you have nothing. you are attempting to be patronising, but you can only do that from a position of authority. if you can't accept evolution, it's you who needs to be educated.Perhaps. And perhaps I need to take you to ABC school...
You have an extraordinary line of reasoning in all this. Somehow anyone who disagrees with your idea that humans are in some essential (but ill-defined) way transcendental over all other life is then denying themselves some bunch of (ill-defined) higher abilities.Sadly, Knotted there is not more than that post in you, I fear... Not any more, if there ever was some potential...
We heard all this many times before and you know what - science has nothing to say on the subject. Once they try, they are no longer on scientific but philosophical grounds.
A very old thing you are just not familiar with, obviously. So, not taking it against you...
K, complete nonsense! But (you will) carry on...
The majority of your posts on this and the other thread are actually you just being rude and putting other people down. Your lack of self insight is one of the most amusing things about them.It's worse than trolling, it's like a bad version of Monty Python's sketch, but only you are saying "yes we are", whereas I actually make an effort and give reasoned arguments against... So, you can stop your "contributions" now, thanx a bunch, since nothing is actually coming from you...
It's you who needs to come up with an argument. We have science and evolution behind us. Humans are homo sapiens, a species of the animal kingdom. You cannot evolve from an animal into something else. Just another animal. The burden of proof is on your side, not mine.It's OK to disagree with me IF you can come up with something that can pass some serious scrutiny. I have no problem in saying "I haven't thought of that"! But most of the time it's the sad old 'arguments' which only intellectual pygmy parrots do...
In the case of Orangutang, for instance - zip, zero, nada! Troll or lazy or - dunno what it is but can't come up with anything and yet he bitches...
I am not the one who's high on some stupid ideology here. But I am - it seems - one of very few people here who understand the difference between science and scientism, theory and religion/dogma. So far, at least in this thread, I am the only one showing some capacity and training in philosophical thinking. Sorry but it's true. LBJ, for instance, never mind Orang, would die before he would be able to even mildly consider such an idea... It matters not how much one is an expert in any other field, if you can't do this, than you can not understand my argument, period.
Moreover, there is an elementary difference between "we have evolved from" and "we are the same as" - it really is sad I have to point to that one, not once but hey... knock yourselves out... Even SJ can't get to you on that one and he isn't exactly a "philosophically obscurant type"...
Biggest problem with the gorski line of thinking is that it adds nothing and risks losing things. We lose nothing in our understanding either of ourselves or of other life forms by not assuming that humans are somehow special, but we most certainly risk missing things by assuming specialness. And gorski is the perfect example of what you risk missing - he simply isn't interested in looking at the lives of other animals. He's already decided that they're not capable of lots of things, so he doesn't even look for them. And he just closes his ears when anyone who actually has looked at the lives of others contradicts him with pesky facts.It's you who needs to come up with an argument. We have science and evolution behind us. Humans are homo sapiens, a species of the animal kingdom. You cannot evolve from an animal into something else. Just another animal. The burden of proof is on your side, not mine.
We are certainly unique animals, but we are still animals, regardless.
Whales, largely, sense and communicate acoustically, whereas we do most of our sensing visually. They live in a three-dimensional world; we live in a two-dimensional world. We are trying to relate them to what we are in metrics that correspond to how we see the world. This is likely severely to underestimate their capabilities.
There was a time when everyone "knew" that the world was flat. Philosophy didn't prove it was either flat or spherical. Religion didn't either..... Good old maths and science proved it was spherical ....despite persecution....
End of the philosophical and religious arguments ensued.
There was a time when the only explanations of life were philosophical and religious.....
Not any more....and that's definitely a good thing.
Philosophy is great but don't make the mistake of believing it defines or even describes reality in anything other than philosophical terms.... It's very much in the realm of imagination, theory and procrastination.
The majority of your posts on this and the other thread are actually you just being rude and putting other people down. Your lack of self insight is one of the most amusing things about them.
has he posted why he thinks man isn't an animal?
Is he saying it because of religious reasons?
Biggest problem with the gorski line of thinking is that it adds nothing and risks losing things. We lose nothing in our understanding either of ourselves or of other life forms by not assuming that humans are somehow special, but we most certainly risk missing things by assuming specialness. And gorski is the perfect example of what you risk missing - he simply isn't interested in looking at the lives of other animals. He's already decided that they're not capable of lots of things, so he doesn't even look for them. And he just closes his ears when anyone who actually has looked at the lives of others contradicts him with pesky facts.
I think it's dangerous to think that we're not part of the animal kingdom. The animal, plant and the other four kingdoms are all part of the Earth's ecosystem. Much of it exists in a complex symbiosis. Humans are part of this whether we like it or not and human behaviour is destroying that delicate balance to the detriment of the whole ecosystem.
Thinking humans are not part of this is dangerous and irresponsible.
This is what gorski cannot consider:
Can you link to the post where you explain your POVAnother one - why do you bother if you can't be bothered to either read at all or read with understanding? Is this mob mentality the only thing loads of you can do and want to do? Shameless!!!
I'd genuinely like to hear your point of view.No. Now, go away, please.
A POINT OF ORDER:
Who needs such "contributors" who do not care whether or not they do injustice to those they are debating with, as they just can't be bothered reading WTF they are debating with AND they just LOVE jumping on the bandwagon and regurgitating other's old and tired BS!!!
Have some self-control and minimal decency, at least, FFS!!!
There's an 8 and a half year old post on the now sadly binned original thread here:https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/are-human-beings-a-type-of-animal.183442/page-48#post-6335097Can you link to the post where you explain your POV
information or behaviour – shared within a community – that is acquired from conspecifics through some form of social learning
the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of people, defined by everything from language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts.
I've read the entire thread and you've not made your case at all.You really need to look in the mirror on this one.
You - who barely said anything, other than other's old, tired, nowadays "common sensical", non-critical assertions - have the cheek to tell me off and I posted a lot on the topic but you just won't read/can't read (at least with any understanding)...
Blimey!
It's fucking not you know. It's loaded with you being really rude to a lot of people and has very little of your actual position on the topic.There is another thread, now in the "Bin" section, also loaded with what I "really think".