Why are you repeating the same thing over and over again; as if I were objecting to it? My objection is not whether or not humans are included under definition of what constitutes an ape or not, my objection is whether we are equal to the type of apes you see at the zoo! Address that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Human Animals?
- Thread starter The Hammer
- Start date
I decided after reading your subsequent posts in response to @Secret Chief that I'm not letting you off that easy (post #97), because it's not okay for you to misrepresent what others say here.
As I said, your analogy fails, and I've listed the reasons why. You then intentionally misrepresent what I said by claiming I judge humans at a much higher standard than I do beasts. I take exception to that deception.
So now I challenge you to demonstrate here how I "obviously judge humans at a much higher standard than I do beasts."
Are we reading the same thread?! Go back and read your posts over the last few pages.
I gave the analogy of a lion killing a female lion's cubs then having sex with her. I asked if this is wrong and would you judge a human by the same standards if a man did it to a woman. You danced around the issue refusing to give a straight answer. If you would judge both the same, I’m sure you would have said so
I made that statement in reference to what I said on post #99. Why do you ask?
I refused to answer your loaded question about your failed analogy. If someone refused to answer your question, you just make up your own? Is that how conversation works?
So you're conceding that humans are apes? If so, the conversation can finally move forward.
Why do you call my question loaded?
It included the implicit assumption that I believe in certain circumstances it's okay to kill a woman's kids and force a sex act on her against her will. I never suggested or implied that during our exchange.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Whether or not an animal is "equal" doesn't pertain to why it is in a specific category. German Shepherds are not equal in ability with Teacup Chihuahuas, but they are still both dogs
We use the scientific meaning of words like ape (and animal as in the OP) when discussing biology, where humans are classified as apes (and animals), and modern humans are modern apes. In other contexts, like at the zoo, one can use the word ape to mean non-human ape and animal to mean non-human animal and expect to be understood.
You got both kinds of responses, those objection to your use of the word ape and those objecting to your use of the word superior. If you use the biological definition of ape in a discussion about whether humans are apes, you will avoid the first set of comments.
I didn't get that from @SalixIncendium 's comment, which was, "Tell me how the acts described in your analogy place humans morally superior to non-humans. If a human can rape and murder for lust, how is this morally superior than a lion who rapes and murders for procreation?" He's calling the human immoral for an act that is amoral when a lion commits it. You know why. Man has a conscience and an awareness of the harm those actions cause, or should, and so is deemed immoral for committing them.
As for moral "superiority," a moral man outperforms an amoral animal, who outperforms an immoral man, but that is by human standards. A lion might disagree if it could.
I can think of a few examples. Vegging out isn't flattering, nor is being called a vegetable. Nor is couch potato. You don't want your thoughts called word salad. And you don't want to be called fruity or a fruit. The dumbest person is dumb as a stump.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Likewise a "vegetarian", in Texas.
an old joke:Likewise a "vegetarian", in Texas.
Vegetarian: Ancient indigenous (Indian) word for 'can't shoot straight'.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Good one! (New to me)
You seem to expect other life to conform to human morality (hence anthropomorphising) - and perhaps seen as having some kind of objective reality. Where did you get this strange idea from? Why wouldn't other species have evolved so as to survive with whatever morality served them, even if this was not something we might recognise? Some species do in fact seem to have evolved to have morality we can recognise but if one was a carnivore predator why do you think any morality they might have would differ from ours - perhaps due to the nature of their existence?
Then why didn't you give me a straight answer and say it was wrong to do so?
Why an animal is in a specific category has nothing to do with the conversation.
That’s what I was trying to do when I spoke of the type of apes in the zoo; yet they still kept insisting apes include humans
Had he given that type of an answer, we would likely be in agreement.
Because that wasn't what you asked.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
We absolutely are equal in every way to those apes. And thinking otherwise has led to more problems, then solutions.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Ape is not a scientific taxonomic definition. The family classification Hominidae, groups humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans and possibly Yeti/Sasquatch/etc together, some call these the 'Great Apes', as opposed to the Lesser Ape, the gibbon.