• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Human Animals?

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Which includes humans. Generalizations suck at times.
Not really; everybody who lives in the real world knows if you are referred to as an animal, that is an insult! Even though we know we all fit the category of animal. Sometimes it is more important to understand what the person is trying to communicate to you than making sure they are using the correct usage of the word each word.
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
Not really; everybody who lives in the real world knows if you are referred to as an animal, that is an insult! Even though we know we all fit the category of animal. Sometimes it is more important to understand what the person is trying to communicate to you than making sure they are using the correct usage of the word each word.
What a silly argument!

Are humans inferior to plants? Why is no one insulted when they're referred to as a plant? A mineral?
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
I wasn't aware that you "use" a dog to enter your house. You've lost your train of thought somewhere along the way here. We were talking about "using" animals with their consent.
I was talking about consenting to be my pet, and all of that entails of being a pet.
As I said, it's about intent. Your analogy fails because you were unable to demonstrate identical intent.
Are you saying forcing a sex act on someone is okay as long as you have the right intent?
But since you have a problem letting go, let's go the other way and build on it.

Tell me how the acts described in your analogy place humans morally superior to non-humans. If a human can rape and murder for lust, how is this morally superior than a lion who rapes and murders for procreation?
So according to you, it is okay for a man to force a sex act on a woman so long as he does it to get her pregnant; it is only wrong if he does it due to lust! Is that your complete view? Or did I leave anything out.
Then you should specify non-human apes so we can understand what you mean.

I don't go to zoos, because I find them inhumane. But anyway, those in the cages would be chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, gibbons, bonobos, etc....all apes. Just like the apes that paid money to get in the zoo to gawk at them. All you have to do is go there and read the signs in front of these cages. You will find the species name on them. Find me one that says "ape" without any modifier under species and I'll concede my position.
I am only telling you what I mean when I say ape. If you have no idea what they have at the zoo, we are gonna have a hard time understanding each other.
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
I was talking about consenting to be my pet, and all of that entails of being a pet.
Fantastic. But that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about using animals and your saying they provide consent as our friends.

Are you saying forcing a sex act on someone is okay as long as you have the right intent?

So according to you, it is okay for a man to force a sex act on a woman so long as he does it to get her pregnant; it is only wrong if he does it due to lust! Is that your complete view? Or did I leave anything out.
No and no. For the third time, I'm saying your analogy fails and explaining to you why it does.

Do you know what "intent" means? If so, I'm confused by your path of logic that led you to these conclusions.

Or are you simply deflecting your failed logic and shifting goal posts?
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Do you recognize the difference between a house cat vs a lion; even though they are both in the cat family?
I do. I live with two domesticated cats and have handfed a lion (and a jaguar). Unfortunately you don't seem to understand the words "great ape."

Once again, for you to presumably ignore:

- Hominidae - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Fantastic. But that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about using animals and your saying they provide consent as our friends.
I said I have their consent. When an animal does not resist, or agrees to do as I wish, (usually for a treat/reward) I consider that consent.
No and no. For the third time, I'm saying your analogy fails and explaining to you why it does.

Do you know what "intent" means? If so, I'm confused by your path of logic that led you to these conclusions.

Or are you simply deflecting your failed logic and shifting goal posts?
I understand what intent means. So give me a scenario where it is okay to kill a woman's kids and force a sex act on her against her will. What intent could possibly makes this okay in your view?
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Ape is a loaded term; because when people think of apes, they think of modern apes; not the great ape which hasn't been around for a million years. The apes that are around today are not human.
1. Only loaded if one is ignorant of the meaning.

2. The "great apes" are still in existence. Godnose where you get the idea great apes became extinct a million years ago. The term includes us. Once again:
- Hominidae - Wikipedia
Hint: note the term "great ape." Helpfully it's in bold.
If you dislike reading, try speaking to a member of staff at a proper zoo (not some roadside ****hole).

3. Some of the apes around today are human. One of them is you.
 
Last edited:

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
I don't go to zoos, because I find them inhumane.
As an aside from this rather surreal thread...

I believe there are such places (called roadside zoos?) in the US that are truly disgusting, but proper zoos are at the forefront of trying to conserve species. In fact, that is their prime motivation these days. I've been a "Keeper for a Day" at one and what they are achieving is fantastic (and sadly necessary).

Example:
- Our Projects - What we do
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
I understand what intent means. So give me a scenario where it is okay to kill a woman's kids and force a sex act on her against her will. What intent could possibly makes this okay in your view?
I don't answer loaded questions, and again, we're done with your flawed analogy.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Superior in some ways but far inferior in many ways too. Hard to tell really, but most humans wouldn't survive in the wild without any aids or special knowledge. Most animals seem to though.
And of course there is only one species with the superior intelligence to be able to trigger a mass extinction event, cause a global climate crisis and significantly denude the biosphere. :coldsweat:
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
I don't answer loaded questions, and again, we're done with your flawed analogy.
You dont like my analogy because it exposes your claim as false. You claim humans are not superior to beasts, but you obviously judge humans at a much higher standard than you do beasts. Your actions speak louder than your words.,
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
You dont like my analogy because it exposes your claim as false. You claim humans are not superior to beasts, but you obviously judge humans at a much higher standard than you do beasts. Your actions speak louder than your words.,
Okay. Thanks for setting me straight.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Yes but irrelevant. In everyday language people do not refer to themselves as hominids, or bipeds, or eukaryotes, or....
No; it is completely relevant. When I said as a human I consider myself superior to dogs and apes, I was referring to canines and the type of apes you find in the zoo, then I explained why. Everybody then began to focus on the definition of apes in an effort to completely ignore the point I was making and attempted to shift the conversation to what is an ape rather than the point I was making.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
No; it is completely relevant. When I said as a human I consider myself superior to dogs and apes, I was referring to canines and the type of apes you find in the zoo, then I explained why. Everybody then began to focus on the definition of apes in an effort to completely ignore the point I was making and attempted to shift the conversation to what is an ape rather than the point I was making.
Dear god. It's simple. HUMANS ARE APES. You are not superior to apes because you ARE an ape. Dogs, cats, zoos, lions, and the word 'modern' have got absolutely nothing to do with this simple fact. As you said humans are part of the ape family. That's it. You're an ape.

Have you read that link? It seems not from your posts. The essential words are in red.

"The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɪdiː/), whose members are known as the great apes or hominids (/ˈhɒmɪnɪdz/), are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extant species in four genera: Pongo (the Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutan); Gorilla (the eastern and western gorilla); Pan (the chimpanzee and the bonobo); and Homo, of which only modern humans (Homo sapiens) remain."
 
Top