User Controls
Kobe Bryant killed in helicopter crash
-
2020-01-28 at 3:05 PM UTCHumans are not animals.
-
2020-01-28 at 3:06 PM UTC
-
2020-01-28 at 3:06 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2020-01-28 at 3:08 PM UTCPeople always compare animals to humans, but that's like comparing apples to oranges; kind of a pointless exercise.
-
2020-01-28 at 3:10 PM UTC
-
2020-01-28 at 3:13 PM UTC
-
2020-01-28 at 3:15 PM UTC
-
2020-01-28 at 3:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL I want to learn about trees, so I'll study rocks. That's the "logic". They are so desperate to create an argument of worth that they'll draw completely irrelevant comparisons to sell it. So juvenile and shameful and lazy.
apples and oranges are both organic and both the fruits of trees and so very similar with a similar purpose.
Trees and rocks are not the same by any stretch of the imagination. -
2020-01-28 at 3:20 PM UTCThe numerals 4 and 17 both have horizontal lines in them, too. Doesn't mean anything, though. There's no real relevance or connection, other than they are both numbers and have straight lines in them.
-
2020-01-28 at 3:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL The numerals 4 and 17 both have horizontal lines in them, too. Doesn't mean anything, though. There's no real relevance or connection, other than they are both numbers and have straight lines in them.
Another poor example, 4 and 17 are similar in that they are both numbers. Finding (or creating to make a poor argument) singular differences doesn't detract from the similarities. -
2020-01-28 at 3:23 PM UTCAnimal:
Animals are multicellular eukaryotic organisms that form the biological kingdom Animalia. With few exceptions, animals consume organic material, breathe oxygen, are able to move, can reproduce sexually, and grow from a hollow sphere of cells, the blastula, during embryonic development.
Humans qualify. -
2020-01-28 at 3:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE Makes no sense retard.
Lots of animals have collaborative dynamics where killing inside the community would be a disadvantage, yet exhibit no moral behaviour or consideration.
Conversely we see pseudo-social morality such as territorial behaviour in animals where there is no cooperative structure at all.
Then it's just trivially false by just looking at the evolution of morality in the past 6000 years. If you are not retarded it is obvious their sense of morality is virtually nothing like ours even in the last 30 years. There's just not enough time for those changes to be genetic. What they are, and what is interesting and complicated and difficult to study rather than reductionist retardation by someone who barely grasps the subject, are changes from cultural evolution.
The problem to be solved is finding the junction between the two. Saying it's "just brain chemistry" is like explaining flight with "it's just air physics".
Most Animals don't use tools and build complex machine. The only reason we have culture and morality is because of technology -
2020-01-28 at 3:27 PM UTC
-
2020-01-28 at 3:27 PM UTC
-
2020-01-28 at 3:29 PM UTC
-
2020-01-28 at 3:29 PM UTC
-
2020-01-28 at 3:30 PM UTC
-
2020-01-28 at 3:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Not true, because in both cases there is a beneficial and a non-beneficial outcome. The only question is the weight of each. Some evils are greater than other evils, and some good is greater than other good. Has nothing to do with perspective, as something that is beneficial is always good, and something not beneficial is always bad.
'beneficial' is also very subjective and a complete human construct. -
2020-01-28 at 3:38 PM UTC
-
2020-01-28 at 3:38 PM UTC
