06-02-2007, 06:05 AM
06-05-2007, 09:45 PM
I can see where most people are coming from in this thread. I think the comment that started the discussion (that *** people "are like pet monkeys") is in an inappropriate remark because it implies that both forms of life, *** humans and non-human primates, are both inherently inferior to non-*** humans. In my head it would be no different than saying that *** people "are like pet black people" - it's a ridiculous comparison that serves no purpose other than to demean both groups and say that one form of life is superior and deserves more respect than another.
06-06-2007, 06:30 PM
Louise18 Wrote:
Natalie Wrote:
I can see where most people are coming from in this thread. I think the comment that started the discussion (that *** people "are like pet monkeys") is in an inappropriate remark because it implies that both forms of life, *** humans and non-human primates, are both inherently inferior to non-*** humans. In my head it would be no different than saying that *** people "are like pet black people" - it's a ridiculous comparison that serves no purpose other than to demean both groups and say that one form of life is superior and deserves more respect than another.
Thats because it is. Non *** humans can do everything *** humand do and then some. On what basis are you making life equal?
Do you believe in God? Well I don't, and as far as I am concerned this is the only life we have. What exactly makes *** individuals any less entitled to enjoy their one life as best they can? Do you feel that way about animals as well? Just because they cannot build cities or write books doesn't mean they have any less of a right to live and be free from suffering than non-*** humans.
The burden of proof is on you: On what basis are you making life composed of effectively identical cells not equal?
06-06-2007, 10:56 PM
No, I'm not a vegetarian. It seems unnatural to me because Homo sapiens and its ancestors evolved to be omnivores. I don't see how that has anything to do with respect.
By your reasoning, you seem to be saying that it's perfectly acceptable to abuse a *** person, a bonobo, or even a another non-*** person simply because they cannot or have not achieved what you deem to be acceptable accomplishments. That or you're mistakingly using the words "respect" and "admiration" interchangeably.
If the former, I think you're going to find out very quickly that eugenicist ideologies aren't exactly looked up to here or in the real world.
By your reasoning, you seem to be saying that it's perfectly acceptable to abuse a *** person, a bonobo, or even a another non-*** person simply because they cannot or have not achieved what you deem to be acceptable accomplishments. That or you're mistakingly using the words "respect" and "admiration" interchangeably.
If the former, I think you're going to find out very quickly that eugenicist ideologies aren't exactly looked up to here or in the real world.
06-10-2007, 05:55 PM
I would say that at least the other living Great Apes have insight and understanding of the world, their actions, and the actions of others. Some groups of chimpanzees have been known to coordinate "assassinations" against other members of their troop, and we've all heard how apparently Koko the gorilla cried for two days when told that her pet cat, All Ball, got hit by a car and died (that was even without her seeing the body).
06-10-2007, 07:19 PM
Quote:
In my definition of consciousness a person is conscious only when fully aware and a master of himself, totally free and responsible for what he does and doesn't do.
It must also be remembered, however, that scientists are continually collecting evidence that shows that even our behavior is predetermined by our genetic make-up, and there is no reason why it wouldn't be. The notion of completely free will has become outdated, and that's why most people don't think that gays can just choose to be straight or that clinically depressed individuals can't just choose to be happy. I don't believe that anyone can be the "complete master" of themselves (though that doesn't give anyone permission to go out and kill people because they felt like it).
Also, apes and monkeys do indeed smile (a behavior strongly distinct from barring teeth in aggression), but they don't do it for all the same reasons humans do. When other primates smile, the do it to indicate submission and non-hostility towards superior members of their group, much like an employee in an office would nervously smile at his strict boss as he walked by. Humans still exhibit this exact behavior, but we have also expanded smiling behavior to occur when just about any friendly interaction is taking place.
06-28-2007, 05:12 PM
I think if other great apes did have the right vocal cord structure to speak understandable words, they most definitely would. They certainly have the capacity to understand spoken language, and I've read that Koko even understands more spoken words than she does signed words (but when she "speaks", she can only use sign language). I was watching some documentary on Koko like five years ago where Koko was drinking a glass of water and Dr. Penny (the person who takes care of her) said something to the effect of "Koko, you can have one more glass of water and then you have to go to bed, OK?". Dr. Penny didn't use any sign language at all when she said that, but Koko perfectly understood what she was saying (she went and got her own glass of water and then left the room). I thought that was amazing.
07-28-2007, 06:59 AM
I see Louise18 has not posted in several weeks. Can we assume she espoused her Nazi philosophy in real life and they killed her?
I guess it's too soon to leap to that conclusion, but I tend to be an optimist.
I guess it's too soon to leap to that conclusion, but I tend to be an optimist.
08-25-2007, 06:40 AM
Does anyone in this thread have even the slightest belief in God!?
Geez, this is depressing. Where's GuessWho when you need him?
Geez, this is depressing. Where's GuessWho when you need him?
08-26-2007, 12:17 AM
Belief in, and therefore reliance on, any sort of personal god is one of the main things holding back humanity from reaching its full potential, in my opinion. Think where areas like the Middle East and Darfur would be if people didn't devote all their time fighting over petty religious beliefs... They could be using their resources to advance their scientific knowlege to cure diseases of epidemic proportions like HIV and malaria, instead of clinging to useless religiously-based superstitions like raping virgins as "cures" for these illnesses. Religion by its very nature hinders true scientific development (belief in miracles and supernatural events, "God did it, no need to study it" kind of attitude, etc.), and I look forward to the day when the human population outgrows its belief in "God" and removes its inevitably-associated veils of ignorance.
All that aside, humans are certainly not the only animals that kill for no reason other than enjoyment - some other primates (as mentioned before) do it, as do some cetaceans, and it has even been recorded in elephants. I wouldn't be surprised if even some of the advanced birds (namely those of the family Corvidae) kill for fun as well. The behavior is most noted and organized in Chimps, though, who even have what could easily be classified as political assassinations.
All that aside, humans are certainly not the only animals that kill for no reason other than enjoyment - some other primates (as mentioned before) do it, as do some cetaceans, and it has even been recorded in elephants. I wouldn't be surprised if even some of the advanced birds (namely those of the family Corvidae) kill for fun as well. The behavior is most noted and organized in Chimps, though, who even have what could easily be classified as political assassinations.
09-04-2007, 06:52 AM
Louise18 Wrote:
I am an oxonian Law student. I am positively *** at Maths and Science, and consider anyone studying either of these at a good university to be my superior, at least on the scale of what they potentially have to offer society. As far as scientific achievement is concerned, finding out what does not work still increases human knowledge, which is more important than the transient happiness of individuals who will disappear without a mark in history of their existence.
There's a lot of folks who disappear without a mark in history of their existence, plenty of them NTs who had potential but squandered it for whatever reason--e.g. lifelong emotional problems, lack of academic ability, manic depression, drug addiction etc.
Anyhow, your return to this board feels like a dark storm cloud suddenly making its presence known.
09-04-2007, 06:55 AM
Louise18 Wrote:
It is certainly possible for hanus acts to negate a person's value.
Hanus acts=heinous acts
Oxonian law student, literary genius--no doubt...
09-04-2007, 07:07 AM
anbuend Wrote:
Note that I do have some personal insight into this, and am not just talking out my posterior: My father worked in a research facility (see this (PDF) for an example of the sort of things they did). He was a technician, not a researcher, but he and the others with his job designed and built the electronics, dug the ditches, hauled the test equipment around, etc. And everyone in that whole place was necessary to keep it running, from the people doing purely manual labor to the cafeteria workers to the people doing skilled electronics work to the physicists at the top of the hierarchy who got the credit when the Nobel prizes got handed out. But it was everyone who made it work, and they couldn't have done it without each other, and everyone there was more aware of that than Louise seems to be. Scientific discoveries are not made by heroic individualistic supermen sitting around in vacuums, they're generally made by teams of people, most of whom work for little to no credit but who are nonetheless indispensable. Without the rest of the team, the physicists would be sitting around unable to discover much of anything, and without the physicists, the rest of the team wouldn't be preparing for the right jobs, etc, it's a genuine interdependent relationship, theoretical and practical people working together. And you'll notice the "acknowledgements" section of that article I linked to is huge -- for a reason. Seriously, read through those two pages of acknowledgements and you'll get an idea of a fraction of how many people's work go into things like that.
Indeed, look at the credits for any modern day mainstream film, you'll see that the number of people credited has tripled or quadrupled over the decades... The director deserves a great deal of credit for his creativity and the "vision" needed to make it happen, but you simply wouldn't be able to make a flashy summer blockbuster without a crew of thousands.
09-24-2007, 02:01 AM
What I don't get is why Louise doesn't realize that you can't get very far in life when you hate everyone and everyone hates you (which is what she is doing to herself). Aspie or not, significant life achievements require excellent social connections with other people (and lots of people, at that). No one will want to befriend a snotty kid with delusions of superiority, even if they are as smart or smarter than the said individual. This is just a fact of life, a fact of human nature. If Louise is as intelligent as she attempts to imply, it seems she would have recognized this some time ago.
09-26-2007, 09:31 PM
tenaciouscj Wrote:
I saw some old posts by Louise last year and she seemed quite humble then. So, I wonder what happened in the meantime to seemingly change her attitude so much.
Perhaps she tried talking to people in real life the way she talks to people here and she was beaten by an angry (yet happy) mob. The resulting brain damage would explain many things...