View previous topic | View next topic

Jungle -Bad Logic

Page 2 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


It is bad logic to say,” If an animal does x, then it is alright for humans to also do x?”
Agree
100%
 100%  [ 4 ]
Disagree
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 4

'yorz
954941.  Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:37 pm Reply with quote

If humans are considered to be animals, then the whole question is rhetorical, isn't it?

 
Spud McLaren
955040.  Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:06 am Reply with quote

Worse - it's nonsense.

 
Quibbler
962451.  Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:50 am Reply with quote

I agree reliogious objections are illogical, and not based on observations.

My quibble is not whether gayness is right or wrong, it is about ensuring interpretaions are carefully considered including all the data and maintain objectivity. Selectively choosing an observation that fits your own paradigm, but ignore those that do not fit is bad science. Example there was an observation of two adult swans sharing a nest, and that was correct, but they omitted to mention they were siblings. When you projecting human behaviour onto other species you are entering a minefiled, and have to be careful about your conclusions.

When describing lions behaviour, you are discussing the only social big cat, and that makes their behaviour very complicated to interpret correctly.

All I am saying is you have to be careful as to how you interpret non human behaviour by comparing it to human behaviour. You can get misslleading results if you are not objective.

 
Quibbler
962459.  Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:19 am Reply with quote

'yorz wrote:
If humans are considered to be animals, then the whole question is rhetorical, isn't it?


Humans are animals, but I was pointing out that you have to be careful when comapring human behaviour to any other species. Otherwise, you may also unknowingly be embrasing that species behaviour that would be unacceptable if a human behaved in the same manner. Lions are the only social big cat, which makes behaviorial interpretation tricky. When male lions take over a pride of females, driving out the previous males, the new males lions will often kill any cubs (infanticide). This is to bring the females into heat, so that the new adult males can mate with the females and pass on their genes, ratyher than the previous incumbent males genes. When a pride is taken over by a new coalition of males, these males may, or may not be related to each other. It is hard to see differece between a cub fathered by the expelled adult male, and a cub fathered by one of four or five of the new incumbent males that are not related to each other.

Lions are very complicated. Lion behaviour is difficult to interpret correctly.

You are entering a dangerous minefield when comparing human behaviour with other species behaviour. You have to be very careful.

 
Quibbler
962468.  Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:09 am Reply with quote

Spud McLaren wrote:
Worse - it's nonsense.


You are missing the subtle point. You have to be careful about the interpration of nonhuman species behaviour when comparing them to human behaviour. If you are not careful you will come to false conclusions, Are you to ignore lion infanicide juat because it does not fit with what you would like to believe?

You cannot embrace one aspect of a species behavour because it is useful for a biased point of view, and then ignore that same species other behaviour that is inconvenient.

It is caution, and objectivity over interpretaion that I am urging.

 
Quibbler
962470.  Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:15 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
RLDavies wrote:
The anti-gay campaigners (mostly on the US religious far-right) have always claimed as one of their major arguments that animals -- living in God's innocent grace -- never engage in homosexual behaviour, and therefore it's obviously an unnatural perversion.


So, following Stephen's logic, homosexuality is perfectly natural and it's homophobia that's the unnatural perversion.


You are missing the subtle point. You have to be careful about the interpration of nonhuman species behaviour when comparing them to human behaviour. If you are not careful you will come to false conclusions, Are you to ignore lion infanicide juat because it does not fit with what you would like to believe? The reliogious right may well ignore behaviour they do not like, but are you not doing the same? ignoring uncomfortable observed facts.

You cannot embrace one aspect of a species behavour because it is useful for a biased point of view, and then ignore that same species other behaviour that is inconvenient.

It is caution, and objectivity over interpretaion that I am urging.

 
AlmondFacialBar
962504.  Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:40 am Reply with quote

Re Bonobos, I had my first opportunity to see some live at the amazing primate centre of Leipzig Zoo, which also houses the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, last September and... had psyched myself up for some serious great ape porn of course, only to find that they were all hanging around the trees and not indulging in naughty behaviour at all. I can only assume they were having the Bonobo equivalent of a family friendly afternoon out...

The Orang Utangs were fascinating to watch, btw, and not for reasons of sex.

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
CB27
962600.  Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:53 pm Reply with quote

Are we saying homosexuality is a human behaviour, and when we observe other animals having sex with their own gender we are merely projecting our human views on them?

I might as well say that eating and shitting is a human behaviour and that when I see my cat doing it I'm really projecting my human behaviour onto him.

 
CB27
962601.  Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:57 pm Reply with quote

I think orangutans are fascinating, and when you watch them interact with other orangutans or with humans you get a feeling they're almost an evolutionary step between humans and other apes.

 
PDR
962620.  Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:10 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
I think orangutans are fascinating, and when you watch them interact with other orangutans or with humans you get a feeling they're almost an evolutionary step between humans and other apes.


...until you then look at football fans.

PDR

 
Chowchilla
962899.  Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:07 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
Are we saying homosexuality is a human behaviour, and when we observe other animals having sex with their own gender we are merely projecting our human views on them?

I might as well say that eating and shitting is a human behaviour and that when I see my cat doing it I'm really projecting my human behaviour onto him.

Actually even eating and shitting can be very different in animals than humans. They are normal bodily functions of course and all species have to do it, but why for example would a pet dog eat everything from bits of furniture to rubble, knitting needles, broken glass and clothing (all things our old dog has eaten)? Surely not for nutritional value or because they taste good. We could interpret that as canine 'Prader Willi Syndrome but I'd bet my house that it isn't.

Similarly, some animals will only shit in one spot for reasons we simply don't understand. Are they being hygienic? Are they being territorial? We just don't know.

 
Posital
962934.  Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:13 pm Reply with quote

OP wrote:
It is bad logic to say,” If an animal does x, then it is alright for humans to also do x?”
It is not bad logic to say that, it would just mean that someone made an animal noise that sounds similar to the above sentence.

 
Quibbler
964520.  Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:22 am Reply with quote

Quote:
It is not bad logic to say that, it would just mean that someone made an animal noise that sounds similar to the above sentence.


You seem to have missed the point entirely.


Our father told us that because bears live in caves we had to live in a cave.

A cave, you were lucky. Our father told us because foxes live in dens we had to live in a hole in the ground.

A hole in the ground, you were lucky. Our father told us because monkeys live in trees we had to live in the trees, huddled together for fear of falling.

Live in the trees, you were lucky. Our father told us eagles nest on sheer cliff faces, 1000 metre drop straight down onto the rocks below, that were real fear of falling.

Sheer cliff face, you were lucky. Our father told us trout live at the bottom of lakes, and we had to live in a lake.

You had a lake, luxury. Our father told us rats live in a sewer, so we were brought up in a sewer, and lived on freezing cold rat poison.

Sewer, you were lucky. Our father told us aliens live in space, so all 114 of us had to live in a vacuum underneath the stairs.

You know Oberdier, if you tell young folk today that they have to live in a place because some specious species lives there, they won’t believe you.


Explanation.

The point being, that just because someone predicates their argument on a false premise, it does not matter what their conclusion is, it does not change the fact that the premise is false in the first instance, hence “Bad Logic”. The false premise being that, humans should only behave in a certain way because another species also behaves in that way.

Should we stop cooking because no other species cooks? Should we also give up farming, keeping pets, money, the vote, art, religion, science, or literature too? I can think of better reasons for giving up war, and genocide than simply other species do not do them, so we shouldn’t. I am not taking up bungee jumping either just because spiders jump from a thread.


The discussion was not whether homosexuality is right or wrong, but whether the use of the ‘logic’ of comparing species behaviour to human behaviour by any participant is right or wrong? The logic itself was the issue.

If does not matter if the religious right say one thing; or homophiles tell you the opposite, they are both wrong, because the premise is wrong. Bonobo chimpanzees are genetically the closest living species to humans. Neither the religious right or homophiles would be very happy if a human behaved in the same way as bonobos do. Bonobo behaviour demonstrates the flaw in the logic in the first place.

 
Quibbler
964523.  Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:32 am Reply with quote

'yorz wrote:
If humans are considered to be animals, then the whole question is rhetorical, isn't it?


It is not rhetorical, You are just avoiding the question, because it is too difficult for you. You can rephrase the question, and replace the word animal with species if you prefer.

It is bad logic to say,” If an species does x, then it is alright for humans to also do x?”

 
Quibbler
964529.  Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:44 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
RLDavies wrote:
The anti-gay campaigners (mostly on the US religious far-right) have always claimed as one of their major arguments that animals -- living in God's innocent grace -- never engage in homosexual behaviour, and therefore it's obviously an unnatural perversion.


So, following Stephen's logic, homosexuality is perfectly natural and it's homophobia that's the unnatural perversion.


Whether homosexuallity is right or wrong has nothing to do with the point I was making.

If does not matter if the religious right say one thing; or homophiles tell you the opposite, they are both wrong, because the premise is wrong. Bonobo chimpanzees are genetically the closest living species to humans. I do not think that either the religious right or homophiles would be very happy if a human behaved in the same way as bonobos do.

 

Page 2 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group