Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 51 of 51

Thread: Humans>Animals

  1. #41
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    37
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Humans>Animals

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    But the problem is that you use this opinion as evidence of your claim while at the same time having no evidence to support the opinion itself. The fact that you were goofed in this way when you were a child is not really support. I was goofed once that my uncle is the boogey man.
    Wait, what? How is that any different than someone saying:
    "Christianity is true. My reasons are: (insert a bunch of reasons), and Jesus was an actual person." Then defending their opinion that Jesus was an actual person to prove their opinion that Christianity is true. I'm not getting the difference...

    And I already dropped the child thing as support after Just Me gave me a good reason to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    But if you say that everything living has a spirit and therefore there must be a God then you're using your opinion in evidence of a claim. Since there's no evidence for the opinion itself, its strength as evidence of the fact is zero. You might as well just say that in your opinion there is a God.
    See above. And you took that in a completely unrelated direction than what I believe, by the way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    IF you're right about the results of the experiment THEN the results of the experiment would be such as you presented them. But then what's the point discussing the experiment in the first place?
    That's the thing, we're not discussing the experiment. We're discussing the results. You never questioned whether two men are able to raise their dogs the same way, and I'm not trying to defend that. If I was so inclined, I could actually try this experiment out and follow through with it. Unfortunately, that would take years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    I'm glad we agree on this but that wasn't my point. Sorry. I should have made myself clearer. I wasn't saying that you must refer to humans as animals (by way of terminology). Of course it's acceptable (and preferrable!) to refer to them as humans. What I was saying is that we in fact ARE animals and we're not all that much different.
    Not seeing your point. Could you explain it to me a bit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Yes because the child associates words with concepts and thus you can explain this process to him/her. A dog also associates words with concepts but on a simpler level. That's because, as you know, dogs aren't as brainy as humans. In fact, that's really part of your own argument. But what I'm saying is that this is irrelevant.
    Huh? All was arguing is that I don't think dogs 'understand' words. I'm not arguing anything else, so how is that irrelevant to what we were discussing? You said that animals and humans are not that different, and that their understanding of words was one reason they're not. By admitting that dogs aren't as brainy as humans, this argument should be over, as that's a pretty big difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Let's say a chimp has the mental capability of a 4 year old child (I'm pretty sure that's about right; might be more). Would you then say that the chimp is just as important and precious as the 4 year old child? No you wouldn't. Even though they have the same mental attributes (and the chimp has more developed physical abilities). You might argue that the child will develop into an adult and will supercede the chimp in his mental ability. But what if it weren't to develop further? What if this child is retarded and his mental development effectively stops at 4? He'll never be smarter than a chimp. Would that particular child no longer be more important than the chimp? If your argument really relies on mental capabilities then that must be the case. It must also be the case that smarter people are more valuable than dumber people.
    This is a different argument altogether. You're mixing elements from both of my original points in the OP, so I'm really not sure where you're going with this. I said that humans were superior, because their brains are better developed, in the first point, but I said that humans have more value because they are not replaceable in the second point. You added an argument to my second argument I think... I never said that superior intelligence gives a human more value. It just makes them superior. In fact, your argument is the exact reason I didn't include it as a reason for my second point.

    And technically, a smarter person is more valuable than a dumb person, by definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    I think you mean ape and not monkey. Monkeys are nowhere near as close to us as the apes. They're still closer than dogs, true.
    You're right on that one. Sorry for the mix-up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Sure, we're even closer to apes than we are to dogs. But apes are animals too. And this thread is about animals and not about just dogs. Sure, some animals are closer to humans than other animals are. Some humans are also closer to humans than other humans are. If you're an Asian person (and I know you're not but I want to pretend that you are!) would you say that an Asian is more valuable than a Caucasian? How about a smart Asian versus a dumb Caucasian?
    See two quotes above.

    Um, I fail to see your point with the Asian vs. Caucasian thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Actually I've seen an amazing documentary recently on the Animal Planet chanel. It was about how humans and apes compare. (Everything else cut out for length's sake.)
    Huh, sounds like an awesome documentary. Do you know the name of it?
    C'est la vie. Such is life.
    Such is death. C'est la mort.

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Humans>Animals

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaithine View Post
    I am definitely not going to attempt debating this again. I already went down a similar road with czahar. I was just pointing out that your example was wrong in the last point. I'm not interested in discussing the whole thing over again, czahar already backed me into a corner on trying to explain it.
    So...in other words, you are refusing to debate this particular point because you cannot answer it without compromising your position?

    We are debating your claim that "humans have more value than animals because humans are not replaceable, and animals are."

    You have also claimed that "humans have more value than animals because other humans have relatives and friends that recognize and remember them, and could not replace them if they died."

    Am I correct on both of those claims?

    With all due respect, if I am correct in my understanding of your claims, you must address the point of the value of those humans that have no existing human relatives or friends that would recognize or remember them, and that they would certainly not have anyone that would miss them if they died.

    .
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  3. #43
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Humans>Animals

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaithine View Post
    Wait, what? How is that any different than someone saying:
    "Christianity is true. My reasons are: (insert a bunch of reasons), and Jesus was an actual person." Then defending their opinion that Jesus was an actual person to prove their opinion that Christianity is true. I'm not getting the difference...
    There isn't any difference. And to say "Christianity is true and Jesus' actual existence is evidence of that" is wrong unless you are in a position to demonstrate evidence of Jesus' actual existence.



    See above. And you took that in a completely unrelated direction than what I believe, by the way.
    Well no, it's not an irrelevant direction. You're discussing an experiment that has never been done. I submit that the only proper way to use the "experiment" is as a hypothetical illustration of what WOULD happen if Bob and Alex did in fact fail to recognise their dogs. However, it's no evidence that they would.



    That's the thing, we're not discussing the experiment. We're discussing the results. You never questioned whether two men are able to raise their dogs the same way, and I'm not trying to defend that. If I was so inclined, I could actually try this experiment out and follow through with it. Unfortunately, that would take years.
    I have questioned your claim that two men who raised their dogs in the same way would fail to be able to tell if the dogs were swapped.



    Not seeing your point. Could you explain it to me a bit?
    Sure. We are animals. We are related to animals, by actual blood ties (albeit very old blood ties). Therefore identity itself is not something that can be used to claim that we are more valuable than animals. There is no distinct line that would divide us from the remainder of the living world. We are simply a part of it and are related to all of it by family ties. Some humans are superior to some non-human animals. Other humans are not superior to some non-human animals. I gave you examples of that; eg the retarded child who never will become more brainy than a chimp.


    Huh? All was arguing is that I don't think dogs 'understand' words. I'm not arguing anything else, so how is that irrelevant to what we were discussing? You said that animals and humans are not that different, and that their understanding of words was one reason they're not. By admitting that dogs aren't as brainy as humans, this argument should be over, as that's a pretty big difference.
    I'm saying that dogs DO understand some words. Just because they might not understand grammatical structure doesn't mean they don't understand words! They associate words with objects and actions, much like very young children do. Now let's get back into relevant perspective here:

    I said that the fact that people are more brainy is not a reason to assign them higher value. Then I gave the example that a dog might understand X words while a human might understand Y words and I said "so what?" You then took the argument into an unnecessary and irrelevant direction of quibbling whether dogs UNDERSTAND words or just ASSOCIATE them. It doesn't matter. The fact is they act on them. The words have meanings/significance to them. And this was just an example of the fact that everything here is a matter of degree.


    This is a different argument altogether. You're mixing elements from both of my original points in the OP, so I'm really not sure where you're going with this. I said that humans were superior, because their brains are better developed, in the first point, but I said that humans have more value because they are not replaceable in the second point. You added an argument to my second argument I think... I never said that superior intelligence gives a human more value. It just makes them superior. In fact, your argument is the exact reason I didn't include it as a reason for my second point.
    Look. I originally joined the debate by simply replying to something that you wrote. I didn't have a structured argument against your OP.

    Let's see. The OP argues against the contention that humans are EQUAL TO ANIMALS. Your argument against it is twofold:

    1. Humans are superior to animals
    2. Humans should be more important because they're not replacable


    However, BOTH OF THE ABOVE are an attempt to prove that animals should not be considered EQUAL to humans (see the "Original Argument" in the OP). Hence, the question of whether a child is more important (in other words, NOT EQUAL) than a chimp of the same intelligence is relevant to the OP WHETHER OR NOT it squarely fits under your point (1) or point (2). You see, even though your point (1) does not expressly conclude that people are more important than animals, you're using it to prove that animals and humans should not be considered EQUAL. What I'm attacking is your claim that humans should be considered non-equal with animals (ie, "more important") because of their mental superiority.

    On your point (1):
    Now what I'm saying is this: just because we are mentally superior doesn't mean that animals don't deserve equal treatment. Why do you say that mental superiority is what determines the matters? Why don't you use some other crieteria (for example environmental friendliness)?

    On your point (2):
    I have not seen any evidence that animals are replacable. You refer to the experiment but it has never been conducted.

    Huh, sounds like an awesome documentary. Do you know the name of it?
    Can't remember! If I come across it again I'll let you know. It was AWESOME.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  4. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    37
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Humans>Animals

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    So...in other words, you are refusing to debate this particular point because you cannot answer it without compromising your position?

    We are debating your claim that "humans have more value than animals because humans are not replaceable, and animals are."

    You have also claimed that "humans have more value than animals because other humans have relatives and friends that recognize and remember them, and could not replace them if they died."

    Am I correct on both of those claims?

    With all due respect, if I am correct in my understanding of your claims, you must address the point of the value of those humans that have no existing human relatives or friends that would recognize or remember them, and that they would certainly not have anyone that would miss them if they died.
    If this were a formal debate with rounds, my opposition would have won, in other words. Its still my opinion that a human should choose another human over an animal, but the debate was won by czahar. Do you get what I mean? So I don't want to debate further on that until I can find an adequate rebuttal.
    Last edited by Blaithine; July 30th, 2009 at 10:07 PM.
    C'est la vie. Such is life.
    Such is death. C'est la mort.

  5. #45
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Humans>Animals

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    With all due respect, if I am correct in my understanding of your claims, you must address the point of the value of those humans that have no existing human relatives or friends that would recognize or remember them, and that they would certainly not have anyone that would miss them if they died.
    Well I would go a step further actually. I would say that a person's value to his relatives is not evidence at all for our purposes. Whether a person values his relatives more than he does his goldfish (for an extreme example!) is a matter for the person. The fact that someone DOES value his cousin more than his goldfish is not evidence that they should. And conversely, the fact that someone leaves all his property to his dog in his Will doesn't mean that that's the way it should be.

    Even IF a goldfish couldn't be always recognised by its owner, that doesn't mean that it's replacable. The owner might be completely devastated when Goldie dies and never want another goldfish in his life. He might be suicidal. "I don't care if it looks like Goldie and swims like Goldie; this is not my Goldie; God I miss him! "
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    37
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Humans>Animals

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    There isn't any difference. And to say "Christianity is true and Jesus' actual existence is evidence of that" is wrong unless you are in a position to demonstrate evidence of Jesus' actual existence.
    So what we're doing is arguing "whether Jesus' exists". Not literally, but you know what I mean. Its like a sub-topic of the debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Well no, it's not an irrelevant direction. You're discussing an experiment that has never been done. I submit that the only proper way to use the "experiment" is as a hypothetical illustration of what WOULD happen if Bob and Alex did in fact fail to recognize their dogs. However, it's no evidence that they would.
    You missed what I meant. I meant your extension to my spirits belief, not the debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    I have questioned your claim that two men who raised their dogs in the same way would fail to be able to tell if the dogs were swapped.
    Which is my opinion on what the result would be, not the experiment itself.

    The experiment: Two men raise two dogs the same way and they are swapped. Can they tell the difference?

    Possible Results: Yes, they can tell the difference, or no, they can't tell the difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Sure. We are animals. We are related to animals, by actual blood ties (albeit very old blood ties). Therefore identity itself is not something that can be used to claim that we are more valuable than animals. There is no distinct line that would divide us from the remainder of the living world. We are simply a part of it and are related to all of it by family ties. Some humans are superior to some non-human animals. Other humans are not superior to some non-human animals. I gave you examples of that; eg the retarded child who never will become more brainy than a chimp.
    Where do you get the blood ties part from? I'd be interested in reading that.

    And my argument would be that all humans have the capability to be more intelligent. Something happened to the child to make it retarded, either some type of trauma or a complication during pregnancy, but it had the potential to be smarter before that incident. A chimp never has the potential to be more intelligent than a human.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    I'm saying that dogs DO understand some words. Just because they might not understand grammatical structure doesn't mean they don't understand words! They associate words with objects and actions, much like very young children do.
    To understand: to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend

    If the definition of understanding were knowledge of the action required when giving a command, that'd be correct. They can't understand the actual meaning of the word, or at least we can't prove that they can. And very young children can't understand words either. They'd be geniuses if they could. They have the potential to learn in the future, however, unlike a dog.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    I said that the fact that people are more brainy is not a reason to assign them higher value.
    I never said it was. It just makes them superior, with superior meaning: higher in place or position. Basically, we're on top of the food chain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Then I gave the example that a dog might understand X words while a human might understand Y words and I said "so what?" You then took the argument into an unnecessary and irrelevant direction of quibbling whether dogs UNDERSTAND words or just ASSOCIATE them. It doesn't matter. The fact is they act on them. The words have meanings/significance to them. And this was just an example of the fact that everything here is a matter of degree.
    And its necessary to decide whether dogs actually understand a word, because you brought up the fact that they can understand 500 compared to a human's 5000 as support. My opinion is that they can't understand any words at all, while humans can understand 5000.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Look. I originally joined the debate by simply replying to something that you wrote. I didn't have a structured argument against your OP.
    Well, you didn't have to. And your original posts were fine with me, you were responding to things I had said specifically. It was when you made this comment that things started to get off topic and you somehow came to assume that I think an animal's inferior intelligence should make its life less valuable than a human's life:

    "What you're failing to appreciate this whole time is that humans are animals and we don't really differ from dogs all that much. Sure, we learn more words than a dog does (I heard some breeds of dogs can understand up to 500 or so whereas the average human uses 5000; or was that 500 as well? Hmmm) and we can do algebra better. But fundamentally we are much closer to dogs than most animals are to most other animals. Some people make this claim about how unusual and amazing humans are. I see that as anthropocentric; selfish basically. We're notning all that special, just mammals."


    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Let's see. The OP argues against the contention that humans are EQUAL TO ANIMALS. Your argument against it is twofold:

    1. Humans are superior to animals
    2. Humans should be more important because they're not replaceable
    Edit: 2. Humans should be more important to other humans because they're not replaceable to other humans

    I'm sure an animal finds us very replaceable. They can't communicate with us any better than we can communicate with them. I'm sure it seems like we're speaking in a very confusing and very different language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    However, BOTH OF THE ABOVE are an attempt to prove that animals should not be considered EQUAL to humans (see the "Original Argument" in the OP). Hence, the question of whether a child is more important (in other words, NOT EQUAL) than a chimp of the same intelligence is relevant to the OP WHETHER OR NOT it squarely fits under your point (1) or point (2). You see, even though your point (1) does not expressly conclude that people are more important than animals, you're using it to prove that animals and humans should not be considered EQUAL. What I'm attacking is your claim that humans should be considered non-equal with animals (ie, "more important") because of their mental superiority.
    Fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    On your point (1):
    Now what I'm saying is this: just because we are mentally superior doesn't mean that animals don't deserve equal treatment. Why do you say that mental superiority is what determines the matters? Why don't you use some other crieteria (for example environmental friendliness)?
    I addressed other reasons in another debate with someone, but the site is temporarily under maintenance. You'll have to wait for an answer, 'cause I'm not great at keeping track of my thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    On your point (2):
    I have not seen any evidence that animals are replacable. You refer to the experiment but it has never been conducted.
    What are you looking for as evidence? Statistical and scientific facts? Because there isn't any, really. I don't think any scientists actually care enough to try proving something like this. They have more important things to research, like cancer.

    Also, we're debating over whether one pet can suitably replace another at this point. Somebody argued no, because of the emotional ties an owner has to that animal. So now I'm attempting to argue that, despite those emotional ties, the animal can be suitably replaced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Can't remember! If I come across it again I'll let you know. It was AWESOME.
    Awww, sad. I hope you come across it again. :(
    C'est la vie. Such is life.
    Such is death. C'est la mort.

  7. #47
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Humans>Animals

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaithine View Post
    So what we're doing is arguing "whether Jesus' exists". Not literally, but you know what I mean. Its like a sub-topic of the debate.
    No we're not because you're not presenting any evidence or argument for it. You're just assuming that our two punters don't realise that their pups have been swapped.


    You missed what I meant. I meant your extension to my spirits belief, not the debate.
    For the reason above, I think it is relevant. But let's not go on about this because it's only a metaphor. Waste of space really.


    Which is my opinion on what the result would be, not the experiment itself.
    Sure but you have no evidence for it. None presented. So it's not even an informed opinion. You're just speculating. I could argue that blondes come from outer space. In fact, if you stood near a blonde-drop-zone at a blonde-drop-time, you would notice them being dropped by aliens. That's my opinion of what you would observe. See what I mean? The experiment scenario doesn't help your claim, does it?


    Where do you get the blood ties part from? I'd be interested in reading that.
    The Theory of Evolution (accepted by science almost universally; do you need a link for this proposition?) says that all life on earth originated from a common ancestor. Us and the apes don't go back all that far. Us and dogs go somewhat further. But they're all our relatives, in the LITERAL SENSE. Your great great great (and a lot of greats goes here) grandfather was your dog's great great great (and a lot of greats goes here) grandfather. Blood relation.


    And my argument would be that all humans have the capability to be more intelligent. Something happened to the child to make it retarded, either some type of trauma or a complication during pregnancy, but it had the potential to be smarter before that incident. A chimp never has the potential to be more intelligent than a human.
    But this child doesn't. It either suffered brain damage or it was deficient due to a genetic reason. If it's the latter then it's part of who this child is. He is a specimen who never did have anymore potential than to develop to 4 years of age.

    We end up with two possibilities.

    1. The child USED to have potential but no longer has (brain damage). In this case, what difference does it make that he used to have it, given that he no longer does?

    2. The child never had the potential. He could never outsmart the chimpanzee. Does that mean that they're of equal value? (assume that replacability is not an issue of course)



    To understand: to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend

    If the definition of understanding were knowledge of the action required when giving a command, that'd be correct. They can't understand the actual meaning of the word, or at least we can't prove that they can. And very young children can't understand words either. They'd be geniuses if they could. They have the potential to learn in the future, however, unlike a dog.
    Well, again. If you say "I'm gonna walk the dog" and the dog immediately runs to the door and appears all excited, how can you say that it hasn't perceived the meaning of what you said? You say "sit" and the dog sits. How can you say it doesn't perceive the meaning of what you said? To him the word "sit" is an order to put his butt down on the floor. That's the meaning. He perceives that meaning.




    I never said it was. It just makes them superior, with superior meaning: higher in place or position. Basically, we're on top of the food chain.
    Ok. Is this relevant to the Original Argument in the OP or not? If it is then please demonstrate why this means that humans should not be treated equally to animals. And if it's not then....discard it.


    And its necessary to decide whether dogs actually understand a word, because you brought up the fact that they can understand 500 compared to a human's 5000 as support. My opinion is that they can't understand any words at all, while humans can understand 5000.
    It doesn't matter. You're dwelling on a word ("understand"). The dog can store and recognise 500 words. Whether he knows their dictionary defininitions is irrelevant. The only relevance of this was that yes, humans are (in some ways) smarter than dogs (for example language) but it's a matter of degree.



    Well, you didn't have to. And your original posts were fine with me, you were responding to things I had said specifically. It was when you made this comment that things started to get off topic and you somehow came to assume that I think an animal's inferior intelligence should make its life less valuable than a human's life:

    "What you're failing to appreciate this whole time is that humans are animals and we don't really differ from dogs all that much. Sure, we learn more words than a dog does (I heard some breeds of dogs can understand up to 500 or so whereas the average human uses 5000; or was that 500 as well? Hmmm) and we can do algebra better. But fundamentally we are much closer to dogs than most animals are to most other animals. Some people make this claim about how unusual and amazing humans are. I see that as anthropocentric; selfish basically. We're notning all that special, just mammals."
    Right. So you're not claiming that humans should not be treated equally to animals because they are more intelligent? What is the relevance of your point (1) then?


    Edit: 2. Humans should be more important to other humans because they're not replaceable to other humans

    I'm sure an animal finds us very replaceable. They can't communicate with us any better than we can communicate with them. I'm sure it seems like we're speaking in a very confusing and very different language.
    I don't know if animals find us replacable. There have been documented cases of dogs starving themselves to death on their "owner's" grave.

    And even so, how is it relevant whether animals find us replacable? The question is whether non-human animals are replacable to us. And some may be and some may not be.

    I also disagree that humans are irreplacable. Humans are just as replacable as animals are. Every human is different in terms of behaviour (no matter how minute these differences might be). And so is every animal. No two can be identical. Even "identical twins" are not actually identical. I think what you're trying to say is that in animals these differences can be so unnoticable to us that we don't see them. But I don't know about the merits of this argument. I've had a series of pets in my life and each and everyone of them was completely different.


    I addressed other reasons in another debate with someone, but the site is temporarily under maintenance. You'll have to wait for an answer, 'cause I'm not great at keeping track of my thoughts.
    Ok.

    What are you looking for as evidence? Statistical and scientific facts? Because there isn't any, really. I don't think any scientists actually care enough to try proving something like this. They have more important things to research, like cancer.
    Oh, there seems to be no limit to the types of things that people do their PhD's on these days. But of course if there's no evidence that animals are irreplacable then...there's no evidence. You're speculating.

    Also, we're debating over whether one pet can suitably replace another at this point. Somebody argued no, because of the emotional ties an owner has to that animal. So now I'm attempting to argue that, despite those emotional ties, the animal can be suitably replaced.
    But emotional ties are crucial here. The only reason why it makes any difference at all that uncle Steve can't be replaced is also emotional. Being unable to replace someone who is of no emotional value to us doesn't bother us in the least. The exception might be a notable scientist; irreplacable. But that's an exception and you can sure have an exceptional dog who can ride a bicycle backwards while barking off the Star Spangled Banner.
    Last edited by Allocutus; July 30th, 2009 at 10:49 PM. Reason: IRreplacable, dagman it!
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  8. #48
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    I'm lost
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Humans>Animals

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaithine View Post
    I never said that all dogs have the same personality. That would be insane. As your articles said, dogs' personalities fall under 5-6 different categories. Its a possibility that dog A will have personality 2 and dog B will have personality 3. But its also possible to find a dog, lets say dog C, that has personality 2 as well.
    It also stated that each dog is their own individual.

    Anyway, read the last part of what you quoted:

    "Alex is going out of his way to imitate how Bob raises and trains his dog, which, according to Just Me's evidence, effects how the dogs' personalities develop."
    Take the info I provided about the Cocker..
    The English Cocker personality and activity levels vary from dog to dog. Genetics, training, socializing, and the care they receive are a large part of the what determines each dogs personality. For a owner looking for a partner in fun the English Cocker could be just the dog.
    This shows that how Bob raises and trains his dog is a LARGE part of the dog's personality. That does not make up the entire personality.

    Hypothetically, if the different elements listed in those articles were the same, their personalities would be the same. Alex is going out of the way to make those elements the same.
    No, it just makes up a LARGE part. Not the entire part.

    "You don't attempt to treat all of your dogs the exact same way when you're raising more than one in a single home, so of course they're not going to have similar personalities."

    In an uncontrolled setting, you generally don't try to make those elements exactly the same.
    As shown in the info I provided, it will not make up the entire personality.





    I'll get to the rest later.
    Ok..
    Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist.~Jacob Halbrooks
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.~Benjamin Franklin
    "Go big or Go home"~ LoLo Bean

  9. #49
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    767
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Humans>Animals

    The simple reason why I personally put humans higher than animals. (Apart from the fact that I myself am a human).

    If there was a dog, and there was a man/woman (complete strangers) with guns held to their heads. I was asked to choose, if I didn't (for the sake of the hypothetical) the world would explode. I would without hesitation, choose the dog (to be shot). What would you do?

    If I then apply this hypothetical to myself, and play on my own feelings - with our family dog (A beautiful german shepherd) and my little brother. I would again without hesitation choose our dog to be shot. What would you do?

    I mean, at the end of the day we as a species eat animals, To sustain our own lives... These two things alone, put humans above animals, in every sense, IMO.

    So I agree wholeheartedly with the OP.
    .::The Swindall::.

    "...In the beginning, man created god"

  10. #50
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    In the hands of God
    Posts
    180
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Humans>Animals

    Blaithine,

    Original argument: Humans are animals, and therefore all animals should be considered equal to humans. In example, a woman's cat should be thought of as being equal to her child or sibling.

    There are two different statements to debate. 1) Humans are superior to animals. 2) Pets should hold the same importance as a family member or other human being.
    Your first claim is that humans are animals. If you mean that humans have chosen a classification system in which humans fit under the kingdom Animalia, then yes humans are animals. But this isn't enough to equate the two for an argument of this kind. All this classification evidences is that scientists, for the sake of convenience, have associated humans with animals based on similarities. Such a classification provides no basis for ethical claims.

    Thus we must turn elsewhere for support for your claim. The only other source is a Naturalistic viewpoint of the world. In other words, the argument makes the assumption that humans and animals are all common relatives having evolved from a common source, and thus carrying similar worth. Is this thread making the assumption that this Naturalistic viewpoint is correct?

    Now, in specific: 1) I believe that humans are superior to animals for Biblical reasons. Thus if this thread is assuming a Naturalistic viewpoint, this thread does not encompass the issue entirely, but I have no leg to stand on, and thus no argument to your conclusion.

    2) Again, I believe that the basic structure of the family has been defined Biblically, and thus if this thread is making assumptions etc. etc. However, I cannot agree with your conclusion even if we are assuming a Naturalistic starting point. Importance is a relative term in a Naturalistic world. There is no such thing as universal importance in a naturalistic world, and thus importance is a relative word. Thus there is no correct posit that would satisfy this statement because it assumes such a universal standard.
    I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. - Albert Einstein
    If Satan can turn God's Word upside down and pervert the Scriptures, what will he do with my words -- or the words of others? - Martin Luther

  11. #51
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    37
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Humans>Animals

    To be absolutely honest, I was thinking along the exact same lines as Swindall one day and stumbled across the fact that I had the opinions stated in the OP. So, for the fun of it, I came up with some possible reasons to support that opinion and have completely enjoyed trying to debate for them, even if those are not the exact reasons I personally have for believing that. Its more of a challenge on my part to debate for something I'm not particularly passionate about. I've never thought so much about animals, their personalities, humans, etc. than I have in the past few days.

    Just thought I'd share, and let everyone know I may or may not continue with this. There's only so much I can talk/think about this issue before I either A) get a headache or B) get bored. Thanks for participating so far!
    C'est la vie. Such is life.
    Such is death. C'est la mort.

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •