Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
so then was your original statement false? I am saying this because you seem to be saying something different now.
I don't honor wikipedia as a truly scientific source of information. When reading the list of the top ten, it said "citation needed" several times. This just goes to show that wikipedia is written by public, not by people with degrees in the field of the article, I could post several articles on wikipedia errors if you wish.
wikipedia is publically edited by users who don't have degrees in the field that they are speaking on. So no, I don't use wikipedia. Do you have another source, or was that your only source? Also I can post numerous sites showing the errors of wikipedia if you prefer.Scroll down to animal altruism in mammals.
Altruism (biology) - Wikipedia
Some of it is food sharing.
Its easy to find other examples too.
they are in the animal kingdom yes, but they would not be considered animals. Did wikipedia tell you that?Insects. Are. Animals. *facepalm*
so was that statement you made true or false? Because after I questioned you on it, you rephrased it.My statement about absolute brain size and cognitive abilities? That was just in response to your question asking why animals with the biggest brains don’t seem to be as morally developed as we are. I answered that question, but what I said about brain sizes is still true.
I apologize, I should not narrow in on your statements that appear to be flawed. That's immature, and selfish.My statement about absolute brain size and cognitive abilities? That was just in response to your question asking why animals with the biggest brains don’t seem to be as morally developed as we are. I answered that question, but what I said about brain sizes is still true.
Posting nonsense doesn’t help your original premise. Which is also nonsense...
I dont think dolphins have figured out a way to store food. Thats a big enabler of out sharing culture. Lots of animals share the kill when its fresh.
That is what it comes down to isn't it? To murder or to murder?
Churchill had the right idea, as far as leadership thought. If you give society the idea that wiping out any unscrupulous leader was ok, there soon wouldn't be any leaders left.
Scroll down to animal altruism in mammals.
Altruism (biology) - Wikipedia
Some of it is food sharing.
Its easy to find other examples too.
Not considered animals? Are you thinking of mammals? Or are you just trolling? You can’t say “animals don’t do this” and then when shown examples of animals doing that say “those don’t count.” If you want examples of mammals sharing food, click on the link I posted earlier. Or this one, if you like. You’re making a lot of statements that are so easily demonstrated to be false, which leads me to suspect that you either have no idea what you’re talking about or you’re not posting in good faith. So which is it?they are in the animal kingdom yes, but they would not be considered animals. Did wikipedia tell you that?
As I just said, it’s true. I rephrase things when you don’t seem to understand the first time.so was that statement you made true or false? Because after I questioned you on it, you rephrased it.
This doesn’t give you license to dismiss Wikipedia-sourced arguments outright. You still have to go into the article, check the sources and research the claims you’re not sure about. Dismissing someone’s argument because it’s sourced by Wikipedia is committing the genetic fallacy.so for some of you quoting wikipedia: wikipedia has been known to be wrong:
Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors | Mail Online
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rticles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html
secondly, Wikipedia is edited and created by the public, no degree necessary.
thirdly, when Wikipedia is in error, the edits are approved by a host of local members that moderate all edits, to undo them at will. IF one re-edits the post too many times, they are suspended for tampering. So one cannot undo the errors on Wikipedia readily. Believe me, I've tried. Numerous times, to the point of being reprimanded. It is an odd sort of encyclopedia, if one can so call it that. Every other encyclopedia is written by professionals in the field of expertise. This happens to be written by anyone who has a computer, and who edits the page first. If you don't like that source I quoted about the errors of wikipedia, I have a lot more.
but when animals share, they don't have to be taught, "please share with others." As humans are taught while growing up. They know it by instinct. And like I said it's not technically a sacraficial love, because most likely the animal will take his fill of food prior to sharing, and if there is not enough for them and him, they will go without. So that is what I mean, humans have a deeper type of love.Not considered animals? Are you thinking of mammals? Or are you just trolling? You can’t say “animals don’t do this” and then when shown examples of animals doing that say “those don’t count.” If you want examples of mammals sharing food, click on the link I posted earlier. Or this one, if you like. You’re making a lot of statements that are so easily demonstrated to be false, which leads me to suspect that you either have no idea what you’re talking about or you’re not posting in good faith. So which is it?
As I just said, it’s true. I rephrase things when you don’t seem to understand the first time.
yes it certainly does. But even if it was true that animals shared, it's not a sacrificial type of sharing that humans possess.This doesn’t give you license to dismiss Wikipedia-sourced arguments outright. You still have to go into the article, check the sources and research the claims you’re not sure about. Dismissing someone’s argument because it’s sourced by Wikipedia is committing the genetic fallacy.
So you think all those examples are false?I don't honor wikipedia as a truly scientific source of information. When reading the list of the top ten, it said "citation needed" several times. This just goes to show that wikipedia is written by public, not by people with degrees in the field of the article, I could post several articles on wikipedia errors if you wish.
How do you know what animals do and don’t teach each other? And who cares? As far as I’m concerned your question about the origin of morality in humans has been fully answered. You’re now just making wild claims about animals that you don’t fully understand yourself. You can ask about animals in another thread.but when animals share, they don't have to be taught, "please share with others." As humans are taught while growing up. They know it by instinct. And like I said it's not technically a sacraficial love, because most likely the animal will take his fill of food prior to sharing, and if there is not enough for them and him, they will go without. So that is what I mean, humans have a deeper type of love.
Look up the genetic fallacy. That’s exactly the fallacy you’re committing by engaging the source rather than the claims. And it means nothing if humans happen to be more altruistic than other species. I’ve already explained why that would be the case, even though you’ve never demonstrated that it is.yes it certainly does. But even if it was true that animals shared, it's not a sacrificial type of sharing that humans possess.
Why not point out their errors in logic and give them a taste of their own medicine. I do have many on "Ignore." But those are the flyby internet infidels and Christian flybys that ignore engaging. Others seem to be unaware of how their rhetorical flourish doesn't count for knowledge.Good post, you sure do your homework. Also, you can always ignore posters that are being rude, I recommend that rather than encouraging the behavior. The ignore function is on the profile of the person using ridicule or slander (abusive ad hominems). Take care, God Speed.
Moral Absolutism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of PhilosophyThose are instances in the category "moral absolutes", according to you.
What I'm looking for is what moral absolute means. What defines this category?
I think youre overstating your capacity for animal mind-reading here.....That to me is not love. It's just pack instinct. you know what I mean?
Wow that definition is all over the place.Moral Absolutism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
by typing "def. of moral absolutes" into a google search it provided this definitional discussion of the various terms. It was the first in the list. Took total of 30 seconds find that answer.
I agree, but I am talking about society in general, not a small case.
Now the above knowledge gained as self-evidently true is nevertheless requiring proper function of one's faculties.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?