Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sigvatr wrote:


c) Humans are VASTLY different from animals in so many regards that it ain't even funny. Especially when it comes to relationships. If you want to compare your motivation for a relationship to the one of a dog or a whale...well, be it. I don't recommend explaining this to your SO though.

No we are not. Sociology of tendencies animals and humans are amazingly close. It is supreme arrogance to assume we are extremely distinct from the animal kingdom.

 Slarg232 wrote:


Not you you, but you in general.

Good, because I'm not stating anything

Just showing up that the animal metaphor is a terrible thing to use in such discussions.

nkelsch wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:


c) Humans are VASTLY different from animals in so many regards that it ain't even funny. Especially when it comes to relationships. If you want to compare your motivation for a relationship to the one of a dog or a whale...well, be it. I don't recommend explaining this to your SO though.

No we are not. Sociology of tendencies animals and humans are amazingly close. It is supreme arrogance to assume we are extremely distinct from the animal kingdom.

*nods and smiles*

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:


Not you you, but you in general.

Good, because I'm not stating anything

Just showing up that the animal metaphor is a terrible thing to use in such discussions.

Exactly, except the morons using it as proof of why homosexuality is wrong keep trotting it out anyways.

Did people take my idea and think I was being inconsiderate O.O

For my ethics and philosophy (No google, I don't mean SYPHILIUS) books I have gotten and read over. I can say that the only defense for someone minus the religious argument of course is the superiority idea and we don't see it in nature.

Yet.... We can see this completely proven false, we aren't superior to animals in terms of muscles, cleverness, speed. I know animals that could literally rip my head off, and chase me down and maim me. Or the gorilla that waits patiently and then tears my limbs off and uses me as a bat or something else. Yet we beat animals in intelligence. Yeah. Lets think about that. Lets see what humanity has contributed to earth. Pollution, war, famines, destruction, murder, climate change, extinction. If anything animals are far better than humans in every degree. So that shoots down superiority.

Now onto what is natural... On homoeroticism.

Because through out human history at least 15% of the human population has been gay or homosexual. I think its natures way of weeding out genetics.

Okay let me give you example of two societies.

One society is male dominated and its tribal, all the men are heterosexual. Every Few years all the men compete against each other to get a suitable wife or mate. So all the males are gone leaving the women and the older and very young folk by themselves to defend the tribe. Leaving it quite vulnerable to attack.

Then the second society male dominated again, but 15% of the men are homosexual.. Every few years like the other men, they all compete to get a suitable wife or mate. But instead of all the males leaving, the homosexual men stay behind to protect the tribe/home.

Which society is more stable?

The second one. Which one is the most well defended? The Second one.

Homosexuality is something natural and it happens to select groups of people. Its like natures way of booting people out of the genepool. This is both good and bad. Because have you seen most gay guys? With there massive masculinity. (If your gay and you want to stay in the genepool donate your sailors.)

I mean the Spartans were homoerotic, they didn't care they were warriors, The Knights of old were as well during the crusades. Roman Soldiers gayed it up during war, hell senators had sex regularly if there wives were away with other senators.. The Bloody french had orgies for crying out loud. Man homophobes make no sense to me as there has been homosexuality since well. The beginning of mammals.

 Slarg232 wrote:
Nevermind that something like 112 or 118 (Forget which) other mammal species on the planet have homosexuality.

Maybe it's Mammals. Mammals must be weird.......

Very few non-mammals have a penis. Even among other vertebrates it is quite uncommon. Insects have an analogous organ called an aedeagus (though in some rare cases the female has the analogous organ instead).

Sex becomes increasingly weird and unrecognizable among other species, with many being hermaphroditic. Even animals with similar organs can do things in a very different way. For the stuff of nightmares check out Traumatic Insemination (and yes, it also comes in 'gay')*.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Homosexuality is something natural and it happens to select groups of people. Its like natures way of booting people out of the genepool.

My head canon is that in pre-neolithic hunter-gatherer society, while all the men were out hunter-gathering, girls still needed someone to open pickle jars and take shoe shopping. Thus the GBFF was born out of necessity. Girls without a GBFF weren't able to eat pickles, and had crap shoes, so they all died out... That's how evolution works.

*horrendous pun accidental

Homosexuality left aside, I don't know if it'd be morally okay to laugh at the last two posts

 Sigvatr wrote:
Humans are VASTLY different from animals in so many regards that it ain't even funny. Especially when it comes to relationships. If you want to compare your motivation for a relationship to the one of a dog or a whale...well, be it. I don't recommend explaining this to your SO though.

But humans are animals so confused now.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
an·i·mal
ˈanəməl/
noun
noun: animal; plural noun: animals

1.
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Sounds like characteristics of a human to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We're you sleeping in biology class during high school?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Humans are VASTLY different from animals in so many regards that it ain't even funny. Especially when it comes to relationships. If you want to compare your motivation for a relationship to the one of a dog or a whale...well, be it. I don't recommend explaining this to your SO though.

But humans are animals so confused now.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
an·i·mal
ˈanəməl/
noun
noun: animal; plural noun: animals

1.
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Sounds like characteristics of a human to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We're you sleeping in biology class during high school?

He was giving examples of arguments. Those aren't his actual arguments for humans not being animals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Homosexuality left aside, I don't know if it'd be morally okay to laugh at the last two posts

Its okay. My post is a satire of many religious arguments against homosexuality or same sex marriage.

 Cheesecat wrote:

1.
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Sounds like characteristics of a human to me.

Oh, they certainly are. The problem is that they aren't sufficient. You could also use a broader definition - two legs, two arms, highly developed nerve system, likes to throw crap at people...looks fitting too, doesn't it? Not sufficient either, though.

Not going to get deep into it, just brought up the point because a lot of people make the false assumption that a human automatically is an animal because of shared biological characteristics while completely disregarding the vastly superior, and different, mental abilities. Especially in regards to relationships - which we're talking of right now

I could go further into semantic-nazi territory, e.g. by claiming that there is no arguing against homosexuality as it already exists. But alas, that'd be boring for all participants.

We're you sleeping in biology class during high school?

Were you sleeping in English class?

Dat burn! ;D

 Sigvatr wrote:
Oh, they certainly are. The problem is that they aren't sufficient. You could also use a broader definition - two legs, two arms, highly developed nerve system, likes to throw crap at people...looks fitting too, doesn't it? Not sufficient either, though.

Not going to get deep into it, just brought up the point because a lot of people make the false assumption that a human automatically is an animal because of shared biological characteristics while completely disregarding the vastly superior, and different, mental abilities. Especially in regards to relationships - which we're talking of right now

I could go further into semantic-nazi territory, e.g. by claiming that there is no arguing against homosexuality as it already exists. But alas, that'd be boring for all participants.

So what does a Human have that is vastly superior in mental abilities? We can't make any sort of counter claim unless you give us a few reasons you believe humans to be superior.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Not going to get deep into it, just brought up the point because a lot of people make the false assumption that a human automatically is an animal because of shared biological characteristics while completely disregarding the vastly superior, and different, mental abilities.

But a human being is an animal, sharing many characteristics with a number of animals from a wide range of the tree of life. You also seem to be ignoring that the similarity works both ways with animals sharing many "human" characteristics. It is why animal models are valid in a lot of both physiological and psychological studies.

 Slarg232 wrote:


So what does a Human have that is vastly superior in mental abilities? We can't make any sort of counter claim unless you give us a few reasons you believe humans to be superior.

I am not going to elaborate a lot further on this in this thread, sorry, as it's off-topic and was only used by myself to comment on the relationship part which is a good example for a big difference between how mankind and animals work. Humans and animals are definitely similar, some more, some less, and the main difference is the superior mental abilities humans have, especially in regards to controlling instincts / affection.

Humans are animals if you only look at strictly biological abilities. In order to define humans / animals, or rather the difference between them, you have to widen your scope.

 Sigvatr wrote:


Were you sleeping in Englisch class?

Dat burn! ;D

I don't know if he was, but you most certainly slept through English class.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:


Were you sleeping in Englisch class?

Dat burn! ;D

I don't know if he was, but you most certainly slept through English class.

Totally blaming this on my autocorrect :(

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:


So what does a Human have that is vastly superior in mental abilities? We can't make any sort of counter claim unless you give us a few reasons you believe humans to be superior.

I am not going to elaborate a lot further on this in this thread, sorry, as it's off-topic and was only used by myself to comment on the relationship part which is a good example for a big difference between how mankind and animals work. Humans and animals are definitely similar, some more, some less, and the main difference is the superior mental abilities humans have, especially in regards to controlling instincts / affection.

Humans are animals if you only look at strictly biological abilities. In order to define humans / animals, or rather the difference between them, you have to widen your scope.

But they are not actually significantly different in your 'relationship' area. You keep making statements which elude to a 'you can't compare to nature because humans are unique and above animals because X but those X you claim are very wrong. Sociology of humans and intelligence of humans exist in the animal kingdom and we are not significantly different so saying you can't compare to animals on those points makes that point invalid.

Supposedly 'superior mental abilities' and 'controlling instincts/affection' sounds like 'pray away the gay' talk which is basically the catholic churches position of 'It may be natural, but because we are superior and god said so, don't do it.'

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:


So what does a Human have that is vastly superior in mental abilities? We can't make any sort of counter claim unless you give us a few reasons you believe humans to be superior.

I am not going to elaborate a lot further on this in this thread, sorry, as it's off-topic and was only used by myself to comment on the relationship part which is a good example for a big difference between how mankind and animals work. Humans and animals are definitely similar, some more, some less, and the main difference is the superior mental abilities humans have, especially in regards to controlling instincts / affection.

Humans are animals if you only look at strictly biological abilities. In order to define humans / animals, or rather the difference between them, you have to widen your scope.

But Humans aren't better at controlling their instincts / affections.

Puppy Love / Infatuations / similar still exist. Murders are still commited un-premeditated, so there is loss of self control there, and last I checked, Murder is still happening all the time. If people miss meals, they get quite angry, same with sleep.

Also, if people are better at controlling their affections, why do Furries, Voraphiles, or S&M... ites...... exist?


Yes, two dogs will see each other on the street and start mating.....

.... but how is that different from two people meeting in a bar and having a one night stand?

 Slarg232 wrote:

Also, if people are better at controlling their affections, why do Furries, Voraphiles, or S&M... ites...... exist?

Sexual perversions don't necessarily exist merely due to people just being unable to control their affections.

UMM...

where in the heck are some people getting that there are no gay animals...

There are PLENTY of gay, and bi, animals...

I personally have seen two gay dogs, and a gay bull, and have heard 2nd hand from enough ranchers to know there are more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

 easysauce wrote:
where in the heck are some people getting that there are no gay animals...

There are PLENTY of gay, and bi, animals...

I personally have seen two gay dogs, and a gay bull, and have heard 2nd hand from enough ranchers to know there are more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

The argument was that displaying homosexual behaviors and being gay are different things, and that it would be wrong to equate a male dog sexually mounting another male dog in a dominance display to the complexity of human sexuality. I think it is a very valid point, as human sexuality is fundamentally different than animal sexuality because humans have a sense of inviolate identity and concept of consequences that animals simply lack.

One way to think about this issue is to think about rape. If a man has sex with a woman and she does not consent, then that is rape. An animal cannot consent, does that mean that all sex between animals is rape? Or does it mean that human sexual behavior is fundamentally different than animal sexual behavior? I think the latter.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

Also, if people are better at controlling their affections, why do Furries, Voraphiles, or S&M... ites...... exist?

Sexual perversions don't necessarily exist merely due to people just being unable to control their affections.

That's actually pretty much why they exist. A sexual "perversion" exists because people want to act on those affections and impulses. If people had some kind of weird complete control of their sexual urges, society would not be like it is today. There's a great dearth of porn out there about people thinking about sex, but then never acting on it.

Well maybe comedi-porn. Does that exist even? I've laughed at porn many times and I've definitely seen horror-porn out there, but is there a market for Seth Rogen in a porno?

friendlycommissar wrote:


One way to think about this issue is to think about rape. If a man has sex with a woman and she does not consent, then that is rape. An animal cannot consent, does that mean that all sex between animals is rape? Or does it mean that human sexual behavior is fundamentally different than animal sexual behavior? I think the latter.

Um, animals have social bondings and have animals who attempt rape all the time. Animals totally consent in sexual reproduction in many species, to try to categorize all animal sex as nothing but raw instinctual rape is absurd. Human relationships and sexuality is very comparable to the animal kingdom. all these attempts to say it is 'different' boil down to 'it is different because it is... ' with no actual evidence of it.

And there are animals who do same-sex social pairing for multiple reasons, like raising offspring, protection, social preference and sex is just one aspect of their relationship.

friendlycommissar wrote:
An animal cannot consent, does that mean that all sex between animals is rape? Or does it mean that human sexual behavior is fundamentally different than animal sexual behavior? I think the latter.

http://www.cracked.com/funny-2938-duck-rape/

I had two female dogs when we went to visit my brother and his girlfriend at her farm.

The farm dog came and greeted our dogs as dogs normally do. He then tried to mount one of them, but she sat down forcefully and growled at him. He turned to the other and mounted her.

How is that NOT a display of consent and no consent?

 Slarg232 wrote:
So what does a Human have that is vastly superior in mental abilities? We can't make any sort of counter claim unless you give us a few reasons you believe humans to be superior.

Humans have vastly superior problem solving skills compared to all other species. While other animals often depend on evolution to brute-force solutions for them over generations, humans are highly adaptable within their own life time, and can invent their way out of problems. Humans are probably the worlds first real super predator. While we might not have the big claws or agility of something like a tiger, tigers are no competition for humans, nothing is. Animals that compete with or are hunted by humans generally can't adapt fast enough, which is why many species are hunted to extinction. God help you if humans want your species dead.

 easysauce wrote:
UMM...

where in the heck are some people getting that there are no gay animals...

There are PLENTY of gay, and bi, animals...

I personally have seen two gay dogs, and a gay bull, and have heard 2nd hand from enough ranchers to know there are more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

I've stated that outright. And my beliefs on the matter

friendlycommissar wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
where in the heck are some people getting that there are no gay animals...

There are PLENTY of gay, and bi, animals...

I personally have seen two gay dogs, and a gay bull, and have heard 2nd hand from enough ranchers to know there are more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

The argument was that displaying homosexual behaviors and being gay are different things, and that it would be wrong to equate a male dog sexually mounting another male dog in a dominance display to the complexity of human sexuality. I think it is a very valid point, as human sexuality is fundamentally different than animal sexuality because humans have a sense of inviolate identity and concept of consequences that animals simply lack.

One way to think about this issue is to think about rape. If a man has sex with a woman and she does not consent, then that is rape. An animal cannot consent, does that mean that all sex between animals is rape? Or does it mean that human sexual behavior is fundamentally different than animal sexual behavior? I think the latter.

ummm... hate to break it to you, but plenty of animals are not only self aware and have feelings, memory, sex for fun, they are also capable of creating art/culture, learning new languages, and using modern tools. Animals also very much give consent... if you had any experience with them, you would know, because sometimes there are two "into it" animals, and sometimes one is literally fighting the other off... just because we humans cannot understand the language, does not mean the animals are not talking.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

Also, if people are better at controlling their affections, why do Furries, Voraphiles, or S&M... ites...... exist?

Sexual perversions don't necessarily exist merely due to people just being unable to control their affections.

That's actually pretty much why they exist. A sexual "perversion" exists because people want to act on those affections and impulses. If people had some kind of weird complete control of their sexual urges, society would not be like it is today. There's a great dearth of porn out there about people thinking about sex, but then never acting on it.

Well maybe comedi-porn. Does that exist even? I've laughed at porn many times and I've definitely seen horror-porn out there, but is there a market for Seth Rogen in a porno?

Not really, people do act on affections and impulses when they go to have sex that is true. Why people to turn to sexual perversions themselves instead of just "normal sex" has to do a lot with how people approach sex, or their society does. For instance conservative/religious states in the US that are more repressive towards sex have higher usage of adult entertainment than less conservative/religious states. link

It isn't just about people and their sex drives.

Edit: Scientists basically that deal with real sexual perversions, including more dangerous ones like pedophilia say they can usually be traced back to things that occurred in childhood, and as one put it 'If our society was more open, and youngsters and parents felt comfortable talking with each other about sex, we could nip some of these problems in the bud. Instead, when we finally see them, we see them as criminals to be punished, not people with disorders that need to be treated.''

I would suggest reading up on this a little. It is interesting stuff. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/scientists-trace-aberrant-sexuality.html?src=pm&pagewanted=2

Edit 2: My overall point is that there is a lot more going on with sexual perversions than just somebody got horny. It is much more complicated.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Yet.... We can see this completely proven false, we aren't superior to animals in terms of muscles, cleverness, speed. I know animals that could literally rip my head off, and chase me down and maim me. Or the gorilla that waits patiently and then tears my limbs off and uses me as a bat or something else. Yet we beat animals in intelligence. Yeah. Lets think about that. Lets see what humanity has contributed to earth. Pollution, war, famines, destruction, murder, climate change, extinction. If anything animals are far better than humans in every degree. So that shoots down superiority.

Actually, we have quite a lot going for us. Our manual dexterity is leagues above any other animal in existence. The way we can manipulate objects and the agility we can manipulate them with is incredibly unique. As for the impact that humanity has had on the planet, you could argue that any species that would develop to a level of sentience similar to our own would be capable of the same.

Now onto what is natural... On homoeroticism.

Because through out human history at least 15% of the human population has been gay or homosexual. I think its natures way of weeding out genetics.

Try 3%. And a 'nature's way of weeding out genetics' does not make sense, since these traits are being passed down anyway. There are hypothesis out there that suggest that homosexuality in family lines/units can actually present certain advantages, such as stronger avuncular qualities in homosexual men, as well as the suggestion that the same trait that produces homosexuality in males is also linked to increased fecundity in females.

 Asherian Command wrote:
For my ethics and philosophy (No google, I don't mean SYPHILIUS) books I have gotten and read over. I can say that the only defense for someone minus the religious argument of course is the superiority idea and we don't see it in nature.

Yet.... We can see this completely proven false, we aren't superior to animals in terms of muscles, cleverness, speed.

We are vastly superior to the entirety of the animal kingdom in regards to encephalization, the cognitive treatment of visual percepts and linguistic functions.

 Fafnir wrote:
Try 3%. And a 'nature's way of weeding out genetics' does not make sense, since these traits are being passed down anyway. There are hypothesis out there that suggest that homosexuality in family lines/units can actually present certain advantages, such as stronger avuncular qualities in homosexual men, as well as the suggestion that the same trait that produces homosexuality in males is also linked to increased fecundity in females.

Which is still a problematic explanation, since the gay's genes don't gain any advantage in increasing another individual's likelyhood of reproduction.

friendlycommissar wrote:
One way to think about this issue is to think about rape. If a man has sex with a woman and she does not consent, then that is rape. An animal cannot consent, does that mean that all sex between animals is rape? Or does it mean that human sexual behavior is fundamentally different than animal sexual behavior? I think the latter.

This is the kind of confusion that happens when you reify legal categories. Giving consent is a social/linguistic act, and for the sake of sanity, large human societies tacked unto it a legal definition in order to more easily judge its infractions.

As long as you are capable of recognizing and ackowledging the ongoing actions of another agent, you are capable of giving consent. I don't see why beasts would a priori be incapable of doing so.