Humans are egotistical when it comes to god.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Sceptical about everything except the one thing you should be.

You are sure of the one things you should have doubts about too,
and this game can go on and on.
Kelly

Originally posted by Bad wolf
As far as I'm concerned humans have been programmed by nature to think, with our large brains, our intelligence, we can consider all of the different factors and consequences would take and take appropriate action; instead of just making rash, quick decisions instinct would make.

If you can think of instinct as the base code of all life, some call it the ...[text shortened]... ..
Animals that aren't intelligent, rely on their instincts pretty much totally instead.

Loins and dogs will always act as loins and dogs, seals will act like
seals, they are not 'evil' they are simply loins, dogs, and seals if they
do things we like or dislike. People on the other hand require justice
from one aother, we hold other people to standards, we justify
selves and make excuses when we think we can be put in a bad light
for our actions. We live in a universe where justice is demanded
among men for the things we do. We do not allow our most base
desires to control us, and those that choose to fullfil them by the
mistreatment of others we punish when it is brought to light. You
can be a person and act as a person should not act, but we
acknowledge animals doing what animals do because that is how they
are wired. We only call them bad when they break training or do
something against our personal tastes or desires, which really have
nothing to do with animal nature, that has more to do with us.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Better can be used a thousand different ways, and many of them are
not true, small example birds (some of them) fly or swim better than
all people. I think value is a better word after thinking about it, we are
better in many ways, but more valuable in my opinion is a better way
to view it. There isn’t an animal I think I’d put above any human as
far as save the animal before I’d save a human.
Kelly

Yep, I totally agree here. 🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay
Better can be used a thousand different ways, and many of them are
not true, small example birds (some of them) fly or swim better than
all people. I think value is a better word after thinking about it, we are
better in many ways, but more valuable in my opinion is a better way
to view it. There isn’t an animal I think I’d put above any human as
far as save the animal before I’d save a human.
Kelly

How about this hypothetical situation:

Two animals are in mortal danger and you can only save one of them.

One is the last male african elephant (there are several females but this the last male)
The other is Adolf Hitler.

Which would you save and which would you knowingly sacrifice? I know which way I'd go.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
How about this hypothetical situation:

Two animals are in mortal danger and you can only save one of them.

One is the last male african elephant (there are several females but this the last male)
The other is Adolf Hitler.

Which would you save and which would you knowingly sacrifice? I know which way I'd go.

--- Penguin.

Can I take a go at answering this?

At what point in Hitler's life?
Before he did all of those horrible things, after it, or sometime during it?
This is important.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Loins and dogs will always act as loins and dogs, seals will act like
seals, they are not 'evil' they are simply loins, dogs, and seals if they
do things we like or dislike. People on the other hand require justice
from one aother, we hold other people to standards, we justify
selves and make excuses when we think we can be put in a bad light
for our a ...[text shortened]... ires, which really have
nothing to do with animal nature, that has more to do with us.
Kelly

Personally, I feel this just a really impressive extension of what animals do already to some degree.
For example, Penguins, if a Penguin loses their little baby Penguin to the intense weather, often, they are so distraught that they decide to try to take a bay Penguin from another Parent; but the other Penguins won't allow this and they intervene.
- Note, group morals you could say.

I don't see what you are really getting at, we are responsible for our own actions, by others, our intelligence overrides our base instinctual desires, I thought I explained that, so our choices need to be responsible ones.
You say Loins (Lions?!) will act like Loins, seals will act like seals, but are you somehow suggesting that Humans will not act like Humans? Clearly I think they do.
Humans are programmed by nature to think.


You have groups animals together in one big chunk, and Humans in another.
I don't think this is such a good idea.
Clearly some animals don't show any group behaviour, these are that bottom, Primates are further up, they show a lot of group behaviour; what is human group behaviour other than what we consider right and wrong? Killing someone is wrong is it not, but it wrong because it is detrimental to the group, clearly it is.
What is Human behaviour other than an extension, of what is possible in the animal kingdom?
Why make a a distinction?: Why separate animal behaviour, which itself has many levels, from that of Human behaviour, which is more intellectually driven?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are sure of the one things you should have doubts about too,
and this game can go on and on.
Kelly

Look, if we want to go down your stupid little road to its conclusion, I can't tell if you are self-aware or it's just an illusion. I can't even tell whether I'm self aware, or whether it's just an illusion. Forget chimpanzees and elephants. You assume that I'm self aware because my actions are consistent with those of a self aware being. So, what's so wrong with assuming an elephant is self aware if it behaves in a manner consistent with that of a self-aware organism.

Your split between humans and other animals is completely artificial, and that's why it's just so narcissistic.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
Can I take a go at answering this?

At what point in Hitler's life?
Before he did all of those horrible things, after it, or sometime during it?
This is important.

It's hitler at the height of his power. He's propagating a world war, promoting facist supremecy and ordering the extermination of Gypsies, Jews, Gays, Blacks and anyone else who does not match his view of the Master Race.

And you are well aware of all he is doing (it's a hypothetical situation to make a point with regard to KJ's assertion that he would save any human before a member of any other species).

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Loins and dogs will always act as loins and dogs, seals will act like
seals, they are not 'evil' they are simply loins, dogs, and seals if they
do things we like or dislike. People on the other hand require justice
from one aother, we hold other people to standards, we justify
selves and make excuses when we think we can be put in a bad light
for our a ...[text shortened]... ires, which really have
nothing to do with animal nature, that has more to do with us.
Kelly

Lion. Repeat it until you can spell it.



li·on (lī'ən) pronunciation
n.

1. A large carnivorous feline mammal (Panthera leo) of Africa and northwest India, having a short tawny coat, a tufted tail, and, in the male, a heavy mane around the neck and shoulders.


loin (loin) pronunciation
n.

1. The part of the body of a human or quadruped on either side of the backbone and between the ribs and hips.

Originally posted by Penguin
It's hitler at the height of his power. He's propagating a world war, promoting facist supremecy and ordering the extermination of Gypsies, Jews, Gays, Blacks and anyone else who does not match his view of the Master Race.

And you are well aware of all he is doing (it's a hypothetical situation to make a point with regard to KJ's assertion that he would save any human before a member of any other species).

--- Penguin.

I'd save Hitler and put him back in power.

Please don't call me a Fascist or anything like that, let me explain:

Altering the time line in the past would have unknown consequences for the future, who knows what would happen?
But I think more importantly, once Hitler and his Nazi party got in power, it has been noted by many Historians that Hitler made a lot of errors in his Military decisions, and that if he just left these decisions to his Generals, winning the war would have been more difficult, we may have even lost.
Then what would have happened?
Would the Nazi party would have continued with what Hitler wanted? I think they would.

Originally posted by Penguin
How about this hypothetical situation:

Two animals are in mortal danger and you can only save one of them.

One is the last male african elephant (there are several females but this the last male)
The other is Adolf Hitler.

Which would you save and which would you knowingly sacrifice? I know which way I'd go.

--- Penguin.

Does that have to do with the elephant or your judgment towards
Hitler? You want to condemn Hitler, then condemn Hitler, but if it were
saving a person or a animal, I'll save the person.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Look, if we want to go down your stupid little road to its conclusion, I can't tell if you are self-aware or it's just an illusion. I can't even tell whether [b]I'm self aware, or whether it's just an illusion. Forget chimpanzees and elephants. You assume that I'm self aware because my actions are consistent with those of a self aware bein ...[text shortened]... s and other animals is completely artificial, and that's why it's just so narcissistic.[/b]

You joining the two as equal is between your ears too, big deal.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]Lion. Repeat it until you can spell it.



li·on (lī'ən) pronunciation
n.

1. A large carnivorous feline mammal (Panthera leo) of Africa and northwest India, having a short tawny coat, a tufted tail, and, in the male, a heavy mane around the neck and shoulders.


loin (loin) pronunciation
n.

1. The part of the body of a human or quadruped on either side of the backbone and between the ribs and hips.[/b]

Wow, you have taken up the spell checkers job. You really need a life.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Wow, you have taken up the spell checkers job. You really need a life.
Kelly

I'd say a working scientist IS a life. What do you do? Your best to destroy over 100 years of evolutionary development. Show me in scientific terms where they are wrong.
You prove my point exactly about religious people being totally egotistical when it comes to god and your self supposed superiority over the other animals on the planet. You set yourself up as being in the top rung and thus it doesn't matter in a moral sense our genocide of entire species. You don't seem to understand the relationship between species numbers and a real ecology, you lose sharks, a lot of other fish die off, etc. But that doesn't matter to you because we are on the top of the rung.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Wow, you have taken up the spell checkers job. You really need a life.
Kelly

If you'd made the mistake once or twice, I'd let it go. But you made it post after post, time after time.

The fact that you don't even know how to spell a simple word (which would seem central to your argument) doesn't bode well for anything else.

You, likewise, attack accepted scientific knowledge because it contradicts your own narcissistic belief that YOU are more important than anything else in the world. It's people like you that are destroying this world, because you refuse to acknowledge that anything else has as much of a right to exist as you do.