My point was that calling him a pedophile flat out, first thing first, in a clearly inflammatory way is only going to get your opponents to ignore anything else you say. Similarly, if I started out my point with "Jesus supports genocide, rape, and stonings," well, that's going to pretty much label me "flamebait" right then and there.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a big supporter of bringing down the monstrosity known as "political correctness." I believe we need to seek the truth above all else. But when dealing with the most important religious figures in history, you're walking on eggshells. Saying something in an aggressive or arrogant manner is just going to get you ignored and possibly just encourage the other side that they are right.
In the case of the Muslim prophet, I would like to know a few things, out of curiosity. For example, what was the age of consent back then? In some first world nations it's as low as 13. I would not be surprised to see that it was even lower than that nearly 2000 years ago.
And I also think what he was really like is of little importance, at least compared to the teachings left. Honestly, Muhammad could have been a pedophile... or not. Either way, I don't really think it matters. The truth is the truth, and a lie is a lie, told from the mouth of a jerk, a saint, a politician, or a prophet. Bringing such actions up in a situation discussing the religion he founded just seems to be asking for trouble.
Very nice way to troll. Because calling Muhammad a pedophile right off the bat will garner so much support.
Whereas I could also pull out a Bible and cite examples that support incest, beating your wife, and a multitude of other ideas.
Religion can be manipulated quite easily to justify just about anything you want to do. People have raped, slaughtered, robbed, and a plethora of other not-very-nice-things to people in the name of Jesus.
So, I don't particularly give a damn what any prophet or religious leader or whatever said anywhere at anytime. All that matters is "Are they doing it now, and if so, at what scale?" People will find their justification later.
Why stop at cameras? Why not ban sketch pads? People sitting in the park drawing that sky scraper COULD be terrorists. Sure, they SAY they're an art student practicing drawing infrastructure, but better safe than sorry, right? Come to think of it, you can draw on anything. We better ban paper. Wait, You can still draw on your skin. We need to ban pens and pencils.
Of course, cell-phones can transmit sounds from far away. Terrorists could be describing locations from up close to people far away to sketch. Good-bye phones. Especially since so many have hidden cameras in them.
Of course, cops and all other law enforcement agents will have cam-corders on at all times, especially when giving your house a surprise inspection, or questioning you for "looking suspicious."
Say, all that makes you NOT want to visit NYC? Well, I'd say that's mighty suspicious. Since when were YOU a terrorist sympathizer?
Honestly, this bullshit has got to stop. We need to put our collective foot down and say "Enough is enough." We need to: 1. Locate the nearest wall 2. Locate local politicians 3. Places 2. againt 1. 4. Let the revolution begin
Don't worry. When they pass the new legislation that will allow police officers to shoot anyone they don't like on sight, they will only use it to protect us from the terrorists* lurking around every corner right now.
This has been a message from the US Department of Fuck the Constitution.
*Not a guarantee, if you don't like it, move to Canada you pinko commie.
Chimps can. Pointing up, someone has made reference to that if you give a chimp a button, and that button will give him food, but also shock another chimp (either in sight or in earshot), the chimp will starve itself, rather than hurt another of its kind. Is this not a moral judgment, to forgo food to prevent harming another?
And as others have pointed out, other animals DO pass on knowledge from generation to generation. Prairie dogs, for example.
I'm not saying they do it as WELL as we do, but they do it. We ARE smarter. But truth be told, does that make us better? More advanced, sure, and smarter, yes, but better? That's a little too subjective for my tastes.
I apologize for butting into an argument that is none of my business, but I think I know why he constantly mocks you and refers to you in reference to female genitalia: Because he's an idiot with no leg to stand on. So far, his most persuasive argument is "That's wrong, and I know it's wrong because I'm a behavioral psychology major."
For someone so well-read in such a hard topic, he sure has problems understanding the fundamental rules of debate: 1. Insulting your opponent is always a loss. If you have to call your opponent a slut, you've already lost. 2. "That's wrong" is not an argument. "That's wrong, and here's why..." is. He has yet to demonstrate the former. 3. "I'm ignoring you" is essentially an admission of defeat.
Honestly, this type of behavior is better suited for a flame war on MySpace.
If there's a resource shortage, won't nuking a place and destroying resources be a rather suicidal move? I understand the principle of MAD is that these methods won't actualy BE used, but I just can't get over the overwhelming stupidity of it. "If we can't have the world, no one can!" Humanity gets wiped out and we don't even get to leave pretty corpses.
All animals are inherently different. A sloth is not a snail. A bird is not a snake. And each species boasts ways that it is different from its relatives on the evolutionary family tree. These things make us different, yes. And we humans have a LOT that set us apart. But how many differences does it take to go from "animal" to "not animal" (and not a plant, either)? As people above have pointed out, some animals have learned to mimic or even comprehend human language. What sets us apart from these creatures? Intelligence. Not a different kind of intelligence, but rather the degree.
Obviously I don't have the evidence to back this up, but I believe if you could increase or multiply the intelligence of a gorilla or a chimp, they would be, essentially, human in regards to abilities of problem solving and language skills (though speaking human language is nearly impossible due to the vocal structure of these animals, but they could develop one we could imitate as well).
Thus, the way I see it, we are much smarter than any animal we know of, but others are better at things we suck at. Using our intelligence, we can create tools and devices to compensate for these deficiencies.
The animal kingdom is a poker game, and we were just lucky enough to essentially get the "best" hand in terms of intelligence. But I still disagree that this makes us any less an animal species.
While I'll certainly respect your belief in a higher power, I would like to explain my belief a little.
My aunt said something similar to you. She said that without God, she wouldn't have a reason to get up in the morning. She's, apparently, gone through some extremely traumatic things in life that I should not share here. But it is the belief in an afterlife that keeps her going. And I do not know such a level of faith, and it's touching, in a way.
However, I don't think the universe cares very much. What if life truly has no meaning? What if life can be broken down to nothing more than equations and functions and formulas? Well, some people could not take such a revelation and might kill themselves, or slowly lose the will to live, and wilt away.
But so what? Even if that happens, life will go on. Not everyone will truly care (or possibly even accept) this fact, and go on. People will be mourned for, the world will change, yet it will go on. Animals, plants, and some humnans (if we are to consider ourselves "separate" from animals) will still reproduce and eventually it will probably be largely forgotten.
This, I'm sure, is a bleak picture. It's a world maybe not everyone, or ANYONE, wants to live in. But what if it IS? We didn't ask to come here. We simply came.It may not be what we wanted, but it very well may be all we have. I don't want the answer to life that will make me feel warm and snug at night. I don't want to hear an answer that will make me smile and content. I just want the truth. I want to know what there is and why there is. Even if it breaks me, if it kills me, if it destroys me, I want to look at the universe and see it for what it is.
And personally, when I look at natural disasters, war, disease, etc. the idea of an all powerful and all-knowing God sickens me. It sickens me that he could make a plan in this way. Who is he, Machiavelli? At least if there were no God I could say, "Well, it sucks, but what can we do?" Or maybe God isn't all-powerful. That kinda makes me laugh, the idea of God saying "Oops, sorry about that. I'm kinda new to this whole 'God' business." At least we know he, like us, is imperfect, and trying.
Or everything is as it is because the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a little tipsy at the time. Whoops.
You're right. The universe wouldn't care if I did that. Of course, if I killed you and took your assets, the universe wouldn't care, either. Either way, life goes on, world keeps on spinning, animals keep reproducing, and, at most, a specific number of people from your time and area (or if you're famous, a larger time and area) will mourn. They, too, will die, and life will still move on.
Now, I when did I say *WE* couldn't care? I do. You do.
But to say the universe, life itself, a wombat, an alien from Planet Z, etc. cares about our culture is just plain arrogance.
Well, I took it Freshman year in High School... I think I got a B+...
Honestly, I don't recall how many eggs a frog produces. I just used hyperbole to make my point. That point being that as long as creature is reproducing successfully, it's survival mechanisms obviously work.
This brings up some points. China is not the only one fighting its own government for freedom of information. We have hackers on this side of the Great Wall, too. It would be dangerous and difficult, but no matter how strong China's censorship is, it is not invincible.
I will admit our language skills far surpass that of any other animal on this planet. As far as we know, anyway.
Yet I still disagree that this makes us superior. While IANALOAB (I am not a linguist or a biologist) I would have to assume that there is some innate language within animals. That is, a dog will growl given the right stimulus, and does not need to be taught by its parents. I'd also assume we humans have this to an unknown (to me) extent (such as frowning, laughing, etc.). Yet, as humans, we create language. With that, we create words. This includes the word "superior" in itself. From a logical standpoint, we can therefore say that there is no natural concept of "superiority," as it is man-made. Thus, it would seem that there is no way for us to "naturally" be superior to other animals, only by the standards we create. It seems to me that this makes any speculation into the value of human action is only a matter of personal opinion.
Or to summarize, we can discern from many points of view that as far as we can tell, humans are more intelligent and more complex than any other known creature. However, nowhere have I seen that irrefutable proof that smarter = better. Could not one argue that happier = superior? If we believe that an animal can feel the same sensation of joy that we can, is a chimp that lives what it considers a full life superior to a physics professor who is brilliant yet depressed?
This is my belief, that life has no given meaning or value, and that any thoughts to the contrary are actually created and applied by ourselves. This does not mean that I feel we should all kill ourselves because woe is to us, life is meaningless... No, life is meaningless only if you do not find and create your own.
That's not what I'm saying. That's what YOU'RE saying.
I'm saying that culture and improvements are irrelevant. The universe does not care that we do things. The only ones who do care is... us.
In your book, that makes us better. But that's the thing, isn't it? It's YOUR book. Not OUR book. Not THEIR book. Just yours. I'm certain that many, if not most, or nearly all people share that idea with you (myself, too, in a way) but again, we defined what is "better." Life has no inherit value for attributes. It's like arguing over who's a better artist. Ultimately, it comes down to opinion.
You've yet to prove that this makes us better. You've proven only that we are smarter. This should be obvious. But I am asking WHY is intelligence significant? I believe it is significant only because we make it so.
Animals engage in physical competition, with the "alpha male" often resulting from the strongest and fastest. They determine the "superior specimen" this way. To them, physical fitness determines superiority. Then again, think of the social experiment known as High School. How many bullies found themselves "superior" to the nerds because they were bigger and stronger?
Humans are rather vain creatures, and we often define what's "good" and "better" as "what is similar to me or what I strive to be." As such, I find the argument that we are capable of defining things in our own languages to be somewhat egotistical. At the end of the day, we're still living creatures trying to pass on our DNA. How we accomplish that, or what we do when we're NOT trying to pass on genetic material, is mostly irrelevant on a cosmic scale.
That said, I do believe we've done remarkable things. Utterly mind-blowing at times. But I do take offense to the idea of superiority. We're all the same, really. We are, we do, we die. Such is life.
I've only been modded up to +4 as of this post. Clearly, our human skills at reading comprehension are not all they're cracked up to be.
And you hit the nail on the head. We define better. In our minds, smarter is better. Period. I'd like to consult the dolphins, apes, and mice to discuss this over dinner before it is accepted as fact. I'd prefer to know what a dolphin thinks about whilst swimming, and a mouse when not running a maze or plotting to discover the question to the ultimate answer of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Until then, saying we're "superior" is like saying you're the fastest man alive for coming in first in a race... when you were the only entrant.
Besides your atrocious grammar, thank you for completely missing my point.
I was saying that humans are indeed far, far more intelligent than any animal, but this is merely an evolutionary adaptation. Albeit an extremely complex one, but it's a survival mechanism nonetheless. And I also ask why is intelligence "superior" to other forms of survival? It's only so because WE as a species say it is. It's quite easy to be superior species when you write the definition of "superior."
No, you took my comment exactly as I intended. But as I posted to someone below you, I believe the idea of culture and passing on knowledge is important ONLY to humans. Why is technology important in the grand scheme of things? Our development has lead from the discovery of fire to exploration of other planets. But I ask, what is the significance of this? The only meaning behind such things is the meaning we give them. The moon does not care that we landed on it. Fish don't care that we've joined them at the bottom of many seas. Only we care. And we care, because accomplishing previously unimaginable feats makes us feel good about ourselves.
I do not mean to say that it is wrong for us to explore and be curious. Far from it. I think it's a truly wondrous thing. But we should realize that "meaning," "purpose," and "superiority" are all human-constructs.
I disagree completely. You say we are superior to animals. That is only because we define what "superior" is.
Dogs have never started international wars. A cat has never blown itself up to kill other cats. Animals don't release nearly as much dangerous chemicals into the air and water.
All meaning as we know it is man-made. Why is going to the moon significant? Why is adjusting the temperature in our habitats significant? Why is culture important?
These things are important because we make them so. We are curious creatures who feed that desire through these means. But I still ask, WHY is that "better?" What if the only meaning of life truly is procreation? If that's the case, I'd say insects have us beat, hands-down. I do not mean to downplay the awe-inspiring nature of human creation, only to point out that we, as humans, are the only ones who care.
Human intelligence comes with the heavy burden of purpose. We NEED our lives to have some meaning. We crave it like nothing else. I see much human progress as a result of this need. This does not mean I think this is a bad thing, but we should still see it for what it is: need fulfillment.
Well, when a system is as corrupted as the justice system is, sometimes the only way to beat it is to use it. If we can be sued and forced into a settlement, why can't we do the same to the jerk-offs who do did it to us? Imagine the dollar signs in lawyers across the country when they learn that they can be part of a settlement with a major record label.
To quote George Carlin, "Give me ONE reason why a human being is better than a chicken. Just ONE....See? Nobody can do it! Why? Because chickens are honest, living creatures!"
Let's look at the chicken/human comparison a little more: We both require and search for nourishment, often in a group. We take in that nourishment, where a complex series of systems provide energy to all the necessary cells of the body. We both have an innate desire after a certain period of time to combine our genetic material with another in hopes of keeping some portion of ourselves "alive". After a set amount of time, natural causes will end our lives, leaving room for the next generation to take our places.
Where exactly do we differ enough that we are so different? Because we use tools? Sorry, but so do other animals. Plenty of simians, and even some birds. Because we create communities where we work together and raise each other? Again, so do plenty of animals. Because we have "free will" and can act in good or evil ways, such as murdering our own? It's been shown that chimps can, in fact, commit murder.
Human beings are intelligent (...well, some of us, anyway...) because that's how we survived long enough to fuck. A frog is not as intelligent because... he doesn't need to be that smart and reasoning to survive. His mechanism is having 10,000 little eggs and, with any luck, a handful will survive to reproduce. Those whose mechanisms didn't work... well, they not here anymore. Ours? It worked. A vulture's design lets him eat rotting meat with little risk of getting sick. If a human ate that meat, he'd vomit. So, using intelligence, we created cooking. Lower risk of getting sick from food. A rhino has thick hide and a powerful horn to fend off predators. We can creates weaponry. Different means to the same end.
Slashdot Mirror
My point was that calling him a pedophile flat out, first thing first, in a clearly inflammatory way is only going to get your opponents to ignore anything else you say. Similarly, if I started out my point with "Jesus supports genocide, rape, and stonings," well, that's going to pretty much label me "flamebait" right then and there.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a big supporter of bringing down the monstrosity known as "political correctness." I believe we need to seek the truth above all else. But when dealing with the most important religious figures in history, you're walking on eggshells. Saying something in an aggressive or arrogant manner is just going to get you ignored and possibly just encourage the other side that they are right.
In the case of the Muslim prophet, I would like to know a few things, out of curiosity. For example, what was the age of consent back then? In some first world nations it's as low as 13. I would not be surprised to see that it was even lower than that nearly 2000 years ago.
And I also think what he was really like is of little importance, at least compared to the teachings left. Honestly, Muhammad could have been a pedophile... or not. Either way, I don't really think it matters. The truth is the truth, and a lie is a lie, told from the mouth of a jerk, a saint, a politician, or a prophet. Bringing such actions up in a situation discussing the religion he founded just seems to be asking for trouble.
Personally, I make my list and judge what wonders I want to see based on how useful they are when I build them in Civilization.
Great Wall of China? Psh. Walls are mostly useless.
But the Hanging Gardens? Aw yeah, +2 health to all cities, baby!
Very nice way to troll. Because calling Muhammad a pedophile right off the bat will garner so much support.
Whereas I could also pull out a Bible and cite examples that support incest, beating your wife, and a multitude of other ideas.
Religion can be manipulated quite easily to justify just about anything you want to do. People have raped, slaughtered, robbed, and a plethora of other not-very-nice-things to people in the name of Jesus.
So, I don't particularly give a damn what any prophet or religious leader or whatever said anywhere at anytime. All that matters is "Are they doing it now, and if so, at what scale?" People will find their justification later.
Vell, TWO can play at zis game!
A peanut vas valking down the street... and it vas ASSAULTED nut...
It also brings up another point.
Why stop at cameras? Why not ban sketch pads? People sitting in the park drawing that sky scraper COULD be terrorists. Sure, they SAY they're an art student practicing drawing infrastructure, but better safe than sorry, right? Come to think of it, you can draw on anything. We better ban paper. Wait, You can still draw on your skin. We need to ban pens and pencils.
Of course, cell-phones can transmit sounds from far away. Terrorists could be describing locations from up close to people far away to sketch. Good-bye phones. Especially since so many have hidden cameras in them.
Of course, cops and all other law enforcement agents will have cam-corders on at all times, especially when giving your house a surprise inspection, or questioning you for "looking suspicious."
Say, all that makes you NOT want to visit NYC? Well, I'd say that's mighty suspicious. Since when were YOU a terrorist sympathizer?
Honestly, this bullshit has got to stop. We need to put our collective foot down and say "Enough is enough." We need to:
1. Locate the nearest wall
2. Locate local politicians
3. Places 2. againt 1.
4. Let the revolution begin
Don't worry. When they pass the new legislation that will allow police officers to shoot anyone they don't like on sight, they will only use it to protect us from the terrorists* lurking around every corner right now.
This has been a message from the US Department of Fuck the Constitution.
*Not a guarantee, if you don't like it, move to Canada you pinko commie.
Chimps can. Pointing up, someone has made reference to that if you give a chimp a button, and that button will give him food, but also shock another chimp (either in sight or in earshot), the chimp will starve itself, rather than hurt another of its kind. Is this not a moral judgment, to forgo food to prevent harming another?
And as others have pointed out, other animals DO pass on knowledge from generation to generation. Prairie dogs, for example.
I'm not saying they do it as WELL as we do, but they do it. We ARE smarter. But truth be told, does that make us better? More advanced, sure, and smarter, yes, but better? That's a little too subjective for my tastes.
I apologize for butting into an argument that is none of my business, but I think I know why he constantly mocks you and refers to you in reference to female genitalia: Because he's an idiot with no leg to stand on. So far, his most persuasive argument is "That's wrong, and I know it's wrong because I'm a behavioral psychology major."
For someone so well-read in such a hard topic, he sure has problems understanding the fundamental rules of debate:
1. Insulting your opponent is always a loss. If you have to call your opponent a slut, you've already lost.
2. "That's wrong" is not an argument. "That's wrong, and here's why..." is. He has yet to demonstrate the former.
3. "I'm ignoring you" is essentially an admission of defeat.
Honestly, this type of behavior is better suited for a flame war on MySpace.
If there's a resource shortage, won't nuking a place and destroying resources be a rather suicidal move? I understand the principle of MAD is that these methods won't actualy BE used, but I just can't get over the overwhelming stupidity of it. "If we can't have the world, no one can!" Humanity gets wiped out and we don't even get to leave pretty corpses.
Apparently, you're a CIA operative. You tried to assassinate me by making me choke on the apple I was eating. Close, but no cigar, my friend.
Coincidentally, chickens think themselves superior for precisely this same reason.
Apologies to Douglas Adams.
All animals are inherently different. A sloth is not a snail. A bird is not a snake. And each species boasts ways that it is different from its relatives on the evolutionary family tree. These things make us different, yes. And we humans have a LOT that set us apart. But how many differences does it take to go from "animal" to "not animal" (and not a plant, either)? As people above have pointed out, some animals have learned to mimic or even comprehend human language. What sets us apart from these creatures? Intelligence. Not a different kind of intelligence, but rather the degree.
Obviously I don't have the evidence to back this up, but I believe if you could increase or multiply the intelligence of a gorilla or a chimp, they would be, essentially, human in regards to abilities of problem solving and language skills (though speaking human language is nearly impossible due to the vocal structure of these animals, but they could develop one we could imitate as well).
Thus, the way I see it, we are much smarter than any animal we know of, but others are better at things we suck at. Using our intelligence, we can create tools and devices to compensate for these deficiencies.
The animal kingdom is a poker game, and we were just lucky enough to essentially get the "best" hand in terms of intelligence. But I still disagree that this makes us any less an animal species.
While I'll certainly respect your belief in a higher power, I would like to explain my belief a little.
My aunt said something similar to you. She said that without God, she wouldn't have a reason to get up in the morning. She's, apparently, gone through some extremely traumatic things in life that I should not share here. But it is the belief in an afterlife that keeps her going. And I do not know such a level of faith, and it's touching, in a way.
However, I don't think the universe cares very much. What if life truly has no meaning? What if life can be broken down to nothing more than equations and functions and formulas? Well, some people could not take such a revelation and might kill themselves, or slowly lose the will to live, and wilt away.
But so what? Even if that happens, life will go on. Not everyone will truly care (or possibly even accept) this fact, and go on. People will be mourned for, the world will change, yet it will go on. Animals, plants, and some humnans (if we are to consider ourselves "separate" from animals) will still reproduce and eventually it will probably be largely forgotten.
This, I'm sure, is a bleak picture. It's a world maybe not everyone, or ANYONE, wants to live in. But what if it IS? We didn't ask to come here. We simply came.It may not be what we wanted, but it very well may be all we have. I don't want the answer to life that will make me feel warm and snug at night. I don't want to hear an answer that will make me smile and content. I just want the truth. I want to know what there is and why there is. Even if it breaks me, if it kills me, if it destroys me, I want to look at the universe and see it for what it is.
And personally, when I look at natural disasters, war, disease, etc. the idea of an all powerful and all-knowing God sickens me. It sickens me that he could make a plan in this way. Who is he, Machiavelli? At least if there were no God I could say, "Well, it sucks, but what can we do?" Or maybe God isn't all-powerful. That kinda makes me laugh, the idea of God saying "Oops, sorry about that. I'm kinda new to this whole 'God' business." At least we know he, like us, is imperfect, and trying.
Or everything is as it is because the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a little tipsy at the time. Whoops.
RAmen.
You're right. The universe wouldn't care if I did that.
Of course, if I killed you and took your assets, the universe wouldn't care, either. Either way, life goes on, world keeps on spinning, animals keep reproducing, and, at most, a specific number of people from your time and area (or if you're famous, a larger time and area) will mourn. They, too, will die, and life will still move on.
Now, I when did I say *WE* couldn't care? I do. You do.
But to say the universe, life itself, a wombat, an alien from Planet Z, etc. cares about our culture is just plain arrogance.
Well, I took it Freshman year in High School... I think I got a B+...
Honestly, I don't recall how many eggs a frog produces. I just used hyperbole to make my point. That point being that as long as creature is reproducing successfully, it's survival mechanisms obviously work.
This brings up some points. China is not the only one fighting its own government for freedom of information. We have hackers on this side of the Great Wall, too. It would be dangerous and difficult, but no matter how strong China's censorship is, it is not invincible.
I will admit our language skills far surpass that of any other animal on this planet. As far as we know, anyway.
Yet I still disagree that this makes us superior. While IANALOAB (I am not a linguist or a biologist) I would have to assume that there is some innate language within animals. That is, a dog will growl given the right stimulus, and does not need to be taught by its parents. I'd also assume we humans have this to an unknown (to me) extent (such as frowning, laughing, etc.). Yet, as humans, we create language. With that, we create words. This includes the word "superior" in itself. From a logical standpoint, we can therefore say that there is no natural concept of "superiority," as it is man-made. Thus, it would seem that there is no way for us to "naturally" be superior to other animals, only by the standards we create. It seems to me that this makes any speculation into the value of human action is only a matter of personal opinion.
Or to summarize, we can discern from many points of view that as far as we can tell, humans are more intelligent and more complex than any other known creature. However, nowhere have I seen that irrefutable proof that smarter = better. Could not one argue that happier = superior? If we believe that an animal can feel the same sensation of joy that we can, is a chimp that lives what it considers a full life superior to a physics professor who is brilliant yet depressed?
This is my belief, that life has no given meaning or value, and that any thoughts to the contrary are actually created and applied by ourselves. This does not mean that I feel we should all kill ourselves because woe is to us, life is meaningless... No, life is meaningless only if you do not find and create your own.
That's not what I'm saying. That's what YOU'RE saying.
I'm saying that culture and improvements are irrelevant. The universe does not care that we do things. The only ones who do care is... us.
In your book, that makes us better. But that's the thing, isn't it? It's YOUR book. Not OUR book. Not THEIR book. Just yours. I'm certain that many, if not most, or nearly all people share that idea with you (myself, too, in a way) but again, we defined what is "better." Life has no inherit value for attributes. It's like arguing over who's a better artist. Ultimately, it comes down to opinion.
You've yet to prove that this makes us better. You've proven only that we are smarter. This should be obvious. But I am asking WHY is intelligence significant? I believe it is significant only because we make it so.
Animals engage in physical competition, with the "alpha male" often resulting from the strongest and fastest. They determine the "superior specimen" this way. To them, physical fitness determines superiority. Then again, think of the social experiment known as High School. How many bullies found themselves "superior" to the nerds because they were bigger and stronger?
Humans are rather vain creatures, and we often define what's "good" and "better" as "what is similar to me or what I strive to be." As such, I find the argument that we are capable of defining things in our own languages to be somewhat egotistical. At the end of the day, we're still living creatures trying to pass on our DNA. How we accomplish that, or what we do when we're NOT trying to pass on genetic material, is mostly irrelevant on a cosmic scale.
That said, I do believe we've done remarkable things. Utterly mind-blowing at times. But I do take offense to the idea of superiority. We're all the same, really. We are, we do, we die. Such is life.
I've only been modded up to +4 as of this post. Clearly, our human skills at reading comprehension are not all they're cracked up to be.
And you hit the nail on the head. We define better. In our minds, smarter is better. Period. I'd like to consult the dolphins, apes, and mice to discuss this over dinner before it is accepted as fact. I'd prefer to know what a dolphin thinks about whilst swimming, and a mouse when not running a maze or plotting to discover the question to the ultimate answer of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Until then, saying we're "superior" is like saying you're the fastest man alive for coming in first in a race... when you were the only entrant.
Besides your atrocious grammar, thank you for completely missing my point.
I was saying that humans are indeed far, far more intelligent than any animal, but this is merely an evolutionary adaptation. Albeit an extremely complex one, but it's a survival mechanism nonetheless. And I also ask why is intelligence "superior" to other forms of survival? It's only so because WE as a species say it is. It's quite easy to be superior species when you write the definition of "superior."
No, you took my comment exactly as I intended. But as I posted to someone below you, I believe the idea of culture and passing on knowledge is important ONLY to humans. Why is technology important in the grand scheme of things? Our development has lead from the discovery of fire to exploration of other planets. But I ask, what is the significance of this? The only meaning behind such things is the meaning we give them. The moon does not care that we landed on it. Fish don't care that we've joined them at the bottom of many seas. Only we care. And we care, because accomplishing previously unimaginable feats makes us feel good about ourselves.
I do not mean to say that it is wrong for us to explore and be curious. Far from it. I think it's a truly wondrous thing. But we should realize that "meaning," "purpose," and "superiority" are all human-constructs.
I disagree completely. You say we are superior to animals. That is only because we define what "superior" is.
Dogs have never started international wars. A cat has never blown itself up to kill other cats. Animals don't release nearly as much dangerous chemicals into the air and water.
All meaning as we know it is man-made. Why is going to the moon significant? Why is adjusting the temperature in our habitats significant? Why is culture important?
These things are important because we make them so. We are curious creatures who feed that desire through these means. But I still ask, WHY is that "better?" What if the only meaning of life truly is procreation? If that's the case, I'd say insects have us beat, hands-down. I do not mean to downplay the awe-inspiring nature of human creation, only to point out that we, as humans, are the only ones who care.
Human intelligence comes with the heavy burden of purpose. We NEED our lives to have some meaning. We crave it like nothing else. I see much human progress as a result of this need. This does not mean I think this is a bad thing, but we should still see it for what it is: need fulfillment.
Well, when a system is as corrupted as the justice system is, sometimes the only way to beat it is to use it. If we can be sued and forced into a settlement, why can't we do the same to the jerk-offs who do did it to us? Imagine the dollar signs in lawyers across the country when they learn that they can be part of a settlement with a major record label.
To quote George Carlin, "Give me ONE reason why a human being is better than a chicken. Just ONE. ...See? Nobody can do it! Why? Because chickens are honest, living creatures!"
Let's look at the chicken/human comparison a little more:
We both require and search for nourishment, often in a group.
We take in that nourishment, where a complex series of systems provide energy to all the necessary cells of the body.
We both have an innate desire after a certain period of time to combine our genetic material with another in hopes of keeping some portion of ourselves "alive".
After a set amount of time, natural causes will end our lives, leaving room for the next generation to take our places.
Where exactly do we differ enough that we are so different? Because we use tools? Sorry, but so do other animals. Plenty of simians, and even some birds. Because we create communities where we work together and raise each other? Again, so do plenty of animals. Because we have "free will" and can act in good or evil ways, such as murdering our own? It's been shown that chimps can, in fact, commit murder.
Human beings are intelligent (...well, some of us, anyway...) because that's how we survived long enough to fuck. A frog is not as intelligent because... he doesn't need to be that smart and reasoning to survive. His mechanism is having 10,000 little eggs and, with any luck, a handful will survive to reproduce. Those whose mechanisms didn't work... well, they not here anymore. Ours? It worked. A vulture's design lets him eat rotting meat with little risk of getting sick. If a human ate that meat, he'd vomit. So, using intelligence, we created cooking. Lower risk of getting sick from food. A rhino has thick hide and a powerful horn to fend off predators. We can creates weaponry. Different means to the same end.
So, where's the difference?