Dogs only make more dogs - really?

[justlookinla]

Where do you think our ability to reliably categorize organisms fails? Is it valid to put a husky and a mastiff into the same category?

Subjectively, it's not valid to put a human and ape in the same category.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Subjectively, it's not valid to put a human and ape in the same category.

Subjectively, in your opinion, it is invalid. Objectively, it makes perfect sense from a biological standpoint to categorize humans as apes.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Subjectively, it's not valid to put a human and ape in the same category.

I understand you think this. I'm trying this thing called "discussion" where we actually examine our positions from different angles instead of you simply making the same assertion repeatedly. Do you think it is valid to put a husky and a mastiff into the same category? I'll answer for you because you say this in every thread you participate in: Yes, you do. So on what basis do you put them in the same category?

 

[justlookinla]

I understand you think this. I'm trying this thing called "discussion" where we actually examine our positions from different angles instead of you simply making the same assertion repeatedly. Do you think it is valid to put a husky and a mastiff into the same category? I'll answer for you because you say this in every thread you participate in: Yes, you do. So on what basis do you put them in the same category?

I differ between humans and apes in many areas. Intelligence is one. Creativity is another. Communication is another.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I differs and apes in many areas. Intelligence is one. Creativity is another. Communication is another.

People are different from apes, it's true. Do you think people are more different from apes than they are from any other animal? Less different? Equally different?

Also, @PsychoSarah seems to be willing to have the very specific conversation you want so it would be productive if you responded to her.

 

[justlookinla]

People are different from apes, it's true.

That's what I've been saying for quite a few pages now.

Do you think people are more different from apes than they are from any other animal? Less different? Equally different?

I think humans are the highest of life forms.

Also, @PsychoSarah seems to be willing to have the very specific conversation you want so it would be productive if you responded to her.

Sarah and I have talked quite bit. She left for a while, glad to see her back. Depends on if I'm interested as to my participation in her thread.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

That's what I've been saying for quite a few pages now.

You've been arguing (or rather asserting because you refuse to support your position in any way) that humans do not belong in the same category as apes. This is incorrect. But it is correct to say humans are different from non-human primates. That's why we are in our own genus.



I think humans are the highest of life forms.



Sarah and I have talked quite bit. She left for a while, glad to see her back. Depends on if I'm interested as to my participation in her thread.[/QUOTE]
As usual you refuse to answer the question I asked. I know you think humans are special. I didn't ask you if you thought humans were special. I asked you:

Do you think people are more different from apes than they are from any other animal? Less different? Equally different?

You aren't an idiot so there is no way you can think that your response addresses this question. This leaves the option that you are intentionally refusing to answer, which is intellectually dishonest. If you have no intention of answering just say so. But ideally you could actually answer.

 

[justlookinla]

You've been arguing (or rather asserting because you refuse to support your position in any way) that humans do not belong in the same category as apes. This is incorrect. But it is correct to say humans are different from non-human primates. That's why we are in our own genus.



I think humans are the highest of life forms.



Sarah and I have talked quite bit. She left for a while, glad to see her back. Depends on if I'm interested as to my participation in her thread.

As usual you refuse to answer the question I asked. I know you think humans are special. I didn't ask you if you thought humans were special. I asked you:

Do you think people are more different from apes than they are from any other animal? Less different? Equally different?

You aren't an idiot so there is no way you can think that your response addresses this question. This leaves the option that you are intentionally refusing to answer, which is intellectually dishonest. If you have no intention of answering just say so. But ideally you could actually answer.[/QUOTE]

 

[justlookinla]

As usual you refuse to answer the question I asked. I know you think humans are special. I didn't ask you if you thought humans were special. I asked you:

Do you think people are more different from apes than they are from any other animal? Less different? Equally different?

You aren't an idiot so there is no way you can think that your response addresses this question. This leaves the option that you are intentionally refusing to answer, which is intellectually dishonest. If you have no intention of answering just say so. But ideally you could actually answer.

I don't understand how you think I've not answered the question. I didn't say that I thought humans were special, they are that, but I said that humans are the highest form of life.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I don't understand how you think I've not answered the question. I didn't say that I thought humans were special, they are that, but I said that humans are the highest form of life.

I didn't ask you where you thought humans ranked in God's creation. Thus "humans are the highest form of life" is not a pertinent response. I asked you:

Do you think people are more different from apes than they are from any other animal? Less different? Equally different?

I'm not asking you if you think humans are related to other animals. I'm not asking you where humans rank. I'm definitely not asking you if you think humans are the highest form of life so do not give me that answer again. I'm asking you if you think apes are more, less or equally different from humans than humans are from other animals, like birds for example.

Maybe it would help if you treated this like a fill-in-the-blank question. If your answer doesn't look like this, it will fail to answer the question being asked and you will get no mark:

"I think humans are __________ (more/less/equally) different from apes than they are from other animals."

Please just fill in that blank for me. There's no way you can misunderstand that, right? Just fill in the blank. If you are unable to do this then I don't think you were justified in saying "I differ between humans and apes in many areas. Intelligence is one".

Just fill in that blank for me. Expand on your answer if you want, but please fill in that blank with the options provided.

 

[justlookinla]

I didn't ask you where you thought humans ranked in God's creation. Thus "humans are the highest form of life" is not a pertinent response. I asked you:

Do you think people are more different from apes than they are from any other animal? Less different? Equally different?

If I think humans are the hightest form of life then they're different than apes. I've enumerated the differences in more than one post in this thread, it'll be up to you to quantify the differences.

I'm not asking you if you think humans are related to other animals. I'm not asking you where humans rank. I'm definitely not asking you if you think humans are the highest form of life so do not give me that answer again. I'm asking you if you think apes are more, less or equally different from humans than humans are from other animals, like birds for example.

Quantifying differences is subjective. How about this, humans are a lot different than apes. Use whatever value of 'lot' you wish in your quantification.

Maybe it would help if you treated this like a fill-in-the-blank question. If your answer doesn't look like this, it will fail to answer the question being asked and you will get no mark:

"I think humans are __________ (more/less/equally) different from apes than they are from other animals."

Please just fill in that blank for me. There's no way you can misunderstand that, right? Just fill in the blank. If you are unable to do this then I don't think you were justified in saying "I differ between humans and apes in many areas. Intelligence is one".

Again, you're not defining the value of 'more', 'less' or 'equally'. Think about it, 'equally different' makes no sense unless it value is established.

Just fill in that blank for me. Expand on your answer if you want, but please fill in that blank with the options provided.

Define 'more', 'less' and 'equally' different. Place a value on the terms.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

If I think humans are the hightest form of life then they're different than apes. I've enumerated the differences in more than one post in this thread, it'll be up to you to quantify the differences.



Quantifying differences is subjective. How about this, humans are a lot different than apes. Use whatever value of 'lot' you wish in your quantification.

Again, you're not defining the value of 'more', 'less' or 'equally'. Think about it, 'equally different' makes no sense unless it value is established.

Define 'more', 'less' and 'equally' different. Place a value on the terms.

You can't be serious. Wanting a definition for "different" kind of make sense, expect you should already know because you're claiming apes and humans are too different to belong in the same group, so presumably you know what you mean by "different".

Wanting a definition for "more", "less", and "equally" is absurd. Those words are not even slightly ambiguous. You think there is "a lot" difference between humans and apes. You must have some idea about what constitutes that difference.

Whatever distinction you make between humans and apes, is that distinction equal to, greater, or lesser than the distinction you make between humans and birds for example? If your idea of what makes humans so different from apes is so nebulous that you can't answer this, then you further expose the weakness of your position.

NOTE: In the question below, I am not asking you to say that humans are related to apes. I'm not asking you to say that they are similar. So please do not respond with something like "humans are the highest form of life and not related to anything else".

Do you think that humans share more qualities with apes than they do with birds? Fewer? The same amount?

By "qualities" I mean whatever characteristics you use to say humans are different from apes. You must know what these are otherwise it would be weird to make the assertion at all.

 

[justlookinla]

You can't be serious. Wanting a definition for "different" kind of make sense, expect you should already know because you're claiming apes and humans are too different to belong in the same group, so presumably you know what you mean by "different".

I've enumerated the differences in more than one time in this thread. What's not to understand.

Wanting a definition for "more", "less", and "equally" is absurd. Those words are not even slightly ambiguous. You think there is "a lot" difference between humans and apes. You must have some idea about what constitutes that difference.

Of course they're ambiguous. What's the point which makes a difference more or less different? How much is more? How much is less? Equally different....what does that even mean?

Whatever distinction you make between humans and apes, is that distinction equal to, greater, or lesser than the distinction you make between humans and birds for example? If your idea of what makes humans so different from apes is so nebulous that you can't answer this, then you further expose the weakness of your position.

As I said, I've pointed out the differences between humans and apes which place them in completely different categories.

NOTE: In the question below, I am not asking you to say that humans are related to apes. I'm not asking you to say that they are similar. So please do not respond with something like "humans are the highest form of life and not related to anything else".

Do you think that humans share more qualities with apes than they do with birds? Fewer? The same amount?

By "qualities" I mean whatever characteristics you use to say humans are different from apes. You must know what these are otherwise it would be weird to make the assertion at all.

Once again, for your benefit. Humans are more intelligent, creative, inventive, communicative and adaptive than apes.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I've enumerated the differences in more than one time in this thread. What's not to understand.



Of course they're ambiguous. What's the point which makes a difference more or less different? How much is more? How much is less? Equally different....what does that even mean?



As I said, I've pointed out the differences between humans and apes which place them in completely different categories.



Once again, for your benefit. Humans are more intelligent, creative, inventive, communicative and adaptive than apes.

What I've gathered from this (and previous) posts is that your rational for declaring humans special and separate is quite nebulous and profoundly subjective. But I think you maybe already admitted this. You do acknowledge, whatever you may think of mainstream biological classification, that your own classification system is quite subjective, yes?

 

[justlookinla]

What I've gathered from this (and previous) posts is that your rational for declaring humans special and separate is quite nebulous and profoundly subjective. But I think you maybe already admitted this. You do acknowledge, whatever you may think of mainstream biological classification, that your own classification system is quite subjective, yes?

Of course. I've said that probably a dozen times (or two dozen?) now.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Of course. I've said that probably a dozen times (or two dozen?) now.

As I said, I was pretty sure you had stated this but I just wanted to be certain. It seems to me that, because you understand how arbitrary and subjective your system is, you assume real classification systems are equally arbitrary and subjective. This is of course very wrong, but it's difficult to argue this point when you refuse to engage in any line of discussion that would allow me to do so. Are you actually interested in such a discussion or do you just want to stick with asserting your opinion?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sarah and I have talked quite bit. She left for a while, glad to see her back. Depends on if I'm interested as to my participation in her thread.

My thread? I haven't started any new ones.

 

[justlookinla]

As I said, I was pretty sure you had stated this but I just wanted to be certain. It seems to me that, because you understand how arbitrary and subjective your system is, you assume real classification systems are equally arbitrary and subjective. This is of course very wrong, but it's difficult to argue this point when you refuse to engage in any line of discussion that would allow me to do so. Are you actually interested in such a discussion or do you just want to stick with asserting your opinion?

My opinion is that categorization is subjective.

 

[justlookinla]

My thread? I haven't started any new ones.

Was responding post #345.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Was responding post #345.

I know, but still doesn't make much sense to me. I will drop it in favor of not derailing the thread.