Apes differ in kinds of aggression; Man differs in kinds of words - they'll never be the same

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So just to put it simply: Apes have different kinds of aggression, but Man has different kinds of words.

They will never be the same. Types of aggression (in apes), did not become types of words (in Man); types of words (in men) will never become types of an alternative (in some other creature) - (for example, types of words (in men) will never become types of shapes (in a secondary type of creature).

The whole issue about coming from apes, is that people can be provoked to aggression. Being angry is not a sign, that you are an ape or from an ape. You might as well be saying "the Moon is made of cheese". If you want to be aggressive, sure, follow an ape; but don't use words, that would make you look like what you already are: a man.

It is not meant to annoy you, that there is this difference. I am just saying for your own sake, don't go over the deep end with aggression, certainly not at the same time that you confuse when it will ever come to an end.

Words, by kind, are strongest (selah)

Wrath will come upon this generation, if you do not heed these words.

 

[AV1611VET]

So just to put it simply: Apes have different kinds of aggression, but Man has different kinds of words.

What do you see in this picture?

Two aggressive great apes going wild? or two sinners yielding to "the murderer from the beginning"?

 

[Shemjaza]

Hi there,

So just to put it simply: Apes have different kinds of aggression, but Man has different kinds of words.

Non human apes don't have words because they don't appear to have language... but aggression (and other emotional reactions) can be triggered by communication.

Humans also have this.

They will never be the same. Types of aggression (in apes), did not become types of words (in Man); types of words (in men) will never become types of an alternative (in some other creature) - (for example, types of words (in men) will never become types of shapes (in a secondary type of creature).

What do words have to do with shapes?

Language is a more complicated and abstract kind of communication, but it is clearly similar in use to that mound in other animals.

The whole issue about coming from apes, is that people can be provoked to aggression. Being angry is not a sign, that you are an ape or from an ape. You might as well be saying "the Moon is made of cheese". If you want to be aggressive, sure, follow an ape; but don't use words, that would make you look like what you already are: a man.

No. It's all the genetic, fossil and morphological evidence that demonstrates we are related to apes.

But body language and aggression are definitely similar in humans and other apes.

It is not meant to annoy you, that there is this difference. I am just saying for your own sake, don't go over the deep end with aggression, certainly not at the same time that you confuse when it will ever come to an end.

Humans are different to other apes, I don't think anyone disputes this... but they are also very similar when compared to the rest of the living things on this planet.

Wrath will come upon this generation, if you do not heed these words.

Words are useless if people can't communicate their meaning.

 

[Shemjaza]

What do you see in this picture?

Two aggressive great apes going wild? or two sinners yielding to "the murderer from the beginning"?

Cruelty, hopelessness, tragedy and waste.

It's an awful situation regardless if they are a pair of Homo sapiens who evolved on Earth or a pair of men created in the image of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Cruelty, hopelessness, tragedy and waste.

That's a given.

But those two in the foreground: great apes gone wild, or sinners in the hands of an angry demon?

It's an awful situation regardless if they are a pair of Homo sapiens who evolved on Earth or a pair of men created in the image of God.

But surely you have an answer to my question, do you not?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Words are useless if people can't communicate their meaning.

I think you may have summarized every thread created by the OPer in a single sentence.

 

[Shemjaza]

That's a given.

But those two in the foreground: great apes gone wild, or sinners in the hands of an angry demon?But surely you have an answer to my question, do you not?

Given that I don't believe in anything like a literal "the murderer from the beginning", then the former is appropriate if somewhat manipulative in its wording.

In addition the phrase "the murderer from the beginning" is a wonderful way of describing an unfortunate aspect of humanity that has always been with us.

 

[Gottservant]

The point is there is no gradient of aggression (for apes), that becomes a gradient of words (for Man).

 

[Hans Blaster]

The point is there is no gradient of aggression (for apes), that becomes a gradient of words (for Man).

Are these words supposed to mean something?

What is a gradient of words? (How do words have a gradient?)

What is a gradient of aggression?

 

[Gottservant]

Are these words supposed to mean something?

What is a gradient of words? (How do words have a gradient?)

What is a gradient of aggression?

Gradient: gradual, increasing, protracting.

If I am angry at a peach and angry at an apple and angry at a grape, I do not develop an aggression towards fruit.

If I say "yes", then "almost", then "here", I do not develop a word "yes-almost-here" to supplant them.

The truth is, it doesn't even occur to me to be aggressive towards fruit, or to forget that words have utility on their own. If I have a choice, yes, then I change the utility of a word - a choice, not arbitrarily. With regard to words, I assess changing them on the basis of increasing the overall utility of a great deal more than enough words. The last thing I want is to be short a word, because I have confused the meaning of some of them!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Gradient: gradual, increasing, protracting.

If I am angry at a peach and angry at an apple and angry at a grape, I do not develop an aggression towards fruit.

If I say "yes", then "almost", then "here", I do not develop a word "yes-almost-here" to supplant them.

The truth is, it doesn't even occur to me to be aggressive towards fruit, or to forget that words have utility on their own. If I have a choice, yes, then I change the utility of a word - a choice, not arbitrarily. With regard to words, I assess changing them on the basis of increasing the overall utility of a great deal more than enough words. The last thing I want is to be short a word, because I have confused the meaning of some of them!

Other than your definition of "gradient", which is wrong, the rest is a incomprehensible babbling.

A gradient can be increasing or decreasing.
A gradient can be gradual or steep.
"Protracted" has nothing to do with gradients.

 

[Gottservant]

I am trying to explain to you, that I a man and nothing else.

You insist I should be more than a man, so prove how.

What adaptations would be more advantageous, if I was not just a man?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am trying to explain to you, that I a man and nothing else.

OK?

You insist I should be more than a man, so prove how.

I did?

What adaptations would be more advantageous, if I was not just a man?

Does not compute.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am trying to explain to you, that I a man and nothing else.

You insist I should be more than a man, so prove how.

What adaptations would be more advantageous, if I was not just a man?

Yes, you are a man.

But you are also biologically an ape, which is a type of mammal which all humans and apes are.

 

[SLP]

They will never be the same..

Super insightful.

Did you think this post of yours was some sort of "argument" against evolution?

 

[SLP]

What do you see in this picture?

Two aggressive great apes going wild? or two sinners yielding to "the murderer from the beginning"?

I see a couple of sick kids whose religious backgrounds were insufficient to prevent them from acting this way.

 

[SLP]

The point is there is no gradient of aggression (for apes), that becomes a gradient of words (for Man).

I can see no connection between the first and second half of that sentence.

 

[Mr Laurier]

What do you see in this picture?

Two aggressive great apes going wild? or two sinners yielding to "the murderer from the beginning"?

Neither.
I see a typical american phenomena of a school massacre taking place.

 

[Mr Laurier]

That's a given.

But those two in the foreground: great apes gone wild, or sinners in the hands of an angry demon?

Neither.

 

[AV1611VET]

I see a couple of sick kids whose religious backgrounds were insufficient to prevent them from acting this way.

Were they apes?