Anthropocentrism vs Biocentrism

[aznguy94]

Humans are no more special than any other life form here on earth. Just because we are the most complex beings on earth, it does not make us any better than other animals. Every animal is adapted in its own way to survive...(humans are actually worse at this than say...bacteria)

 

Humans are no more special than any other life form here on earth. Just because we are the most complex beings on earth, it does not make us any better than other animals. Every animal is adapted in its own way to survive...(humans are actually worse at this than say...bacteria)

Did you even read the thread?

Do you think it is acceptable to spew forth your prejudice by the mere fact that it is popular prejudice?

 

[No Intent]

I'm just pointing out you are an idiot and will kindly finish this rather than continuing wasting my time pointing out your stupidity and immaturity.

You will kindly finish this?
...Let me kindly advise YOU, that your sentimental, impromptus excuse for a rant, is making me feel like getting my ‘ghetto’ on...and when you ‘fuck widda brutha’, bitches get taken ‘down town’ –

Why do you believe you’re in the right to evaluate my writing skills, explicate my own emotions, and do so in such disdain, while you, yourself, have failed to offer a valid opinion on the topic?

Not only have your posts been frequently off-topic, but hypocritical and insulting. If your here to critique another’s literary skills, then I kindly advise you to fuck off.

I just became active once again yesterday, so frequently being off-topic? where does that come from? Maybe you need to look up frequently in a dictionary.

So you’re denying the fact that your subject responses have been off-topic? Hmm...Let’s review then shall we:

^that is so eloquently said that I am mesmerized

I can see the jealousy of not having anyone praise your writing abilities or lack there of, but no need for flame.

From the posts above I acknowledge two things. ‘One’, they lack common English syntax, and ‘Two’, they do not relate to the thread topic whatsoever. But you do not concede to this truth, right? Well, I affirm with solemn gratification, that you, ghetto sister Eliza, are an arrogant whore. Incase you still don't understand, let me set the record straight. This subforum isn't the place to critique another's writing skills. Oh, and as for the word ‘frequently’, I can inform you it denotes, ‘many times at short intervals’, and in concerns to your contributions, over a short period of days, its application is pertinent.

You started all this just over a simple compliment aimed at another, what gives You the right to bash me over nothing. Please don't talk to me about rights. I can understand the comment if say I was going around and made numerous "compliments" to someone as being interpreted as "poll riding" but this is just ridiculous

I was given the right to ‘bash’ you, soon as you left an inappropriate comment. As aforementioned, this isn’t the place to compliment.

Now that I’ve got that off my chest, and potentially be banned from SFA, I believe this argument is over with. Thanks, No Intent. P.S – I already knew I was immature.

 

[Eliza]

^ "ghetto on" just lost interest in reading anything else you had to say. Waste of time.

Humans are no more special than any other life form here on earth. Just because we are the most complex beings on earth, it does not make us any better than other animals. Every animal is adapted in its own way to survive...(humans are actually worse at this than say...bacteria)

If we weren't better than other animals then we'd be in the trees like the monkeys flinging shit at each other.

 

[aznguy94]

^ "ghetto on" just lost interest in reading anything else you had to say. Waste of time.



If we weren't better than other animals then we'd be in the trees like the monkeys flinging shit at each other.

You're pretty ignorant. Just because monkeys swing in trees and don't have the same hygiene as humans doesn't mean they fling shit at each other. Also, even if they did do that, as you claim, what makes you able to qualify that as inferior?

When people say an inferior species I think about it in a strictly evolutionary sense, where lifeforms are more or less equal. Just because other animals behave differently than we do doesn't make us "better". Please stop being a self-centered idiot and get your head out of your ass.

 

[Eliza]

^ Who is being ignorant now. You see my statement as prejudice (which i intended to see yours/others response) while I see yours the same.

 

[aznguy94]

^ Who is being ignorant now. You see my statement as prejudice (which i intended to see yours/others response) while I see yours the same.

What makes you think humans are better than monkeys? I'm not arguing they are better than us, but rather I'm saying that there is no means to qualify whether one species is better than another. Saying "better" is a completely subjective view and cannot be backed up whatsoever.

 

[Eliza]

What makes you think humans are better than monkeys? I'm not arguing they are better than us, but rather I'm saying that there is no means to qualify whether one species is better than another. Saying "better" is a completely subjective view and cannot be backed up whatsoever.

So you are saying the life of both are valued equally... and if you were to choose to save one over the other, there might be a chance you would choose a monkey? Even if say you were to choose 1 human life over 2 monkeys... you would choose the monkeys?

 

[aznguy94]

Wow. You are really something. Of course I would save a human over a monkey. It is a natural evolutionary human instinct to protect its own species over another (duh! a result of evolution...it aids in our survival). Wanting to save a human over a monkey has nothing to do with one being superior to the other. I have no idea how you made that leap in logic. Just because I, as a human, value humans more than monkeys does not mean that I think humans are better than monkeys.

 

[Eliza]

@aznguy I find your statement totally contradicting. I guess maybe it's me... I just don't understand when someone says "we aren't better than any animal".

 

[Comprensión Mutua]

Yes. Humans are inherently more valuable than animals, given their ability to reason; their greater intelligence, their autonomous nature and capability to understand both themselves as an entity and their place within the universe.

At knife's edge, the choice between human and ant is patent.

 

[Eliza]

Well, let's start with your reasoning. Why do you think that humans are superior to animals?

Isn't that question pretty self-explanatory?

 

Ah, but you're implying that man isn't an unthinking animal. I'm sure you would concede that sentience is a gradient, but you're making it seem as if it's either present or absent.

I'm sure Ayn Rand would agree with you. However I support stricter categories. Here is my reasoning:

Obviously, as new human beings, we do not start out with equal rational faculties. But it is important to note that while rational faculties are not even among men, they are *evenly distributed* (in a large enough sample size.) Same with sex, height, and build.

Thus, biologically speaking, we can point to this distribution and say this is man's sentience or "capacity to reason", all other factors being equal.

If we do the same for another population (I.e. another species) we find that the even distribution of the sentience (or lack thereof) of that population is so far disjoint from the human population as to make the two independent categories.

The concept of sentience in the first place, derives from the disjointness of these distributions -- If everything were equally sentient we would not have a term to describe sentience, and if everything coexisted randomly on a continuous scale of sentience then we would likely not have the concept of animal, it would be just: smart, dumb, dumber, and so on.

So yes I am fully implying that man isn't an unthinking animal in any sense. I would say that the concept of animal does not apply to men in the first place:

To say "man is an animal" is mixing definitions. In common usage the concepts of "animal and nature" are mutually exclusive with the concept of "man and production". While it is correct in scientific language to call man a rational animal, there is little purpose in doing so, as by the general definitions it serves only to obfuscate the distinction between man and animal, and ultimately serves only to erode the foundations of interpersonal standards of behaviour (ethics.)

It is patently obvious that man and animal are distinct categories; Joining ontological categories which don't go together is generally as bad as separating categories which do. E.g. one could join the categories of food and poison and wind up dead, likewise one could separate the category of breathable air into toxic and nontoxic and end up self-suffocating for lack of "nontoxic" air.