thriving communities.

There is nothing otherworldly or fundamentally different about this for humans than other social primate species.

 

[Luce]

Nope, it's been demonstrated that rape can allow a member of the species to survive and reproduce.

We still view that as morally wrong.

Are you upset by that?