Feral or Domestic, evolutionists?

[AV1611VET]

columbine high school security system - YouTube

A feral organism is one that has changed from being domesticated to being wild or untamed.

...

By the same token, feral species may eliminate other "problem" species such as rodents, harmful insects, or aggressive plants.

SOURCE

 

[CabVet]

Quite frankly, I don't understand the question, but since it is time to share videos of people behaving badly, how about this one:

[youtube]5RnVfXFd5MU[/youtube]

 

[Davian]

Does this fit the theme of this thread?

[youtube]PalYKPRFZzs[/youtube]

from this link:

Ultra-Orthodox Men Throw Feces...

 

[Michael]

Quite frankly, I don't understand the question, but since it is time to share videos of people behaving badly, how about this one:

[youtube]5RnVfXFd5MU[/youtube]

I guess the theme there is "Love your enemy, turn the other cheek, and if that doesn't achieve the desired results, beat them with a stick."

I think they forgot Matthew 5.

 

[mathclub]

columbine high school security system - YouTube



SOURCE

you're making even less sense than normal.

what are you actually asking?

 

[Golden Yak]

It would be feral behavior if they had bitten people and then retreated into nearby trees to groom for lice.

Feral, wild, and untamed aren't the same thing as violent.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, I might as well break radio silence and contribute to the delinquency of my own thread, since asking people to vote is like asking people to stick their finger in a mousetrap.

It would be feral behavior if they had bitten people and then retreated into nearby trees to groom for lice.

Suppose, in their feral eyes, Columbine was their 'nearby trees' and they were 'grooming for lice'?

Again, and I find this amazing -- no, above-amazing -- that evolutionists love to consider us animals in general, and glorified apes in particular, as long as we act decently; but refuse to use zoological terminology where appropriate.

By evolutionist standards:

1. We are animals, yet we go to doctors, not veterinarians.
2. We are animals, yet we go violent, not feral.
3. We are animals, yet ... [whatever].

This is why I love to use the term "shrewdness of..." to explain a group of people; it's an attempt to open your eyes to the ... irony ... of your own terminology.

 

[corvus_corax]

Again, and I find this amazing -- no, above-amazing -- that evolutionists love to consider us animals in general, and glorified apes in particular, as long as we act decently; but refuse to use zoological terminology where appropriate.

I am a human, a part of the Great Ape family, no matter how I behave or act.
Anyone who says we are part of the Great Ape family "as long as we act decently" has no idea what they are talking about.
I'd like to see a quote from anyone saying that we are "glorified apes" or part of the Great Ape family "as long as we act decently"
Please, provide such a quote from someone here on CF and I'll be happy to tell them that they are wrong.

By evolutionist standards:

1. We are animals, yet we go to doctors, not veterinarians.

I would happily go to a veterinarian for my ailments. The problem is, my insurance won't cover that.
In my opinion, "Real doctors treat more than one species".


Regarding the rest of your post, we ARE animals. We are mammals, etc etc etc (you can trace the clades back if you want).

And yes, I suppose you could say that humans "go feral" IF you agree that humans are a "domesticated species that has gone wild or untamed"
N B my friend, "feral" does not always equal "violent and murderous".

Almost by definition, humans can't be "feral", since domestication is an act that humans perform on other animals.
I dunno, AV, I guess I'm just confused by your conflation of "violent" with "feral".




Perhaps you could explain it more?

 

[AV1611VET]

N B my friend, "feral" does not always equal "violent and murderous".

I suppose I'll have to end up backing down on this point -- but for the record, what would constitute a Homo sapiens 'going feral'? and why don't they?

 

[Zaius137]

Disregarding the validity of biological evolution, is social Darwinism just another one of the evolution evils? Does the evolutionist embrace all aspects of their belief (embrace the feral animal inside)? A new term comes to mind…

Darwinistic feralism

Social Darwinism, a term coined in the late 19th century by British sociologist Herbert Spencer , is based on the theory that the same forces of natural selection guiding evolution applied – and should apply – to human society too. It is aimed at enhancing the "quality" of the human race by weeding out – through sterilization, even extermination persons deemed feeble of mind, body or both.

Social Darwinism - CopperWiki

Jesus Christ gives us a better way and that to life everlasting. Man is his special creation and object of his love.

 

[AV1611VET]

Jesus Christ gives us a better way and that to life everlasting. Man is his special creation and object of his love.

 

[corvus_corax]

I suppose I'll have to end up backing down on this point

Just pointing this out for everyone to see.
See? AV can back down a bit without playing the "semantics game"
(proud of you, dude)

-- but for the record, what would constitute a Homo sapiens 'going feral'? and why don't they?

I don't know, seeing as how domesticating other animals is what the human animal tends to do.
Given that "feral" animals are those that have been domesticated (by humans) and then somehow released into the wild, I'm not sure how humans could ever be seen as "feral".
Violent, yes
Savage, absolutely
Murderous? O heck yes, but violent, savage and murderous are not hallmarks of "being feral".
But "feral"?
Seriously, all joking aside, I'm not sure how it applies to humans in general.
I suppose one could say that Tom Brown "went feral" when he lived in the Pine Barrens for over a year (or so he says). At that point, he had to ignore the expectations of society, and hunt and gather for his own food, make his own clothes, his own shelter(s), etc etc etc.
I suppose it might be said that he wasn't behaving like the rest of us, he was in the wild surviving.
In that sense, he might have been considered "feral".
But his only violence was hunting for food, not shooting up people in a high school.

I dunno, AV, I've seen this "feral humans" crap before (meaning "violent murdering humans") and it just doesn't make any sense to me.

It's like saying that Chimpanzees killing other Chimps have somehow "gone feral".
Or dolphins performing forced group rape on a female dolphin have somehow "gone feral".
Violence =/= feral
They haven't, that's just how they behave.
Just like we do.
Behavior does not equal "going feral", that's all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just pointing this out for everyone to see.
See? AV can back down a bit without playing the "semantics game"
(proud of you, dude)
I don't know, seeing as how domesticating other animals is what the human animal tends to do.
Given that "feral" animals are those that have been domesticated (by humans) and then somehow released into the wild, I'm not sure how humans could ever be seen as "feral".
Violent, yes
Savage, absolutely
Murderous? O heck yes, but violent, savage and murderous are not hallmarks of "being feral".
But "feral"?
Seriously, all joking aside, I'm not sure how it applies to humans in general.
I suppose one could say that Tom Brown "went feral" when he lived in the Pine Barrens for over a year (or so he says). At that point, he had to ignore the expectations of society, and hunt and gather for his own food, make his own clothes, his own shelter(s), etc etc etc.
I suppose it might be said that he wasn't behaving like the rest of us, he was in the wild surviving.
In that sense, he might have been considered "feral".
But his only violence was hunting for food, not shooting up people in a high school.

I dunno, AV, I've seen this "feral humans" crap before (meaning "violent murdering humans") and it just doesn't make any sense to me.

It's like saying that Chimpanzees killing other Chimps have somehow "gone feral".
Or dolphins performing forced group rape on a female dolphin have somehow "gone feral".
Violence =/= feral
They haven't, that's just how they behave.
Just like we do.
Behavior does not equal "going feral", that's all.

Fair enough -- thank you for the info.

I'll consider this issue closed then --

 

[Skavau]

Well, I might as well break radio silence and contribute to the delinquency of my own thread, since asking people to vote is like asking people to stick their finger in a mousetrap.

That's actually a brilliant way to describe your loaded poll choices, though I don't think you meant to.

Suppose, in their feral eyes, Columbine was their 'nearby trees' and they were 'grooming for lice'?

Then they'd be mad.

Again, and I find this amazing -- no, above-amazing -- that evolutionists love to consider us animals in general, and glorified apes in particular, as long as we act decently; but refuse to use zoological terminology where appropriate.

By evolutionist standards:

1. We are animals, yet we go to doctors, not veterinarians.

That is because veterinarians are trained to treat other animals and not humans and doctors are there specifically to treat humans.

We are animals, yet we go violent, not feral.

1. We are animals, yet ... [whatever].

This is why I love to use the term "shrewdness of..." to explain a group of people; it's an attempt to open your eyes to the ... irony ... of your own terminology.

That you don't understand the context in how the word animal is used and that you don't understand the meaning of feral demonstrates your own incompetence and speaks nothing for anyone else's irony.

 

[Freodin]

Well, I might as well break radio silence and contribute to the delinquency of my own thread, since asking people to vote is like asking people to stick their finger in a mousetrap.

Suppose, in their feral eyes, Columbine was their 'nearby trees' and they were 'grooming for lice'?

Again, and I find this amazing -- no, above-amazing -- that evolutionists love to consider us animals in general, and glorified apes in particular, as long as we act decently; but refuse to use zoological terminology where appropriate.

By evolutionist standards:

1. We are animals, yet we go to doctors, not veterinarians.
2. We are animals, yet we go violent, not feral.
3. We are animals, yet ... [whatever].

This is why I love to use the term "shrewdness of..." to explain a group of people; it's an attempt to open your eyes to the ... irony ... of your own terminology.

Ah, terminology and its correct use. Yes, I understand that this is a real challenge for you.

The answer to your problem is "categorisation". The organising of concepts into different groups, and the the relation between different groups, sub- and supergroups.

 

[Golden Yak]

Suppose, in their feral eyes, Columbine was their 'nearby trees' and they were 'grooming for lice'?

Mmm... no. No, I don't see that.

By all accounts the shooters had planned out their attack, actively sought out victims, and were fully aware of what they were doing, including engaging in dialogue with each other and their victims. They weren't under any kind of apparent delusion about their actions.

Animals typically do not go on violent, self-destructive rampages in an effort to destroy as many members of their own species as possible before destroying themselves, all apparently for the 'fun' of it. That is atypical behavior.

I've often felt its unfair to animals to refer to the most violent and cruel of humans as 'animals'.

 

[Split Rock]

Well, I might as well break radio silence and contribute to the delinquency of my own thread, since asking people to vote is like asking people to stick their finger in a mousetrap.

Asking people to vote when the poll question makes no sense will result in no one voting.

Again, and I find this amazing -- no, above-amazing -- that evolutionists love to consider us animals in general, and glorified apes in particular, as long as we act decently; but refuse to use zoological terminology where appropriate.

This isn't about us using "zoological terminology" when appropriate, its about you misusing terms that ironically are the same for humans as it is for other animals!

fe·ral (fîrl, fr-)
adj.
1.
a. Existing in a wild or untamed state.
b. Having returned to an untamed state from domestication
feral - definition of feral by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Tarzan was already mentioned in the previous thread, as an example of a feral human. Neither your Columbine buddies nor the cat that suddenly reacts violently by "shredding your arm" are examples of "feral" behavior.

Get it now? Or will you continue to pretend you do not?

By evolutionist standards:

[*]We are animals, yet we go to doctors, not veterinarians.

That distinction is because in our culture vets only treat non-humans and doctors only treat humans. Mainly, it is because we are willing to spend more on human health than on the health of our pets and farm animals.

[*]We are animals, yet we go violent, not feral.

That is the same for both! Knock, knock! Anyone home?

[*]We are animals, yet ... [whatever].

Whatever, is about right.

This is why I love to use the term "shrewdness of..." to explain a group of people; it's an attempt to open your eyes to the ... irony ... of your own terminology.

By misrepresenting it?

 

[Split Rock]

I suppose I'll have to end up backing down on this point -- but for the record, what would constitute a Homo sapiens 'going feral'? and why don't they?

Once again, Tarzan would be an example. So, obviously going feral means hanging out with chimps and elephants and then living with a hot babe who gets lost in the jungle and needs saving. (tee hee)

 

[Split Rock]

Disregarding the validity of biological evolution, is social Darwinism just another one of the evolution evils? Does the evolutionist embrace all aspects of their belief (embrace the feral animal inside)? A new term comes to mind…

Darwinistic feralism

Social Darwinism, a term coined in the late 19th century by British sociologist Herbert Spencer , is based on the theory that the same forces of natural selection guiding evolution applied – and should apply – to human society too. It is aimed at enhancing the "quality" of the human race by weeding out – through sterilization, even extermination persons deemed feeble of mind, body or both.

Social Darwinism - CopperWiki

Evolution does not need to be applied to anything. The theory of evolution describes what happens, not what should happen. If it is something that needs to be applied, than it is not evolution (or Darwinism).

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, now that I've ceded the point in Post 13, it looks like you guys want to yak, don't you?

By all accounts the shooters had planned out their attack, actively sought out victims, and were fully aware of what they were doing, including engaging in dialogue with each other and their victims.

Another good point -- yet, we 'plan out' niceties, like rescue efforts and such, yet still get equated with animals.

It looks like evolutionists don't want to take the bad with the good, eh?

I guess that's so we can be classified as 'glorified' [apes]?