Are humans animals?

[3.14]

the percentage of people who had sexual interaction with animals at some point in their lives as 8% for men and 3.6% for women, and claimed it was 40–50 percent in people living near farm
that was 1940

n a cave painting from at least 8000 BC in the Northern Italian Val Camonica a man is shown about to penetrate an animal.

 

[Gharib]

the percentage of people who had sexual interaction with animals at some point in their lives as 8% for men and 3.6% for women, and claimed it was 40–50 percent in people living near farm
that was 1940

n a cave painting from at least 8000 BC in the Northern Italian Val Camonica a man is shown about to penetrate an animal.

o thats making me sick, please stop. and just a question, how is that relevant to the thread.

 

[3.14]

see my previus qeustion

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

which labels and what perception?

whats this got to o with anything anyway?

By labels, I mean "human", "animal" etc. They are merely symbols or pointers used to direct our attention.

Direct perception is experiencing interaction with the object in reference.

 

[Valjean]

I say remove all labels and instead rely on direct perception.

Direct perception will have us classifying dolphins as fish.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Direct perception will have us classifying dolphins as fish.

Is this a rittle?...

 

[Valjean]

Calling things as we see them (direct perception) leads to erronious conclusions. Eg: dolphins look like fish, ergo, are fish.

 

[YmirGF]

Calling things as we see them (direct perception) leads to erronious conclusions. Eg: dolphins look like fish, ergo, are fish.

I do admire your patience, Seyorni. :beach:

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Calling things as we see them (direct perception) leads to erronious conclusions. Eg: dolphins look like fish, ergo, are fish.

There are no errors in direct perception.

 

[YmirGF]

There are no errors in direct perception.

That is certainly an entertaining notion.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

That is certainly an entertaining notion.

All direct perception is is experiencing what is. I don't see what the confusion is.

 

[Valjean]

All direct perception is is experiencing what is. I don't see what the confusion is.

Have you never seen an optical illusion or heard an audio illusion, Turkey?
Do you think people in different cultures perceive/see the same world you do?

When you look at the sky at night, do you think all the stars are actually where they appear? Or when you look at a fish in a pond, do you think it's where it apppears?
Do you think the colors you see are true?

Things are not as they appear. Our senses construct an abstract representation of the world, sufficient to allow us to function/navigate but having nothing to do with the actual reality out there.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Have you never seen an optical illusion or heard an audio illusion, Turkey?
Do you think people in different cultures perceive/see the same world you do?

When you look at the sky at night, do you think all the stars are actually where they appear? Or when you look at a fish in a pond, do you think it's where it apppears?
Do you think the colors you see are true?

Things are not as they appear. Our senses construct an abstract representation of the world, sufficient to allow us to function/navigate but having nothing to do with the actual reality out there.

Yes, I understand what you mean, even to the depth which you are speaking of. To perceive in absolute direct perception would essentially be infinite consciousness being utterly aware of itself (which it is anyway), but I am mostly speaking on a practical level and present circumstances; the purpose of this thread is essentially to explore and argue semantics, a classification game to decide how to organize one's thoughts, which I find limiting and in the end, no one knows anymore about animals and humans than when they started. Normally, I would ignore a thread like this, but being relatively familiar with the thread author's perspectives, I thought it would be appreciated.

So, that's the inspiration of my first post.

 

[YmirGF]

Normally, I would ignore a thread like this, but being relatively familiar with the thread author's perspectives, I thought it would be appreciated.

So, that's the inspiration of my first post.

The reason for my gentle rebuke, ToR is that I have an intense dislike for absolute statements. Perhaps you could explain a bit more of what you are thinking.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

The reason for my gentle rebuke, ToR is that I have an intense dislike for absolute statements. Perhaps you could explain a bit more of what you are thinking.

As much as possible, I try to make my statements non-linear and situation-relative, but it seems that when I try to express the reasoning behind this philosophy, I come off sounding the most absolute. Lots of statements, maybe even all statements ever thought, vocalized or written, could be interpreted as being absolute by anyone, but that's just a barrier of language and perception. I could continue to try to convey whichever of my perspectives you are troubled with, but given the nature of the subject, I don't think I could possibly do that without sounding absolutist, so perhaps I should just stop here.

Isn't it amazing that there are almost no words in that paragraph that refer to something tangible? That's the insanity of humanity's abstract thought processes.

 

[YmirGF]

Isn't it amazing that there are almost no words in that paragraph that refer to something tangible? That's the insanity of humanity's abstract thought processes.

It's all in a day of creating reality, my friend.

One thing I do fairly often is just write what I am thinking, then I apply the "no absolutes" filter and various other edits and usually end up with a satisfactory result. It can be tricky though to nullify sentences and still get your meaning across.

 

[Gharib]

to YmirGF

i wanted to ask you something since humans are animals according to you.

do you find disgusting the thing that 3.14 posted a few pages back, you know about human-animal relations? sexual that is.

 

[BucephalusBB]

to YmirGF

i wanted to ask you something since humans are animals according to you.

do you find disgusting the thing that 3.14 posted a few pages back, you know about human-animal relations? sexual that is.

I know you asked this to YmirGF, but as I think we are animals as well..

I think it's disgusting to see. I don't mind if people talk about it. I don't mind reading about it. I think it's weird to be attractive to animals as I cannot see it. I think they shouldn't as it could be considered rape. (I never heard an animal ask for it or give permission.)

 

[Gharib]

I know you asked this to YmirGF, but as I think we are animals as well..

I think it's disgusting to see. I don't mind if people talk about it. I don't mind reading about it. I think it's weird to be attractive to animals as I cannot see it. I think they shouldn't as it could be considered rape. (I never heard an animal ask for it or give permission.)

ok, thanks. and what about man-man sexual relations?

 

[BucephalusBB]

I don't mind to see it, but I also have no reason to. I'd rather see woman-woman
I don't mind if people talk about it.
I can understand it in comparison with me and a woman, but not on a personal level.
I think they should if they want to. They can tell eachother they want to..