Announcement in Biology & Genetics:
Biology and Genetics is a science subforum. Lets keep it that way.

Addressing people that say that trees are not alive, or people that say that humans are not animals, and explaining to them why this is wrong seems a basic need here.
How is it unscientific ? As a moderator of a science subforum you should be welcoming rooting out these unscientific ideas.
Pretending these people do not exist doesn't help.

:shrug:

I did not see any scientific rebuttals. Is this how the property of life or the taxonomy of homo sapiens sapiens is discussed in a science forum? All the so called rebuttals were doing were baiting the posters.

I agree with SAM, there was no scientific basis to the "trees are not alive" statement

I did not see any scientific rebuttals. Is this how the property of life or the taxonomy of homo sapiens sapiens is discussed in a science forum? All the so called rebuttals were doing were baiting the posters.

Firstly, do you think a rebuttal for something so basic a 4 year old knows them should be necessary on a science forum ?

Secondly, John made an extraordinary claim.. it was his to back up.

Thirdly, he twisted and turned until it came down to wrongly interpreted definition on his part, intentionally or not.

Fourthly, maybe you could have contributed.

And lastly, I assume you rather not have people in a biology forum that think trees are not alive or that humans are not animals. Oh and the latest addition: insects are not animals.
Why are you covering up these misconceptions ? Shouldn't they be addressed at a science forum ?

Does it bother you at all that there are people here that think these things ?

I agree with SAM, there was no scientific basis to the "trees are not alive" statement

That's not what SAM said, and it is why I decided to call him out since he claimed it was not a religious statement.

Its a science forum. You want to debate an argument, use the correct method. There is nothing wrong with reiterating an old argument if it is done correctly. Pointing fingers and laughing is not the correct way. Biology does not recognise your incredulity as sufficient reason to be convinced of the validity of a premise.

Its a science forum. You want to debate an argument, use the correct method. There is nothing wrong with reiterating an old argument if it is done correctly. Pointing fingers and laughing is not the correct way. Biology does not recognise your incredulity as sufficient reason to be convinced of the validity of a premise.

Bit of a poor response.
And I am FAR from laughing :bugeye:

But fine, I give up. From now on humans and insects are not considered animals and trees are not considered alive.

But fine, I give up. From now on humans and insect are not animals and trees are not alive.

Enmos please have scientific evidence backup your theoretical expressions.

Enmos please have scientific evidence backup your theoretical expressions.

This not the way science works according to SAM. You must disprove my "theoretical expressions".

This not the way science works according to SAM. You must disprove me.

Were is a proof that your statement is correct? :bugeye:

Were is a proof that your statement is correct? :bugeye:

See post above.

See post above.

See post #8

You know what.. fuck this.
Good night.

One last thing SAM.
I see you outright deleted my Hall of shame thread without even notifying me.
Way to go.

Let me ask you this: Are humans animals according to you ?

The Hall of Shame was an outright troll thread. Attacking other posters is not biology. Start a thread, make an evidence based argument on the most ridiculous thing on earth and I'll let it be, but not when its for the purpose NOT of examining the evidence, but attacking other posters.

The Hall of Shame was an outright troll thread. Attacking other posters is not biology. Start a thread, make an evidence based argument on the most ridiculous thing on earth and I'll let it be, but not when its for the purpose NOT of examining the evidence, but attacking other posters.

Well, maybe that one was a bit over the top..
But it wasn't my intention to attack them, but rather what they think..
You could have let me know though.

Try and imagine you are a scientist presenting his case. What would you consider as acceptable science?

Try and imagine you are a scientist presenting his case. What would you consider as acceptable science?

I know what you're trying to say, I thought about it but I decided that the best thing was for him to back up his claim.
I think he would have rejected my evidence anyway.

I know what you're trying to say, I thought about it but I decided that the best thing was for him to back up his claim.
I think he would have rejected my evidence anyway.

Since you did not present any of it, thats a moot point. Have you ever attended a conference where scientific ideas were presented to laymen? You should attend some of them, if only to compare with the difference in the way that information is presented to those who lack the training to understand basic principles and precise definitions in scientific vs lay terms.

Its like a lay person telling me that vitamin D is a vitamin and me telling them no, its an effing steroid hormone, and them going away associating steroids with athletes and hormones with pregnant women. What does that contribute to anyone's knowledge?

Since you did not present any of it, thats a moot point. Have you ever attended a conference where scientific ideas were presented to laymen? You should attend some of them, if only to compare with the difference in the way that information is presented to those who lack the training to understand basic principles and precise definitions in scientific vs lay terms.

Its like a lay person telling me that vitamin D is a vitamin and me telling them no, its an effing steroid hormone, and them going away associating steroids with athletes and hormones with pregnant women. What does that contribute to anyone's knowledge?

I made a judgment call.. and decide to let him back up his claim. Sue me.
Besides, he claimed to have a higher education than me..

I made a judgment call.. and decide to let him back up his claim. Sue me.


The thread was locked. You (supposedly) put me on ignore. What do you expect people to think?

The thread was locked. You (supposedly) put me on ignore. What do you expect people to think?

Should I care what people think ? Besides a large majority agreed with me and disagreed with you.
And I did put you on ignore although it doesn't seem like it now, consider it a courtesy of me that I decided to answer your posts.

Let me ask you this: Are humans animals according to you ?

Enmos, why are you wearing clothes? why are we wearing clothes? (By "we", I am
not referring to the exceptional ones, i.e. in porn movies, in the bathroom, etc).


About the topic at hand, in my opinion, being not knowing something is not a
crime; being dishonest or manipulative is.

Enmos, why are you wearing clothes? why are we wearing clothes? (I am not referring to the exceptional ones, i.e. in porn movies, in the bathroom, etc).
Because we lost our body hair (fur).

About the topic at hand, in my opinion, being not knowing something is not a crime; being dishonest or manipulative is.
John knows full well that "life" is defined to include trees.

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike John as a person at all (as far I can judge him of course) but I can't ignore this kind of bullshit.

Because we lost our body hair (fur).

Why we lost our fur? Why we don't adapt like monkeys? If the temperature of
a room suitable for your skin, will you take off clothes in front of everyone?


John knows full well that "life" is defined to include trees.

I don't doubt that. Anyway he is just trying to do reasoning. He thought
movement or animative behavior is the prerequisite of life character.

Why we lost our fur? Why we don't adapt like monkeys?
We lost our because we adapted so well. We didn't need it anymore.

If the temperature of a room suitable for your skin, will you take off clothes in front of everyone?
Yes.

I don't doubt that. Anyway he is just trying to do reasoning. He thought movement or animative behavior is the prerequisite of life character.
Well, he was wrong and it has been pointed out to him over and over again. Why didn't he admit the mistake ?

We lost our because we adapted so well. We didn't need it anymore.

No, we don't. Otherwise, according to your previous post, we will not need clothes.


Yes.

Oh, sorry, I didn't know that. Apparently we are different. :)

Well, he was wrong and it has been pointed out to him over and over again. Why didn't he admit the mistake ?

Because nobody like to be singled out in that way.

No, we don't. Otherwise, according to your previous post, we will not need clothes.
Inzomnia.. this doesn't make any sense.
Because of our ability to control our environment (fire, building huts) eventually made us loose our fur because it no longer had any real advantage.
Also, after some time sexual selection likely played a role.
This is however not the place for a discussion about this.

Oh, sorry, I didn't know that. Apparently we are different. :)
:p

Because nobody like to be singled out in that way.
I understand. I talked to him about it before I made the thread. He insisted it was just my believe and that he was right.
Besides, if you don't want your arguments views challenged don't post them on a discussion forum :shrug:

Inzomnia.. this doesn't make any sense.
Because of our ability to control our environment (fire, building huts) eventually made us loose our fur because it no longer had any real advantage.
Also, after some time sexual selection likely played a role.
This is however not the place for a discussion about this.

I wonder what do these people think, do they have less fur in the covered area?

http://www.wearedivers.com/scuba/Portals/0/BlogImage/P4090057.jpg

I think the server was down for the last 10 minutes. I'll be back sometime later.

I wonder what do these people think, do they have less fur in the covered area?

http://www.wearedivers.com/scuba/Portals/0/BlogImage/P4090057.jpg

I think the server was down for the last 10 minutes. I'll be back sometime later.

I really don't get your point.. ?

SAM,

I have been to conferences where scientific ideas were presented to laymen but I would not say that was the situation here.The laymen at a conference have, for the most part, a willingness to learn, an openess to new ideas and generally a fairly high level of intelligence or it is doubtful they would be there in the first place.

How much of the above applies to the average poster here ?

What you have here is more akin to preachers on soapboxes than attendees at a conference. People get hold of some scientific terminology, fail to understand it and then argue from incorrect premises. How do you propose one should deal with such people ? I have also noticed that more than a few ask for basic information that is readily available, if they could be bothered to look it up. Wanting to be spoonfed is scarcely intelligent behaviour.

In the present instance, John gave me the imnpression that ,at the back of his mind ,an animating spirit or something of the kind was part of the definition of what it means to be alive. Later, he admitted to having his own , incorrect, definition of what it means to be alive. Had he said this a lot earlier, he would have saved everyone a lot of trouble because the exchange would have been brought to an abrupt end.

Do you honestly feel it would have made any difference if the accepted definition of life had been explained to him ? I don't, because it is clear that he had made his mind up and was not prepared to learn; he just wanted to argue. As I have said, he left it a bit late to tell us of his personal definition. Why anyone should cling to a personal definition is beyond me. A glance at a dictionary would have shown him he was wrong.

The alternative, if we wish to be "scientific" would appear to be to start from first principles every time, something which cannot be done on a forum of this kind. It is unreasonable to expect people to run courses here. All that can reasonably be expected is an exchange of intelligent soundbites.

I believe it is accepted that people come here to seek information and that this should not be denied them. But there is an onus on the enquirer to give us some idea of the extent of his knowledge and not waste everyone else's time with inane statements.

I wince every time I see a post referring to string theory, branes and so on ,which has been written by someone lacking a knowledge of elementary physics. I can understand someone having an interest in such ideas but this forum is not a conference hall, as you would appear to believe.

To finish where I came in, can I say that any informed person knows a tree is alive as long as it is growing. If someone disagrees when the weight of opinion holds he is wrong, surely that person should make some effort to inform himself elsewhere rather than continue to argue from a position of ignorance. It requires a superhuman effort to avoid baiting such individuals,

Thank you Myles.

I really don't get your point.. ?

My point was, why are they wearing bikini? Is there any other animals other
than human wearing bikini or peace of clothes? How do you eat meat? Do you
eat it raw or do you cook it? Is there any other animal other than human that
cook their food? Or put the food in a plate instead on the grass? etc.

The clustering method or taxonomy making should be based on similarity between
one group of objects with the others. I completely understand that biologically
human can be classified as animal, but that's all as far as that can go, and
hence, other than in biological context, the classification should not be applied,
which is often not the case.

So for the question: are human animal? That depends on context.

This has been interesting, but I am off till 7 of August (my colloquium date).

Ciao, Enmos.

Thank you Myles.

You are welcome. I am merely stating the obvious as I see it.

I believe SAM is a food technologist or something of the kind. I would be interested to see her response were I to deny that food contains calories on the grounds that a hamburger cannot heat water.

My point was, why are they wearing bikini? Is there any other animals other
than human wearing bikini or peace of clothes? How do you eat meat? Do you
eat it raw or do you cook it? Is there any other animal other than human that
cook their food? Or put the food in a plate instead on the grass? etc.

The clustering method or taxonomy making should be based on similarity between
one group of objects with the others. I completely understand that biologically
human can be classified as animal, but that's all as far as that can go, and
hence, other than in biological context, the classification should not be applied,
which is often not the case.

So for the question: are human animal? That depends on context.

This has been interesting, but I am off till 7 of August (my colloquium date).

Ciao, Enmos.

What else is there than biological context when discussing whether or not humans are animals ?
:confused:
I think it's really noble of you to defend these peoples notions.. but you are laboring it.

Ok, see you around :)

You are welcome. I am merely stating the obvious as I see it.

I believe SAM is a food technologist or something of the kind. I would be interested to see her response were I to deny that food contains calories on the grounds that a hamburger cannot heat water.

Firstly, I cannot understand that people have these thoughts (humans are not animals, trees are not alive, etc.).
Secondly, I cannot understand that SAM decided to defend them in this way either..

I'm really shocked by the ignorance among people.. don't you agree that it should be addressed ?

I dont care what anyone says. Dont you understand that? SAM is doing nothing of the sort. The problem is that i dont see how we can be qualified to make a definitive determination such as the one being discussed in the other thread.

This is alive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coral_polyp.jpg

and trees are not.

I dont care what anyone says. Dont you understand that?
I do now..

SAM is doing nothing of the sort.
Doing what ?

The problem is that i dont see how we can be qualified to make a definitive determination such as the one being discussed in the other thread.
The determination that trees are alive ? Because they are defined as such.
Also, trees and animals have a common ancestor, so how animals can be alive while trees are not is beyond me.
And some plants actually do move, you will have to say they are alive according to your own definition.
How can some plants be alive while others are not, when they all have a common ancestor ?
I think your problem lies in not accepting a scientifically accepted definition, for whatever reason.
There is a specific set of characteristics that determine whether or not something is alive (maybe you should read "has life").

This is alive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coral_polyp.jpg
You don't have to tell me..
If you have some point to make by directing me to that image please explain.

and trees are not.
Sigh..

I'm on Enmos's side here. People should use their brains before talking crap.

Well, he was wrong and it has been pointed out to him over and over again. Why didn't he admit the mistake ?

That is a question to be presented to John.


And secondly, given the frequently feisty colosseum atmosphere of this forum, I am not surprised that a person is unwilling to openly admit a mistake. That atmosphere suggests that admitting a mistake, one would be mauled. So not admitting the mistake is an act of self-preservation, and understandably so ...


What else is there than biological context when discussing whether or not humans are animals ?

A philosophical context, a sociological context, and probably some more contexts ...

To be alive, truly alive, there needs to be reaction. iow, the specimen needs to react to direct stimulation. a venus flytrap is closer but not really there. tbh, i cannot think of the word for venus flytrap.

That is a question to be presented to John.
I gave him plenty of opportunity.

And secondly, given the frequently feisty colosseum atmosphere of this forum, I am not surprised that a person is unwilling to openly admit a mistake. That atmosphere suggests that admitting a mistake, one would be mauled. So not admitting the mistake is an act of self-preservation, and understandably so ...
Huh ? Mauled if admitting mistake ? :bugeye:
It's the most respectable thing anyone can do in a discussion..

A philosophical context, a sociological context, and probably some more contexts ...
What is philosophical or sociological about the word animal ? Keep in mind that the discussion took place in the BIOLOGY subforum.

To be alive, truly alive, there needs to be reaction. iow, the specimen needs to react to direct stimulation.

That is correct. And if you would educate yourself on the matter you would come to see that trees and plants do in fact react to direct stimuli. It is one of the characteristics of life.

Explain how.

Explain how.

You have to be more specific.

I have no desire to do it here. After everyone made fun of me and then the thread was locked.

I have no desire to do it here. After everyone made fun of me and then the thread was locked.

Well I'm sorry for that then, but you can't really be surprised.
All you had to do is look up the definition of life to see your error.
Forgive me if I caused you any sort of grief.

:shrug: :(

To be alive, truly alive, there needs to be reaction. iow, the specimen needs to react to direct stimulation. a venus flytrap is closer but not really there. tbh, i cannot think of the word for venus flytrap.

But how do you determine what is a "reaction" and what is not a "reaction"?

Why isn't what a mimose (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYeIbiKopek&feature=related) or a Venus Flytrap do, a "reaction"?

Define what you mean by "reaction".

You are welcome. I am merely stating the obvious as I see it.

I believe SAM is a food technologist or something of the kind. I would be interested to see her response were I to deny that food contains calories on the grounds that a hamburger cannot heat water.

Nutritionist. :spank: And I would say to you, get a bomb calorimeter and test it.

Nutritionist. :spank: And I would say to you, get a bomb calorimeter and test it.

You just proved his point.. :shrug:

Hmm you're right. I should have asked him to defend it instead. That would have been more meaningful.

Hmm you're right. I should have asked him to defend it instead. That would have been more meaningful.

That's essentially what you did.. :bugeye:

What is philosophical or sociological about the word animal ? Keep in mind that the discussion took place in the BIOLOGY subforum.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1933650&postcount=52

I am also off now, it's not good posting while cooking lunch :wave:

p.s.: perhaps we should move the 'Abortions and death penalty' thread to biology subforum.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1933650&postcount=52

I am also off now, it's not good posting while cooking lunch :wave:

Even in such cases the point people are trying to make or trying to counter is if humans are indeed animals or not.
And if you read my whole post (the one you quoted here) you see that I say "Keep in mind that the discussion took place in the BIOLOGY subforum".

:shrug:

But how do you determine what is a "reaction" and what is not a "reaction"?

Why isn't what a mimose (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYeIbiKopek&feature=related) or a Venus Flytrap do, a "reaction"?

Define what you mean by "reaction".

Well, i said they are close. Somthing is missing though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcWzTQPZdOo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD7EfaULKPA

:shrug:

See my additional note on my previous post. Was the thread on biology subforum? :rolleyes:

See my additional note on my previous post. Was the thread on biology subforum? :rolleyes:

Yes.. it was, see my additional note.

Yes.. it was, see my additional note.

The abortion and death penalty thread. Go check.

The abortion and death penalty thread. Go check.

Who cares about that thread, it's about the other ones.

One thing is for sure, trees are not human. They never scream when I cut them in half with a chainsaw.

My scientific 2 cents:D

Who cares about that thread, it's about the other ones.

Then you are being hypocritical yourself.

Then you are being hypocritical yourself.

Not really, you are not thinking straight right now for some reason.

The threads that are discussed here were all in the Biology subforum.
So why should I see it any other context than the biological context ?

I would like to see Enmos walking through the woods stepping on all the plants, tearing them down, pulling them out by their roots and throwing them aside.

I would like to see Enmos walking through the woods stepping on all the plants, tearing them down, pulling them out by their roots and throwing them aside.

:confused:
Seriously, what are you on ?
Maybe you would do that but I certainly don't.

Everyone does that. Have you ever walked through a jungle?

Everyone does that. Have you ever walked through a jungle?

John, for your own sake.. shut up.
Or better yet, I'll leave..

Not really, you are not thinking straight right now for some reason.

The threads that are discussed here were all in the Biology subforum.
So why should I see it any other context than the biological context ?

Perhaps you are right. I am not good at multi tasking (between cooking and posting).

Anyway, please explain why do you equate human baby with animal in a human
science context? Didn't you just agree that it should only be done in biology
context?

arrrghh my lucnh, bye

John, for your own sake.. shut up.
Or better yet, I'll leave..

I see nothing wrong with saying "trees are not alive". Just a matter of perspective.:shrug: Why should i be called names because of it?

Nutritionist. :spank: And I would say to you, get a bomb calorimeter and test it.

I put the hamburger in a glass of water but nothing change. So, I have experimental evidence to sipport what I say.

BTW, why do you mention bombs ? Are you a terrorist or do you want me to blow myself up. Anyway, nobody has ever seen a calorie, so how do you know they exist ?

I see nothing wrong with saying "trees are not alive". Just a matter of perspective.:shrug: Why should i be called names because of it?

You have stated the problem. You see nothing wrong....

It's not a matter of perspective; it's a matter of definition. Have you got a perspective on colours such that red can be said to be purple ?

I put the hamburger in a glass of water but nothing change. So, I have experimental evidence to sipport what I say.

BTW, why do you mention bombs ? Are you a terrorist or do you want me to blow myself up. Anyway, nobody has ever seen a calorie, so how do you know they exist ?

Correct. You got it. :)

That is a question to be presented to John.


And secondly, given the frequently feisty colosseum atmosphere of this forum, I am not surprised that a person is unwilling to openly admit a mistake. That atmosphere suggests that admitting a mistake, one would be mauled. So not admitting the mistake is an act of self-preservation, and understandably so ...




A philosophical context, a sociological context, and probably some more contexts ...


So, is a tree alive in some of the contexts you mention, in all of them or none of them ? What does it mean to speak of a tree in a sociological context and why would it not be regarded as alive in that context ?

Human intercourse requires that we have accepted definitions for the words we use or, if we choose to use a word in an unusual way, we must explain what we mean when we use it. Ignoring this principle leads nonsensense and an abject failure to communicate.

You are so desperate to make a point here that you have abandoned your common sense. Mimosa pudica reacts when its leaves are touchd as do those of a venus fly trap. There is a clear public definition of action and reaction. Have you got a private one ? If so, in what circumstances do you use it.

Correct. You got it. :)

You are taking the easy way out by talking down to me just because I deny the existence of calories. Why not practise what you preach and provide me with a clear explanation of what a nutritionist would have to say on the subject. As far as I am concerned, nutritionists have yet to prove that caalories exist.

Pretend we are at a confrence and I am listening to you, notebook in hand. Over to you. Defend your position.

You are taking the easy way out by talking down to me just because I deny the existence of calories. Why not practise what you preach and provide me with a clear explanation of what a nutritionist would have to say on the subject. As far as I am concerned, nutritionists have yet to prove that caalories exist.

Pretend we are at a confrence and I am listening to you, notebook in hand. Over to you. Defend your position.

Why? According to you, all information is available on the internet. So clearly, in a discussion forum, one must tell people to justgoogleit.

Why? According to you, all information is available on the internet. So clearly, in a discussion forum, one must tell people to justgoogleit.

But that is not the advice you offered John. As a moderator, you shoulds have helped him.

So please allow me the same privelige you would have accorded to John and offer me your explanation.! If you are not willing to do so, please explain why you are discriminating against me.

But that is not the advice you offered John. As a moderator, you shoulds have helped him.

So please allow me the same privelige you would have accorded to John and offer me your explanation.! If you are not willing to do so, please explain why you are discriminating against me.

Start a thread on it. This is off topic trolling. :shrug:

Start a thread on it. This is off topic trolling. :shrug:

I must go now but I shall start a thread as you suggest/

I see nothing wrong with saying "trees are not alive". Just a matter of perspective.:shrug: Why should i be called names because of it?

You are not called names for that. For as far as I called you names it is because of your persistent ignorance and unwillingness to learn.
I am sorry for insinuation certain things about you yesterday but I was more than a little ticked off..
To me saying "trees are not alive" is equally ridiculous as saying "rabbits are not alive". Maybe if you see it in that light you might understand why I am pursuing this.

Perhaps you are right. I am not good at multi tasking (between cooking and posting).

Anyway, please explain why do you equate human baby with animal in a human
science context? Didn't you just agree that it should only be done in biology
context?

arrrghh my lucnh, bye

I don't understand.. what is the difference ?

make an evidence based argument on the most ridiculous thing on earth and I'll let it be, but not when its for the purpose NOT of examining the evidence, but attacking other posters.

So how come it took you 170 odd post's to lock this thread...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83511

I'm sure if it had said who hates jews or muslim's it wouldn't have got past the tenth post, I wonder how many of the 170 post's of tosh have any contribution to science or society......?
The guy just ranted his own whinging, there was no evidence, no proof, nothing yet it lasted 170 post's:spank: perhaps because the words Jew and muslim were used in the same sentence it got locked, who knows why it got past post 10..
GREAT MODERATE MATE...:p at no point was it cesspooled lol

You are not called names for that. For as far as I called you names it is because of your persistent ignorance and unwillingness to learn.
I am sorry for insinuation certain things about you yesterday but I was more than a little ticked off..
To me saying "trees are not alive" is equally ridiculous as saying "rabbits are not alive". Maybe if you see it in that light you might understand why I am pursuing this.

I have started wondering whether John is alive. It is possible that the posts are being written by a computer. Well, so much for AI then.

I have started wondering whether John is alive. It is possible that the posts are being written by a computer. Well, so much for AI then.
lol Myles lets not though, I just apologized to the dude :p

So how come it took you 170 odd post's to lock this thread...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83511

I'm sure if it had said who hates jews or muslim's it wouldn't have got past the tenth post, I wonder how many of the 170 post's of tosh have any contribution to science or society......?
The guy just ranted his own whinging, there was no evidence, no proof, nothing yet it lasted 170 post's:spank: perhaps because the words Jew and muslim were used in the same sentence it got locked, who knows why it got past post 10..
GREAT MODERATE MATE...:p at no point was it cesspooled lol

I asked her whether or not humans are animals according to her, still no answer..

So how come it took you 170 odd post's to lock this thread...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83511

I'm sure if it had said who hates jews or muslim's it wouldn't have got past the tenth post, I wonder how many of the 170 post's of tosh have any contribution to science or society......?
The guy just ranted his own whinging, there was no evidence, no proof, nothing yet it lasted 170 post's:spank: perhaps because the words Jew and muslim were used in the same sentence it got locked, who knows why it got past post 10..
GREAT MODERATE MATE...:p at no point was it cesspooled lol

Such threads don't get Cesspooled. They are pretty much left for a duration until people report them or a moderator steps in (I had visited it once but had lost track of it).

anyhow the Thread is now Deleted and Benk is now Banned for being a "Racist troll" (His total 26 posts only existed in that one thread he started which was just to be racist about the English.)

Tree's are alive, as much as a single celled life is alive, a Prokaryote, and since trees are made up of more cells than a simple Prokaryote, then it stands to reason that even trees have an element of ''living'' about them.

So how come it took you 170 odd post's to lock this thread...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83511

I'm sure if it had said who hates jews or muslim's it wouldn't have got past the tenth post, I wonder how many of the 170 post's of tosh have any contribution to science or society......?
The guy just ranted his own whinging, there was no evidence, no proof, nothing yet it lasted 170 post's:spank: perhaps because the words Jew and muslim were used in the same sentence it got locked, who knows why it got past post 10..
GREAT MODERATE MATE...:p at no point was it cesspooled lol

Actually I was away for the weekend AND moving house after. No one reported it so it did not come up in my email. I missed it. If you noticed, I closed it when I was free yesterday, along with all the others :shrug:

Well, i said they are close. Somthing is missing though.

What is that "something" ...

From what I gathered, it appears you hold that a certain degree of consciousness must be present in order for something to be "alive".

And it generally seems that plants do not possess the degree of consciousness that, say, even relatively primitive animals such a corals, do.

I see nothing wrong with saying "trees are not alive". Just a matter of perspective.:shrug: Why should i be called names because of it?

Sure. But the thing is that we can't always use words the way we like it. We have to pay attention in what context we are using them, who is going to hear or read them.
If we wish to make ourselves understandable to a large public which we do not know in advance, it is best that we stick to the standard dictionary definitions of words.

Huh ? Mauled if admitting mistake ? :bugeye:
It's the most respectable thing anyone can do in a discussion..

Respectable - yes. Respected - not at Sci, at least not in my experience.


What is philosophical or sociological about the word animal ?

Lots. There are, for example, all sorts of philosophical arguments for why it is okay to slaughter animals for food or keep them captive, but that the same should not be done with humans.


Keep in mind that the discussion took place in the BIOLOGY subforum.

Sure. But this is Sciforums, not exactly a science forum. Pointing out which forum a discussion is situated in might need to be repeated. :o

Respectable - yes. Respected - not at Sci, at least not in my experience.
Hm I don't agree. I have never been "mauled" when admitting mistake.
In my experience people do respect it.

Lots. There are, for example, all sorts of philosophical arguments for why it is okay to slaughter animals for food or keep them captive, but that the same should not be done with humans.
That doesn't mean humans are defined as non-animals.
It's the typical ignorant use of the word "animal".
People just feel that there are way more important than other animals so they exclude themselves from the group. The word "human", as opposed to "animal", is there to underline the celebrated differences.
This is exactly why people are walking around with the faulty notion that humans are not animals.

Sure. But this is Sciforums, not exactly a science forum. Pointing out which forum a discussion is situated in might need to be repeated. :o
And I did so in the original thread. I pointed out very clearly that we were in a biology thread.
And "this is sciforums" is hardly an excuse to make up your own definitions and pretend they are legitimate in any given discussion.

That doesn't mean humans are defined as non-animals.
It's the typical ignorant use of the word "animal".
People just feel that there are way more important than other animals so they exclude themselves from the group. The word "human", as opposed to "animal", is there to underline the celebrated differences.
This is exactly why people are walking around with the faulty notion that humans are not animals.

And as you know better than those people, there's time for some righteous anger. :o


And I did so in the original thread. I pointed out very clearly that we were in a biology thread.

Perhaps you should train dogs for a while. Then you'd learn first-hand the importance of repetition, repetition, repetition. ;)


And "this is sciforums" is hardly an excuse to make up your own definitions and pretend they are legitimate in any given discussion.

No, but anyone reading and posting at Sciforums would do good to bear in mind that this is, well, Sciforums ...

And as you know better than those people, there's time for some righteous anger. :o
Well.. don't mind if I do.
The whole human supremacist thing is based on a culture of ignorance.

Perhaps you should train dogs for a while. Then you'd learn first-hand the importance of repetition, repetition, repetition. ;)
And dogs are loyal..

No, but anyone reading and posting at Sciforums would do good to bear in mind that this is, well, Sciforums ...
Hm I like to pretend people actually give a shit, I know it's naive..

You are not called names for that. For as far as I called you names it is because of your persistent ignorance and unwillingness to learn......

persistent ignorance and unwillingness to learn or for not agreeing with you? You do get bent when people don't agree with you and see things your way.

persistent ignorance and unwillingness to learn or for not agreeing with you? You do get bent when people don't agree with you and see things your way.

Are trees alive ?

Yes, i would say they are. But not from a compicated conscious example/

Yes, i would say they are. But not from a compicated conscious example/

Why does everyone has reservations all of a sudden ?
What would you answer when your friend would ask you whether or not trees are alive ?

By the way, I asked Orleander that to make a point..

And as you know better than those people, there's time for some righteous anger. :o




Perhaps you should train dogs for a while. Then you'd learn first-hand the importance of repetition, repetition, repetition. ;)




No, but anyone reading and posting at Sciforums would do good to bear in mind that this is, well, Sciforums ...

Can you clarify your view on this matter. You give the impression , from other posts, that you consider re-incarnation is a possibility. If this is so and we are reborn as other than a human animal, say a mouse, what can be learned by such a mouse that could usefully be applied to a future existence as a man ?

Alternatively, if you believe man is not an animal, why do you do so ?

Why does everyone has reservations all of a sudden ?
What would you answer when your friend would ask you whether or not trees are alive ?

By the way, I asked Orleander that to make a point..

I would say that some are having second thought as opposed to having clear thoughts the first time around,

The thread was fine. Stryder posted in it, no one complained and the Biology forum got more action than it has in nine years. Someone saw it, got pissed and now it is gone forever.

Everything was all fun and games until things began to make sense. I am a little upset about how things went. Hopefully i dont say something out of anger.

The thread was fine. Stryder posted in it, no one complained and the Biology forum got more action than it has in nine years. Someone saw it, got pissed and now it is gone forever.

Everything was all fun and games until things began to make sense. I am a little upset about how things went. Hopefully i dont say something out of anger.

Pretty cool of you that you feel this way about it :)

Yes, once my argument made sense and the tide turned.

Yes, once my argument made sense and the tide turned.

I don't agree, but I guess you knew that :p