poorer long-term survival mechanism compared to courtship species.
Evolution doesn’t care about ideal mechanics- only good enough. Rape was common in the ancient world. Rape happens today despite the long term survival favoring long term pairs.
Higher animals certainly possess more self-awareness than rocks
I was relating the spectrum of intelligence. That is human is to animal as animal is to rock. I didn’t claim that animals have no awareness but that they are less than humans. So attributing nobility to what is really a lack of ability is like attributing nobility to a rock.
A rooster would plot and murder its neighbors if it had the intelligence and opposable thumbs to make weapons.
Evolution doesn’t care about ideal mechanics- only good enough. Rape was common in the ancient world. Rape happens today despite the long term survival favoring long term pairs.
There’s certainly some facts & reality there, professor, but that still doesn’t change the fundamental point which Adams’ made, and I defended. It’s like you’re freely swinging from ‘matters of proportion’ to binary values in order to fit your argument.
So attributing nobility to what is really a lack of ability is like attributing nobility to a rock.
Which was a poor analogy from day one, considering the many permutations.
Also-- that’s a pretty weird, tight-ass understanding of what Adams meant by “nobility.”
Like, seriously…?
A rooster would plot and murder its neighbors if it had the intelligence and opposable thumbs to make weapons.
Okay, you win on that one-- I fear you’re exactly right there; ala chickens being such unnecessary assholes towards each other and other creatures.
Tell you what, though-- feel free to have the last reply.
It’s like you dance around a smidgen of a circuitous argument, but can never actually figure out what you’re actually trying to say. (or think)
Good luck, you.
but that still doesn’t change the fundamental point
A poster pointed out that animals aren’t better than humans and will do anything they can get away with just like humans. You attempted to appeal to evolution which I refuted. The refutation means Adams is wrong. Animals are like humans because humans are animals too.
It’s like you dance around a smidgen of a circuitous argument
Evolution doesn’t care about ideal mechanics- only good enough. Rape was common in the ancient world. Rape happens today despite the long term survival favoring long term pairs.
I was relating the spectrum of intelligence. That is human is to animal as animal is to rock. I didn’t claim that animals have no awareness but that they are less than humans. So attributing nobility to what is really a lack of ability is like attributing nobility to a rock.
A rooster would plot and murder its neighbors if it had the intelligence and opposable thumbs to make weapons.
There’s certainly some facts & reality there, professor, but that still doesn’t change the fundamental point which Adams’ made, and I defended. It’s like you’re freely swinging from ‘matters of proportion’ to binary values in order to fit your argument.
Which was a poor analogy from day one, considering the many permutations.
Also-- that’s a pretty weird, tight-ass understanding of what Adams meant by “nobility.”
Like, seriously…?
Okay, you win on that one-- I fear you’re exactly right there; ala chickens being such unnecessary assholes towards each other and other creatures.
Tell you what, though-- feel free to have the last reply.
It’s like you dance around a smidgen of a circuitous argument, but can never actually figure out what you’re actually trying to say. (or think) Good luck, you.
A poster pointed out that animals aren’t better than humans and will do anything they can get away with just like humans. You attempted to appeal to evolution which I refuted. The refutation means Adams is wrong. Animals are like humans because humans are animals too.
You insult when you’ve been proven wrong. Nice.
OH!
My poor little one… :-(
😒
Ohh, you’re so clever…
You got me, pard!
<falls over dead>