Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Muslim, Mar 8, 2006.
Not true. I myself changed into paprika just last week.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
*shrug* I think that's too bad. Most universities allow for sourcing from Encyclopedias, and the error rate between the two is not too far off; given that Wikipedia entries tend to be more in-depth.
/me tries not to comment on Spidergoat's new avatar.
The quote to wikipedia is just to show which 'de waal' we are talking about. There is nothing there but some biographical data and some references so I fail to see why you behave like you just lost your virginity.
You have a university? maybe you should try to attend some classes but they probably demand some previous education. Maybe you can sneak in.
we live to serve:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ool=pubmed_Abstract&term="de Waal FB"[Author]
some literature from the man.
Hey, it's not a straw man when it's true.
Also, why is the standard sympathy? I don't want people to not kill and eat me because other people can sympathize with me or I can sympathize with other people. I want them to not do it because I don't want to get hurt and I don't want to die - that's the principle behind why I don't kill and eat other people. Animals try experience pain and suffering as well, and act as if they want to survive. Because of this, I don't kill and eat animals. The logic is fairly straightforward.
I am a failure of a veggie. Mostly because I began a bonsai business around the time that I was eliminating chicken and fish from my diet, and began to realize the myriad ways in which plants exibit survival behavior.
They don't have electrical nervous systems or much in the way of obvious movement (some oddities aside), but they certainly react to "pain"-type stimulus, and they certainly benifit from pleasure-type stimulus. Plants "stress", and plants grow better when talked to regularly (or 'listen' to well-structured music, like Bach).
So, I find myself in a quandry, and I continue to eat chicken and fish.
At least it would appear that plants cannot percieve the pain sensation on a central level. While, in the Animal Kingdom, even flat worms react negatively to violence imposed on them, does that mean that they are "feeling pain"? Can a ganglion expirience suffering?
Define "animal" for me, Muslim. Then we can work this through.
Among other things, Darwin took a quite famous voyage to the Galapagos Islands, where he spent a lot of time observing the ecology of a restricted island system in detail. Afterwards, he wrote a lot about it. Have you read any of his writings? I'm sure you haven't.
Do you believe that the only way to obtain knowledge is to learn it in school?
Do you think that a "theory" in science is the same as a "guess", or "made-up fantasy"?
No you don't. If you did, you couldn't possibly assert that humans are not animals, or that humans and chimpanzees did not evolve from a common ancestor.
I doubt you even know what evolution actually is. You might have heard the word (maybe at the school which taught you everything you know?), but you have no understanding of the concept.
Even if what you say about monkeys was true, where is the link between that and saying that humans are not animals? Why is it that dogs can bark, but cats can't? By your argument, that must mean dogs and cats can't both be animals.
Yes encyclopedias, not from wiki sources. I mean if could add an article on wiki about something. Which is not even true 90% of the articles on wiki have many discrepancies in then and no cited soucreses.
Yeah true, that you had taken my argument refuted a weaker part of it and claimed I was wrong. Well that is a erroneous logic. You need to meat in your body to get the correct proteins so you can develop, you can't live off carbohydrates. Also we can use an argument another poster proposed that even plants are living, so its futile to be a vegetarian. Also there are human way of killing animals you make it out like, as if the animals goes though suffering.
An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.
What has that got to do with anything, how does that make you an expert, just because I stare at say fish does that make me and expert on the anatomy of fish? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So did Darwin read any books? why should I read a book on ecology Darwin didn't I can use that argument.
No, but its more credible especially when you're proposing "scientific" theories.
Its still abstract even if its a scientific theory if it wasn't it would be a scientific fact not "theory" its still a conjecture.
Can you prove it?, you're propagating this so its on you to bring the evidence. Why not refute me by brining factual evidence of this?
Subtle ad hominem
Can dogs and cats show reasoning. Ever heard of the saying: "biting the hand that feeds you"? A animal is not going to think if it wants to attack you it will, animals don't show humility a dog will piss in your house if it had to a human will not. If if you cooked something shit a human will eat it out of respect a animal will not.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i saw a documentary once about a cattle farm, and it showed cows walking in a line towards a place where a man was using a pneumatic hammer to put a nail right through their foreheads... they die instantly, i dont know if they suffer a lot, but it was disturbing to see how the cows had despair in their eyes... it made me feel very bad about eating meat... for a little while
but anyway, why is it wrong to kill to eat?
how do you think books are writen?
do you think that everything that there is to know about nature can be found in a library? have you ever heard of field research?
i dont think there is such thing as a fact in science... the reason why the scientific method is the best tool we have is that everything is constantly under criticism... if you have a better explanation for any natural fenomenon than the one that is currently used, it can be examined and eventually acepted...
can you see a relation between what you trying to say are human atributes and the size of brain mass?
It is anal to refer to the lack of formal training in certain fields of Darwin. Formal training wasn't the standard back then. He did receive the training that would have been perfectly acceptable and standard in those days.
The question was if someone could become an expert just by looking at things. I.e could I become an expert on human anatomy by looking at my body? will I be able to know how the argons work? will I know how food is digested? will I know how my body adapts? will I know how amino acids in by body work? done thinking? .... No i will not just by looking at something doesn't make you an expert on its anatomy and genetic structure. I don't even think anything was known about double helix back then, I mean this "theory" of evolution is ancient. Look at things, take fish for example, according to evolution life started in water, we were genetic garbage vertebrates. I mean, there is more water on the earth then land? we would be better off in the water then on land if this evolution theory was true. Why are fish still in the water? why can't fish survive on land?
No I am not saying that. Yes field research true, I am not saying Darwin was 100% wrong he was correct on somethings, like things like adaptation, but all this stuff about one spices changing into another via mutations is all bs. Birds will be birds they'll have wings and feathers and shit. God created everything and, and makes them evolve.
So its not a fact that humans have a brain? you can't see the brain we used science to work out we have a brain. And what are you trying to say that is not a fact? and that someone might have a better explanation to that? some things are facts and others are abstract or the weak Greek argument they have no real application in life, like philosophy and mathematics all this is abstract shit its all Greeks talking shit trying to look smart. Abstract theory and abstract math is just there invented by the Greeks because it gives you a license to talk shit. This is what Greeks did.
Its genetic difference its things that make us different from animals, its exactly the shit am talking about sorry I don't use big words and shit am not an English expert.
yes, it is. People have known about evolution for a long time. Darwin simply suggested that evolution occured because of environmental pressures, natural selection, and some form of heredity; and that those forces could create speciation. He didn't suggest evolution, dog breeders from around the world knew about evolution for thousands of years prior.
If humans are .2% different from chimps and bonobos when it comes to DNA, and chimps and rats are 7% different, then what does that say out the relationships between those species to you?
Why does your definition of animal need the clarification of "other than human"?
We are animals. genetic differences makes us as an animal different from a chimp as an animal. And the genetic similarities makes us very similar as an animal to other animals as the chimp.
no diffie words for you.
That is not a convincing argument. We are different because we are not animals. No because we are animals if we were animals we would be the same. duhh
So we have 60% DNA that matches Bananas does that mean we are over half fruit? the reality of it is, scientists don't have and advanced understanding of DNA yet. Did you know some humans can have two forms of DNA? there is also a medical term to define theses humans I forgot what its called now, am sure someone on this forum will know though.
edit - OK I remember its called "chimera" you can look it up on your favorite Wikipedia.
Animals are organisms like badgers and worms, but especially badgers.
Really Muslim... what?
And what do you mean when you ask for proof that humans are animals? The term 'animal' is a human-made definition. If the scientific consensus is that this term encompasses humans as well as worms and badgers then you've got to accept that. If your definition of 'animal' was the consensus view... fine. But it's not.
Separate names with a comma.