Opposable thumbs were key in our intellectual evolution.CommieChipmunk wrote:
I don't think that intellectual abilities spawned out of the fact that we can bend our thumbs--monkeys can bend their thumbs too. Many people think that we evolved from monkeys, but that's not really correct. We share a similar ancestor with monkeys but the evolutionary path hit a Y and we each went our separate ways. Something made us superior to them (intellectually) and I don't think it was the thumb.sergeriver wrote:
In fact we could develope our intellect because of our opposable or opposite or whatever it's said thumbs.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Right. It hand nothing to do with our intellect or ability to process and comprehend better than any other living species. We emerged at the top of the food chain because we jammed our thumbs in our prey's butt.
But just because we are "smarter" than primates doesn't mean that we should treat them like dirt.
Poll
Is Human Life More Valuable than Animal Life?
| Yes | 64% | 64% - 110 | ||||
| No, all creatures are valuable | 24% | 24% - 41 | ||||
| No, endangered species are more valuable | 4% | 4% - 7 | ||||
| No, animal life is more valuable | 7% | 7% - 12 | ||||
| Total: 170 | ||||||
Of course. It's survival of the fittest, and we as a species are apparently the fittest. I'm meant to eat meat, so I'll eat meat. Doesn't mean that I'll kill animals for the hell of it, but it means that I'd kill an animal to save another human, and I'd kill an animal to fill my stomach.
Animals are most definitely sentient.Bertster7 wrote:
Sentience is the big issue here and animals are not sentient.
I'm human and to me human life is a lot more valuable than any other animals life.
If you had to choose either some random guy or a random animal that would die, which would you pick?
How about your brother or a dog you love and have had for your whole life?
Human life isn't any more valuable than animal life, but in these situations you just rather save your fellow man's life instead of a Tiger.
Edit:
If you had to choose either some random guy or a random animal that would die, which would you pick?
How about your brother or a dog you love and have had for your whole life?
Human life isn't any more valuable than animal life, but in these situations you just rather save your fellow man's life instead of a Tiger.
Edit:
That's exactly what I mean.coke wrote:
So if you were confronted with a situation where you had to chose whether to save a small child or a tiger cub, which would you choose?
Last edited by Gawwad (2007-12-26 15:33:53)
Primates and us descended from a common ancestor. We both have opposable thumbs. It would have had to have been something elsesergeriver wrote:
Opposable thumbs were key in our intellectual evolution.CommieChipmunk wrote:
I don't think that intellectual abilities spawned out of the fact that we can bend our thumbs--monkeys can bend their thumbs too. Many people think that we evolved from monkeys, but that's not really correct. We share a similar ancestor with monkeys but the evolutionary path hit a Y and we each went our separate ways. Something made us superior to them (intellectually) and I don't think it was the thumb.sergeriver wrote:
In fact we could develope our intellect because of our opposable or opposite or whatever it's said thumbs.
But just because we are "smarter" than primates doesn't mean that we should treat them like dirt.
I'm glad to see you've come to such a quick decision on an issue that's been plaguing many top zoologists for hundreds of years, is still a subject of great contention within the community and is in essence, unprovable.mikkel wrote:
Of course. It's survival of the fittest, and we as a species are apparently the fittest. I'm meant to eat meat, so I'll eat meat. Doesn't mean that I'll kill animals for the hell of it, but it means that I'd kill an animal to save another human, and I'd kill an animal to fill my stomach.Animals are most definitely sentient.Bertster7 wrote:
Sentience is the big issue here and animals are not sentient.
Whether animals do think and feel is something that is virtually impossible to tell. At times it seems they do, but this is often attributed to being merely anthropomorphic projection or animals using simple rules and autonomic emotional responses (none of this equals sentience).
It's a universally accepted truth. Kick a dog in the head. When he cries out in pain, you've proven one part of sentience. When he resents you, you've proven the other part.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm glad to see you've come to such a quick decision on an issue that's been plaguing many top zoologists for hundreds of years, is still a subject of great contention within the community and is in essence, unprovable.mikkel wrote:
Of course. It's survival of the fittest, and we as a species are apparently the fittest. I'm meant to eat meat, so I'll eat meat. Doesn't mean that I'll kill animals for the hell of it, but it means that I'd kill an animal to save another human, and I'd kill an animal to fill my stomach.Animals are most definitely sentient.Bertster7 wrote:
Sentience is the big issue here and animals are not sentient.
Whether animals do think and feel is something that is virtually impossible to tell. At times it seems they do, but this is often attributed to being merely anthropomorphic projection or animals using simple rules and autonomic emotional responses (none of this equals sentience).
Sentience is the ability to feel physical and possibly emotional pain. Both are easily proven in animals. It doesn't matter if they're simple rules or not. For all you know, the same applies to human beings.
What exactly are you really saying? First you come with the same quick decision that animals are not sentient, then you say that it's essentially unprovable. What are you getting at?
Last edited by mikkel (2007-12-26 15:50:54)
If you had the option to run into a burning house and save a human baby or a dog which would it be?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It has not been proven that animals are sentient, the default perspective is scepticism.mikkel wrote:
It's a universally accepted truth. Kick a dog in the head. When he cries out in pain, you've proven one part of sentience. When he resents you, you've proven the other part.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm glad to see you've come to such a quick decision on an issue that's been plaguing many top zoologists for hundreds of years, is still a subject of great contention within the community and is in essence, unprovable.mikkel wrote:
Of course. It's survival of the fittest, and we as a species are apparently the fittest. I'm meant to eat meat, so I'll eat meat. Doesn't mean that I'll kill animals for the hell of it, but it means that I'd kill an animal to save another human, and I'd kill an animal to fill my stomach.
Animals are most definitely sentient.
Whether animals do think and feel is something that is virtually impossible to tell. At times it seems they do, but this is often attributed to being merely anthropomorphic projection or animals using simple rules and autonomic emotional responses (none of this equals sentience).
Sentience is the ability to feel physical and possibly emotional pain. Both are easily proven in animals.
What exactly are you really saying? First you come with the same quick decision that animals are not sentient, then you say that it's essentially unprovable. What are you getting at?
If you think the definition of sentience is that simple, probably because you've just read it out of a dictionary - thinking is probably the most central concept to the debate and is an essential part of sentience. It's not just sensory and emotional response and it is that difference that separates us from animals.
Of course, current research hypothesises that animals, particularly vertebrates, do have some kind of less developed sentience due to the way their nervous system works (ability to feel pain, fear, happiness etc.). But without demonstration of cognitive process, animals actually thinking, then it's not TRUE sentience.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-12-26 16:09:36)
That is one of the most unfair arguments to give in something like this. Primal instincts will dictate that us humans will choose a human, just like if you sent a dog into the burning house it would get the puppy and NOT the humanKmarion wrote:
If you had the option to run into a burning house and save a human baby or a dog which would it be?
This may surprise some of you...I voted yes.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Some evolutionary steps just happen in some species and don't in others, but they had to do with our intellectual evolution.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Primates and us descended from a common ancestor. We both have opposable thumbs. It would have had to have been something elsesergeriver wrote:
Opposable thumbs were key in our intellectual evolution.CommieChipmunk wrote:
I don't think that intellectual abilities spawned out of the fact that we can bend our thumbs--monkeys can bend their thumbs too. Many people think that we evolved from monkeys, but that's not really correct. We share a similar ancestor with monkeys but the evolutionary path hit a Y and we each went our separate ways. Something made us superior to them (intellectually) and I don't think it was the thumb.
But just because we are "smarter" than primates doesn't mean that we should treat them like dirt.
I'd try to save both, I'd go first for the baby because he's still innocent.Kmarion wrote:
If you had the option to run into a burning house and save a human baby or a dog which would it be?
I didn't really expect you to lower yourself to throwing around snide insults to feel more insightful and educated than others.Bertster7 wrote:
It has not been proven that animals are sentient, the default perspective is scepticism.mikkel wrote:
It's a universally accepted truth. Kick a dog in the head. When he cries out in pain, you've proven one part of sentience. When he resents you, you've proven the other part.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm glad to see you've come to such a quick decision on an issue that's been plaguing many top zoologists for hundreds of years, is still a subject of great contention within the community and is in essence, unprovable.
Whether animals do think and feel is something that is virtually impossible to tell. At times it seems they do, but this is often attributed to being merely anthropomorphic projection or animals using simple rules and autonomic emotional responses (none of this equals sentience).
Sentience is the ability to feel physical and possibly emotional pain. Both are easily proven in animals.
What exactly are you really saying? First you come with the same quick decision that animals are not sentient, then you say that it's essentially unprovable. What are you getting at?
If you think the definition of sentience is that simple, probably because you've just read it out of a dictionary - thinking is probably the most central concept to the debate and is an essential part of sentience. It's not just sensory and emotional response and it is that difference that separates us from animals.
You say one thing, then you say another, and insult me for saying it with the same decisiveness as you did. If you feel that you were too quick on the trigger, just say so. There's no need to insult others.
The ability to feel physical pain, an ability that has been witnessed in animals since man first came into contact with them, and the ability to feel emotional pain, an ability that is present and observable in many animals, whether naturally instinctive or developed over time, both cognitive traits shared by humans and animals alike, both speak to the sentience of animals. The sentience of animals is in question on the same level as the theory of gravity is in question. They're both present, but there there is no definite proof. If you want to go to the extremes of questioning the sentience of animals, you would very likely end up with a scenario that would put into question the sentience of human beings as well.
No time for both. Why isn't the dog innocent?... lets call him a puppy. Which one?sergeriver wrote:
I'd try to save both, I'd go first for the baby because he's still innocent.Kmarion wrote:
If you had the option to run into a burning house and save a human baby or a dog which would it be?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I gotta go with you on ths one Serge. I believe and have stated from registration that mankind and animals are equal in my eyes; if one has a soul then so does the other.sergeriver wrote:
I know this will start a "are you out of your mind asshole?" chain reaction. But the thing is after reading what you guys thought about the tiger that was shot dead at SF, I noticed that most of you think that human life is more valuable than animal life. And I don't share. I consider mankind to be the most disgusting species on Earth. We've almost destroyed our planet, most ecosystems are screwed, and because of that most animals are endangered or facing extinction within the next century.
Why is it that you consider a human life more valuable than a tiger's life. How many humans are in the World? 6,5 billion. How many tigers? A few thousand. How many whales? A few thousand. How many elephants? A few thousand. How many orangutans? A few thousand. How do you measure the value of a life? Just because we can talk and travel to the space, it doesn't mean we are superior. In fact, we did more bad than good to our planet and to the other life forms we share it with. So what God put us in this imaginary pedestal? Are we that worthy? I don't think so.
But the fact remains that some animals are alive in the wild now because of being brought back from the brink at zoos.
If the Siberian Tigers are saved from from going Todash, like the dinosaurs, then zoos are a good thing.
But when you have dead and maimed on the ground and a dangerous animal on the loose, even if it is an endangered animal, they must be captured or killed right away.
The Tiger may be part of an endangered tribe, but it is not part of our tribe, and we have a karmic duty to defend our fellow tribesmen.
Let's think of mammals for instance, they all are in certain way sentient. Some of them more than others. But how can you possibly say that a dolphin or a gorilla are not sentient?Bertster7 wrote:
I'm glad to see you've come to such a quick decision on an issue that's been plaguing many top zoologists for hundreds of years, is still a subject of great contention within the community and is in essence, unprovable.mikkel wrote:
Of course. It's survival of the fittest, and we as a species are apparently the fittest. I'm meant to eat meat, so I'll eat meat. Doesn't mean that I'll kill animals for the hell of it, but it means that I'd kill an animal to save another human, and I'd kill an animal to fill my stomach.Animals are most definitely sentient.Bertster7 wrote:
Sentience is the big issue here and animals are not sentient.
Whether animals do think and feel is something that is virtually impossible to tell. At times it seems they do, but this is often attributed to being merely anthropomorphic projection or animals using simple rules and autonomic emotional responses (none of this equals sentience).
No time for both? The dog is a puppy? I'd save the baby, just because I have a 2 months old son, and then I'd try to save the dog even if you say there's no time for it.Kmarion wrote:
No time for both. Why isn't the dog innocent?... lets call him a puppy. Which one?sergeriver wrote:
I'd try to save both, I'd go first for the baby because he's still innocent.Kmarion wrote:
If you had the option to run into a burning house and save a human baby or a dog which would it be?
The question is fair. It's simpler than what you guys are portraying it to be. Primal instincts tell us how to survive, mate, and go about our lives. It is who we are.genius_man16 wrote:
That is one of the most unfair arguments to give in something like this. Primal instincts will dictate that us humans will choose a human, just like if you sent a dog into the burning house it would get the puppy and NOT the humanKmarion wrote:
If you had the option to run into a burning house and save a human baby or a dog which would it be?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
ALL DEPENDS on who the human is.
I'll save a handfull of cockroaches over a rapist or child molester.
I'll save a handfull of cockroaches over a rapist or child molester.
That's beside the point.RoosterCantrell wrote:
ALL DEPENDS on who the human is.
I'll save a handfull of cockroaches over a rapist or child molester.
It's a random person in these examples for a reason.
How is it fair? I don't think you'd find a human on earth that would chose the dog over the child, it's just what you do, i think it's called the Mother Reflex or something like thatKmarion wrote:
The question is fair. It's simpler than what you guys are portraying it to be. Primal instincts tell us how to survive, mate, and go about our lives. It is who we are.genius_man16 wrote:
That is one of the most unfair arguments to give in something like this. Primal instincts will dictate that us humans will choose a human, just like if you sent a dog into the burning house it would get the puppy and NOT the humanKmarion wrote:
If you had the option to run into a burning house and save a human baby or a dog which would it be?
lol.. I like how arguing my hypothetical situation. Anyways, the fact that you said you would go for the baby first answers the question of which is more important.sergeriver wrote:
No time for both? The dog is a puppy? I'd save the baby, just because I have a 2 months old son, and then I'd try to save the dog even if you say there's no time for it.Kmarion wrote:
No time for both. Why isn't the dog innocent?... lets call him a puppy. Which one?sergeriver wrote:
I'd try to save both, I'd go first for the baby because he's still innocent.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
A baby rapist or child molester? That's a new one.RoosterCantrell wrote:
ALL DEPENDS on who the human is.
I'll save a handfull of cockroaches over a rapist or child molester.
Serge, not an intended flame just a question. Are you a vegetarian?
Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2007-12-26 16:16:47)
Malloy must go
Not at all. If it wasn't a baby I'd go for the puppy.Kmarion wrote:
lol.. I like how arguing my hypothetical situation. Anyways, the fact that you said you would go for the baby first answers the question of which is more important.sergeriver wrote:
No time for both? The dog is a puppy? I'd save the baby, just because I have a 2 months old son, and then I'd try to save the dog even if you say there's no time for it.Kmarion wrote:
No time for both. Why isn't the dog innocent?... lets call him a puppy. Which one?