When do we cross the line from 'animal' to 'person?'

[Neo-Scholastic]

There is no line. Human is also beast.

The more interesting question is when do we give up our humanity and become beastly.

[Violet]

NEVER
Because we were not Animal at any time
Evolution is a big Hoax

A big hoax, with a big H for emphasis

Not to be too pedantic, but if it isn't a poe: it gets the hose again.

---

Per the OP I generally cross the line between person and animal midway through my 4th drink. But then I was always a lightweight when it came to alcohol.

That's brilliant! 0.o

If I feed my dog beer... my dog will become a human! And then I can find out if she's a lesbian and interested in me too~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46AGWASyNgI

"Woof"

---

Whoever laughs last laughs hardest.

I rather think that the first to laugh laughed the hardest...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOMqqI-kzHY

But then, the bank director died from his laughter, perhaps you mean that he who laughs last is the first to die?

---

There is no line. Human is also beast.

The more interesting question is when do we give up our humanity and become beastly.

Maybe it's interesting to you... how are humans not beastly?

* Violet sips her tea, like a proper lady.

[Muslim Scholar]

I think the shoe is more often on the other foot. Unless you believe in something like creation, why would you doubt man is a mammal? Atheists have no problem with that.

Because they don't think much
Evolution can be either an intelligent development or it didn't happen at all
A non-intelligent evolution is impossilbe

It is more often Christians who have had a problem with that designation since their taxonomy more often goes: A) creatures created in god's image -vs- B) all other creatures.

We have the same text but Christians understood it wrong
"God created Adam on his image 30 feet in tall"
it means God created Adam on his (Adam's) Image
i.e. as a full grown person not as a child then he grew

[Cato]

Evolution can be either an intelligent development or it didn't happen at all
A non-intelligent evolution is impossilbe

Simple proof that you know fuck all about evolution or natural selection.

Thanks for the laugh.

[GordonHide]

I posted this article here a while back. Yeah, I'm kinda reposting it because I'm coming at it from a more philosophical perspective.

http://www.completegenomics.net/adventur...thal-baby/

The idea is that they're planning on creating a neanderthal baby. The question I want to ask, is this going to be a person? Surely he wouldn't have a normal life, regardless of how psychologically developed he is. The thing is, though, if it were just some ancient species of monkey, we wouldn't hesitate to put him in a cage, check his blood on a damn near daily basis, scan and test him for pretty much everything under the sun and, eventually, disect him and his brain.

But, in a very real sense, all of us are just a mutated breed of monkey. So, let's suppose we could go back and get samples from different time periods and clone babies from all along the evolutionary tree from apes to modern humans; where would we draw the line between beast and man?

There is no person/animal line. We are all animals. I think what you really mean is: What should make us treat another being as a moral agent, (or possibly a potential moral agent), entitled to inclusion in our "in group"?

I suspect the answer is: if we suspect a neanderthal baby might become an effective moral agent we should treat it as one.

On a practical note I suspect the baby will not have defences against the millions of microbes that have evolved in the last 40,000 years. So if it lives at all it will have a very restricted existence.

[The Grand Nudger]

The more interesting question is when do we give up our humanity and become beastly.

That would be pretty difficult to do, what with there being no line between the two. I appreciate that we tend to use these words as though they were somehow the opposite ends of a spectrum - but that says more about how we assign a self serving value to our own little tics - how we devalue the tics of other "beasts". Using the word as a derogatory adjective "beastly" etc. There's probably more than a little bit of leftover baggage from our misunderstandings of who and what we are, our origins in that tendency. To be fair - "beasts" probably value other members of their own group more than they value us as well.

(we could always paints the walls of it;s bubble stone grey gordon, it'll feel right at home.. )

[Neo-Scholastic]

To be fair - "beasts" probably value other members of their own group more than they value us as well.

Agreed. The fact that humans can behave so much worse that animals ever could speaks volumes.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh, I don't know, there are other animals that do some pretty wild shit. Sharks that eat their siblings - highlander style- while in the womb..there can be only one, after all.


But i'd call animals like that specialists - and what we lack in depth we make up for in breadth...lol.

[Severan]

Idiot, the subtle implication of naturalistic evolution is that the need for survival would select humans to be predisposed to think themselves more valuable than any other creature, so as to gain additional impetus to protect themselves and improve survival odds by cooperating with others like them. Therefore if you are not intelligent enough to see through the cause of your predisposition, then you would tend to mindlessly surrender to your predisposition to grasp at straws to maintain the dilusion that you habe have some intrinsic value beyond your agilities and achievements through such insipid fantasies as the christain god, almost like a monkey would mindlessly surrender to his predisposition to howl at banana and throw his own feces.

You still havn't proved why human life is more valuable than amoeba's. You can call me an idiot a thousand times and that won't signify anything other than I am an idiot. Evolution doesn't disprove Christianity and in fact many of the main thinkers of evolutionary science have been Christian.

You are not really arguing anything, you are just repeating propaganda.

Let me give an example of why simple cellular organisms are more important than you. Certain bacteria kill disease. Animals rely partly on these too. Your bacon stops going in your fridge. Your local police station no longer helps you out. You die, and the world is forever dominated by bacterium. So, do you think that these "good bacterium" are more important keeping your species from going extinct than just you?

[Cato]

Agreed. The fact that humans can behave so much worse that animals ever could speaks volumes.

Quite right. I know of no other species that fuck each other over because of a difference in imaginary friends and associated biographical works.