HUMAN BEINGS

[XxtraMannish]

Anyone calling Man an animal is doing so for philosophical or political purposes...not because it mirrors a reality.

Man being an animal has absolutely nothing to do with politics or philosophy. It is what it is. Humans are vastly intellectually superior to a lot of animals (at least we think we are, but thats a whole separate discussion) but we are still animals nonetheless. HDTV's are vastly superior to black & white tvs, but they are both still TVs. Surely every animal species is superior to another species in some fashion or another but they are all still animal species. Monkies have opposable thumbs on their hands AND feet. That is superior to our measly 2 opposable thumbs, are monkies not animals?

 

[I AM]

FUCK NO, monkies are monkies. They can't be animals..What kind of logic are you using? Oh yeah, that's right, logic that is actually LOGICAL....lol....

BTW, if humans are superior...why is it that we've fucked in the planet to the point where we're pretty much screwed? I don't see any other animals fucking off the planet like that. So obviously humans aren't that fucking smart. Most humans are just looking for shit to make their life easier/more convenient to live. That's pussy shit.

 

[Dirty Shoez]

Man being an animal has absolutely nothing to do with politics or philosophy. It is what it is. Humans are vastly intellectually superior to a lot of animals (at least we think we are, but thats a whole separate discussion) but we are still animals nonetheless. HDTV's are vastly superior to black & white tvs, but they are both still TVs. Surely every animal species is superior to another species in some fashion or another but they are all still animal species. Monkies have opposable thumbs on their hands AND feet. That is superior to our measly 2 opposable thumbs, are monkies not animals?

A Monkey is born with no legs.
An Elephant is born with no legs.
ANY ANIMAL accustomed to having legs is born with no legs.
Now.....A Human is born with no legs.

WHICH is more likely to DIE and NOT BE TAKEN CARE OF.....and WHICH is more likely to be able to play a productive role in their respective Society, or at the least, not DIE within a month or two after birth?



This not only has EVERYTHING to do with Philosophy and Politics.....it is almost EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT them.

99% of the time when you hear Man described as an "animal", it is to describe his instincts......NOT his personality, civilization, education, lifestyle and so on.

We are able to do the things that no other so-called Animal on the planet is able to do. We have transcended Animals. We can ONLY be considered Animals for PURPOSES OF NOMENCLATURE......NOT Because such a classification reflects a REALITY.

 

[DeceptaKhan]

DECEPTEKHAN,
YOU STRESSED, "what are you talking about apes cant use there thumbs like us?"

JUST LIKE YOU READ IT.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "give a couple examples,and nothing about how they cant write cause thats a mental thing."

I ALREADY HAVE. SCROLL BAK AND LEARN TO READ BETTER. NOW I SEE WHY YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF AN ANIMAL. AND WRITIN' IS JUST NOT MENTAL. APES THUMBS AIN'T THE SAME AS OUR THUMBS. THEY SHIT IS FURTHER APART AND ARE USED FOR BIgKER THANgS. THEY gRIP AIN'T THAT CLOSE.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "look at otters,they use there hands,they pick up a rock and smash open oyster shells,and yes they have thumbs."

BUT CAN THEY MAKE WEAPONS AND HOLD WEAPONS?


THEN YOU STRESSED, "oh and apes have some what hands for feet,can you hold your self up on a branch by your feet?"

WOULD THAT MAKE ME SUPERIOR? HOW IS IT AN ADVANTAgE?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "actually now that i think about it,apes could probably use there thumbs better then we can,since we need our thumbs to grab things,im pretty sure apes can race through a forrest grabin branches way faster then any human"

AND? YOU POINTIN' TO THE OBVIOUS. BUT AS I SAID, THEY gRIP IS NOT AS TIgHT AT ALL. ARES WERE CREATED TO HAVE THUMBS LIKE THAT FOR gRABBIN' BRANCHES. HAVE YOU SEEN HOW AN APE HOLDS A PENCIL? PEN?

sorry bro, i may not be able to read,but your thread made absolutly no sense,id be happy to debate,but i have no clue where your trying to go

"APeS haVE THUmBs buT We HAVe tHUMbs thAt Are BeTTERerer"

and what the fuck does being able to create weapons have to do with whats an animal and whats not.apes use weapons,stones,sticks,sharp rocks(sorry dont have the motivation to find a source to prove it)

it looks like this thread is turning into "whos superior" thread,not the simple fact that we are mamals,sure we can call ourselves human,but the homosapian is an evolved mamal animal.or maybe you think we all spawned from adam and eve,and if so,more power to you

 

[XxtraMannish]

A Monkey is born with no legs.
An Elephant is born with no legs.
ANY ANIMAL accustomed to having legs is born with no legs.
Now.....A Human is born with no legs.

WHICH is more likely to DIE and NOT BE TAKEN CARE OF.....and WHICH is more likely to be able to play a productive role in their respective Society, or at the least, not DIE within a month or two after birth?



This not only has EVERYTHING to do with Philosophy and Politics.....it is almost EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT them.

99% of the time when you hear Man described as an "animal", it is to describe his instincts......NOT his personality, civilization, education, lifestyle and so on.

We are able to do the things that no other so-called Animal on the planet is able to do. We have transcended Animals. We can ONLY be considered Animals for PURPOSES OF NOMENCLATURE......NOT Because such a classification reflects a REALITY.

Look, people are mammals. Mammals are a specific classification of what? ANIMALS

 

[Dirty Shoez]

We can ONLY be considered Animals for PURPOSES OF NOMENCLATURE......NOT Because such a classification reflects a REALITY.

You DID take a biology class back in the day didn't you? You DO REMEMBER what Nomenclature means, right?

 

[XxtraMannish]

yes, if you mean an international system of standardized New Latin names used in biology for kinds and groups of kinds of animals and plants. If people were something other than animals, we would be under our own classification.

 

[Dirty Shoez]

Green can be considered a shade of Blue.

Yes or no.


...Exactly. Man is an "Animal", but Man is not an Animal.

 

[Ethereal]

Humans don't rule the world. There's like 1 million ants for every 1 human. We think we control shit because we kill anything that we deem more superior than ourselves, which is all subjective anyway.

What does this ratio really reflect? I mean really, if there are a bunch of ants in my room, are you going to tell me those ants control the room? That is rediculous. To "rule" is to have a position of power, control or authority, and not just to exist in large numbers.

Half of this thread is good, and the other half is people talking out of their ass...Humans have egos, all the other animals don't. We THINK we are superior. Key word is THINK. Humans THINK a lot. Doesn't make what they THINK anymore real.

It does make it real. We are speaking within the context of everything manifested by humans. This language we are speaking and these words with their meanings (such as "rule"). How can you know the definition of a word (or maybe you didn't know what it meant to rule), objectively see that humans are a prototype to this definition and what it means, then come out and say humans do not rule the world. It does not make sense. If you, unbeknownst to the rest of the world, re-defined the word, then I can honestly understand where you are coming from.

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

Existential Dilemna:
You find yourself on the same side of an argument as Tadou, EDJ, and Nitro the Guru.

Is your logic flawed? Are your methods unreputable? Have you lost your mind?

 

[Blackandproud]

we are definetly animals.jus like animals there sole purpose is to procreate and survive,religion jus makes us think were more important then we actually are,or that theres something bigger then us that we should be serving.were jus mamals eaking by day by day,we may think that our lives purpose is to find the meaning of life or to find true love,but our basic wiring is to fuck,and not die...thats it,all the rest is jus background music

^^^mista murder,wut makes you think animals cant talk to each other?species from elephants-lions-dolphins communicate with each other.jus cause you cant understand them doesnt mean that they dont communicate.and as of humans being being the top of the food chain ,maybee as a huge mass where on top,but as single species,id say were down there with dogs and small mountain lions.our only defensives are creating tools to attack,and to run like hell,and even that,we'd get smoked by a majority of animals.and as for a majority of humans i think theres way more dumb shit humans(living almost as animals)as intelectual humans.look how fucked up our world is right now.id actually prefer being a big mamal in africa,jus chillin,hunting,takin care of my kiddies,instead of being stressed out by the many problems of this fuckin planet

Basicly said everything i was thinking...

 

[XxtraMannish]

Green can be considered a shade of Blue.

Yes or no.


...Exactly. Man is an "Animal", but Man is not an Animal.

You are "smart" but you're not smart.

 

[HERESY]

Existential Dilemna:
You find yourself on the same side of an argument as Tadou, EDJ, and Nitro the Guru.

Is your logic flawed? Are your methods unreputable? Have you lost your mind?

You can ad me to that list. LMAO!

 

[enserio]

Existential Dilemna:
You find yourself on the same side of an argument as Tadou, EDJ, and Nitro the Guru.

Is your logic flawed? Are your methods unreputable? Have you lost your mind?

In this thread, no. I agree 100% with this statement.

We can ONLY be considered Animals for PURPOSES OF NOMENCLATURE......NOT Because such a classification reflects a REALITY.

Our superior intelligence has afforded us so many technological advances. The fact that some of these advancements are harmful to the environment does not negate the fact that they are advancements. My car fucks up the environment by polluting the air and using up fuel, yet it is still more advanced than walking.

 

[Stealth]

I believe it. Mountains, deserts, Idaho. There are many places people don't live.

I have no idea why Idaho made me geek out so bad but my coworkers are staring at me right now.

 

[Stealth]

The fact that some of these advancements are harmful to the environment does not negate the fact that they are advancements.

I'm gonna have to disagree with that. Who's to say they are advancements? Cars can make us travel faster than walking, that's cool. But they also produce toxins, depelete the ozone, contribute to global warming, use up fossil fuels at a rate that they cannot be reproduced, cause us to create factories and use more resources, forces an industrial economy, causes chemicals to be spilled, houses to be destroyed, land to erode, animals and plants die.

All that so you can travel faster?

You can call that an advancement if I want, but if I were to sit down and say "If you let me destroy your entire village/town/city, in return I'll make sure you can get to Cleveland in under 5 minutes"...I'd call that a deal with the devil, not advancement.

Humans are smart...true. Much smarter than any other animal. But our decisions are not wise, and eventually we are going to kill ourselves. So at this point in time, YES we are SUPERIOR to everything else. But if you look at it in the long run, 200 years from now we're all gonna be suffering from our own hand, and we will not always be the superior race.

So maybe humans will be the most evolved/advanced species during the year 2006. But maybe not in history. While you say we have technology that advances us, I say we have technology that will bring about the destruction of the world. Just because I can shoot a lion coming at me and drive away doesnt mean I'm superior, but because eventually like a locust my species is going to bring about the apocalypse.

 

[enserio]

Cars are merely one example, and your counterexample is a bit extreme. How about the computer your typing on? Advancement or not? I'm sure you could find a way to argue that it's harmful to the environment, but you would have to go extreme again.

 

[Stealth]

I'm sorry I just chose one example but that was the easiest one to do. Either way...is that example wrong? And I don't really think its that extreme at all -- technology uses fuels which destroy the earth and promotes globalism which rapes ecosystems.

You can call it extreme if you want, but when the world fails due to humans misusing it, I'll be waiting for your apology.

The computer...its an advancement to create more technology that does the things I said above. What does it really do? The only thing I think computers really help with is communication...which creates globalism again. All in all most of the technology we find either lays people off or fucks up the ecosystem, just so humans can be lazier and 3 people can get richer.

 

[I AM]

Stealth, what you said about in 200 years....Humans are not that smart, or they wouldn't have done the shit in the first place. If they thought about, hey, maybe this isn't a good idea, then we wouldn't be fucked like we are now in regard to the environment. There's all sorts of shit that uses up natural resources and we're tapping into all of them and using them all right now. More, more, more. At least in America, and a few other countries.

BTW, microchips use a certain amount of natural resources to use, and it's actually NOT worth it if you look into it...Then again, people want their computers, so lets give them what they want to shut them the FUCK up....I'll try to find an article about this, but one of my friends was saying something about how microships use an enormous amount of fossil fuel to create or something along those lines....I'll find out later.

 

[enserio]

But yet, we all still drive cars and debate on our computers. My point is that our intelligence delineates us from the rest of the animals, therefore while we are classified as such scientifically, we are not realistically.

If by refuting my point, you are arguing that we are not as smart as we may think, then point well taken. If you are arguing that we are not more intelligent than other animals, then I'll agree to disagree.