Saudi Arabia equates atheism with terrorism in new law

Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Saudi Arabia equates atheism with terrorism in new law

Excerpt:

The new law considers a terrorist anyone who:

Calls for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based;

Anyone who disregards their loyalty to the country's rulers;

Anyone who aids [terrorist] organisations, groups, currents [of thought], associations, or parties, or demonstrates affiliation with them, or sympathy with them, or promotes them, or holds meetings under their umbrella, either inside or outside the kingdom;

Those who seek to shake the social fabric or national cohesion, or anyone who harms the unity or stability of the kingdom by any means;

Attends conferences, seminars, or meetings inside or outside [the kingdom] targeting the security of society, or sowing discord in society;

Incites or make countries, committees, or international organisations antagonistic to the kingdom.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/saudi-arabia-new-law-sees-atheism-terrorism-1442819

When the war starts in earnest, Saudi Arabia will make a good target for a few nukes.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
  digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I'm still waiting on facts, not hyperbole you picked up from conspiracy theory website.

Look up the facts on the financial situation of 2008 and what caused it. It should be online somewhere--it was on PBS frontline. Are you saying you missed 2008. Why is it that the four of you can't treat others in a humane manner. You four are a bad representatation of Atheism. Next I'll be labled a troll of some kind. You have a good side and a bad side, and I'm sure you have an excuse to be on the bad side, it's you evolutionary inheritance or something like that, right. No need for me to worry over this I'll just stay how I prefer to be. But you don't believe there is such a thing as inhumane, is that correct?? I say there is     Smiling

#1 - I don't care what any one says... you are Brian's alter ego.

#2 - Let me get this straight... you are trying to argue a point and I have to do research for you? Ah... wow... ok.

#3 - Hmmm I think I've been totally cool about the entire thing. While I do think you are nuts I haven't been a dick. I'm just wanting you to post factual stuff; I'm atill waiting for you to provide evidence to counter my presented facts that humans are animals.

#4 - Sure you are entitled to your opinion but there are unwritten rules about presenting evidence to back your views. You've done nothing to support yourself.

#5 - I'm tired of this discussion. Never mind replying, I'm done with this subject.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The whloe financial for over a year or more

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I'm still waiting on facts, not hyperbole you picked up from conspiracy theory website.

Look up the facts on the financial situation of 2008 and what caused it. It should be online somewhere--it was on PBS frontline. Are you saying you missed 2008. Why is it that the four of you can't treat others in a humane manner. You four are a bad representatation of Atheism. Next I'll be labled a troll of some kind. You have a good side and a bad side, and I'm sure you have an excuse to be on the bad side, it's you evolutionary inheritance or something like that, right. No need for me to worry over this I'll just stay how I prefer to be. But you don't believe there is such a thing as inhumane, is that correct?? I say there is     Smiling

#1 - I don't care what any one says... you are Brian's alter ego.

#2 - Let me get this straight... you are trying to argue a point and I have to do research for you? Ah... wow... ok.

#3 - Hmmm I think I've been totally cool about the entire thing. While I do think you are nuts I haven't been a dick. I'm just wanting you to post factual stuff; I'm atill waiting for you to provide evidence to counter my presented facts that humans are animals.

#4 - Sure you are entitled to your opinion but there are unwritten rules about presenting evidence to back your views. You've done nothing to support yourself.

#5 - I'm tired of this discussion. Never mind replying, I'm done with this subject.

 

 was on the news no research needed on the part of either. Any evidence of what I state is one's own self. Very few people really know themselves. You have no idea on how often Brian is correct. That's why  I haven't gotten into to many discussions with him. he's a stickler for evolution and rightly so. We all are a product of evolution--however---there are aspects of evolution that should be avoided in society. Evolution also gave our kind a higher level of of intellect that people insist on using against others.

But --all I can see that you all that have posted on this thread is opinions and present no facts to support  your claims and statements. I even posted dictionary definitions of some of my statements and one of you claims the dictionary is wrong. To us also there are definitions that we disagree with, but we disagree with the definition not whether the item defined exists or not. IE, we disagree with some definitions of "Human". Some we agree with and some we don't. That's because what is thought to be human doesn't match what we're observing. We observed that what is considered human one way is hypocritcal in another. We've spent alot of time on that oe wrod "human" to extract the true meaning and concluded it's something mental rather then physical. The physical definition of human doesn't carry much weight and technically is unimportant. But the mental does as it's the mental is where social problems originate from rather the the physical.

I can't ask any of you to prove your statements because I know you can't, I couldn't prove that there's no such thing as inhumane ro humane either,as these things that have to be understood through one's own obsevations. Humane and inhumane are discripttions of a person's treatment of others and is observable. How can it be said that humane and inhumane don't exist when it's a label for and observable fact that has been wittnessed and catagorized. The label is nothing more then a discription of and act of harm. A harmfull act has been given a label, so what is labeled has to exist because it has been observed. The term "inhumane" discribes a mental condition as the act itself is a product of will and thourght, so if there is inhumane then it has to be a extract of human. If inhumane is the opposit of human then human has to be a mental condition because it is opposit the mental condition of inhumane---so human of a mental fact not a physical fact. This analysis then shows that there are some definitions of human that are skewed because they don't match what is observed. That means that at the time during and inhumane incedent the perpitrator was not human during that same time. So what was he during the time of the incedent---there's only one thing to go to---overly animalistic. The Old Seers know this from obsevation. Very simple.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yessum

 

 

Saudi Arabia is a special place. What's even more delicious is concurrent actions like KAICIID which highlight what a mob of sly fucks the Saudis really are. 

Why Saudi oil money is being used to finance Wahhabi-influenced islamic centres globally almost without any constraint is beyond me. 

When you see the way these bloody bastards run their country, it's obvious the way in which their minds work. 

Mr Bush definitely attacked the wrong country after 9-11. 

Hopefully we can put that to rights soon. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
for real. the idea that

for real. the idea that hussein was funding islamist terrorists was always laughable. there's probably nothing hussein hated more than the muslim mullocracy. i mean, these are the same type of people who put khomeini in power, who promptly attacked iraq in the '80s. (same type of people, but not the same people. i know the shi'i mullahs hate the wahhabis and the wahhabis hate them.)

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Look up the

Old Seer wrote:

Look up the facts on the financial situation of 2008 and what caused it. It should be online somewhere--it was on PBS frontline. Are you saying you missed 2008.

Wow, you are a sarcastic dick. The man asked a real question. Lots of shit is "online somewhere".  I happen to be extremely well versed in the subject of the 2008 collapse and have had many discussions on it both here, on other forums and IRL. The claim that it is somehow a result of human predatory manner is one I've heard before, but it is not a popular view and certainly not the prevailing one, nor obvious. It can be argued, but I've a hunch that you aren't half as capable of providing an interesting an explanation as others I've discussed it with.

 

Quote:
 

Why is it that the four of you can't treat others in a humane manner.

In what way was Digital not humane? Vastet is a little dismissive and snide sometimes, he has been the same way towards me in a few discussions, but when you throw a valid argument at him he always addresses it and his responses are usually good counterpoints and add a lot to the discussion. You have failed to address his points as well. I wasn't even talking to you, I was responding to one of Vastet's points that I believed was incorrect and actually taking your side. You butted in with complete unsupported bullshit and have failed to address any specifics of my points. You only speak in broad generalizations that can't be supported.

For example, my last post to you was over nothing more than your claim that lions and chickens have the "same" social structure. You have shown nothing to support that despite hundreds of studies being available on a social structures of both animals. You haven't even bothered to respond. I could point you towards journal articles detailing the social structures of the creatures which are obviously very different, but I don't have enough respect for you to go through that much effort. Mostly, because I don't think you have enough respect to actually take in the information. I don't respect willful ignorance and I believe that is exactly what you are. You think you have figured out the world with your smurfs, and any new information you are provided with will either be forced into what you believe, or completely ignored. 

 

Quote:

You four are a bad representatation of Atheism.

Good thing none of us claim to represent atheism then. Who is the fourth? Dana? How can you not love Dana? She has given you far more respect than anyone on this site, certainly more than you have earned. She is a loving person like that who sees the best in everyone. It is a quality I admire and one you should be appreciative of since everyone else on here has pretty much written you off as a complete nutjob. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
@Old Seer

@Old Seer
I'm convinced you are Brian.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I'm still waiting on facts, not hyperbole you picked up from conspiracy theory website.

Look up the facts on the financial situation of 2008 and what caused it. It should be online somewhere--it was on PBS frontline. Are you saying you missed 2008. Why is it that the four of you can't treat others in a humane manner. You four are a bad representatation of Atheism. Next I'll be labled a troll of some kind. You have a good side and a bad side, and I'm sure you have an excuse to be on the bad side, it's you evolutionary inheritance or something like that, right. No need for me to worry over this I'll just stay how I prefer to be. But you don't believe there is such a thing as inhumane, is that correct?? I say there is     Smiling

#1 - I don't care what any one says... you are Brian's alter ego.

#2 - Let me get this straight... you are trying to argue a point and I have to do research for you? Ah... wow... ok.

#3 - Hmmm I think I've been totally cool about the entire thing. While I do think you are nuts I haven't been a dick. I'm just wanting you to post factual stuff; I'm atill waiting for you to provide evidence to counter my presented facts that humans are animals.

#4 - Sure you are entitled to your opinion but there are unwritten rules about presenting evidence to back your views. You've done nothing to support yourself.

#5 - I'm tired of this discussion. Never mind replying, I'm done with this subject.

 

 was on the news no research needed on the part of either. Any evidence of what I state is one's own self. Very few people really know themselves. You have no idea on how often Brian is correct. That's why  I haven't gotten into to many discussions with him. he's a stickler for evolution and rightly so. We all are a product of evolution--however---there are aspects of evolution that should be avoided in society. Evolution also gave our kind a higher level of of intellect that people insist on using against others.

But --all I can see that you all that have posted on this thread is opinions and present no facts to support  your claims and statements. I even posted dictionary definitions of some of my statements and one of you claims the dictionary is wrong. To us also there are definitions that we disagree with, but we disagree with the definition not whether the item defined exists or not. IE, we disagree with some definitions of "Human". Some we agree with and some we don't. That's because what is thought to be human doesn't match what we're observing. We observed that what is considered human one way is hypocritcal in another. We've spent alot of time on that oe wrod "human" to extract the true meaning and concluded it's something mental rather then physical. The physical definition of human doesn't carry much weight and technically is unimportant. But the mental does as it's the mental is where social problems originate from rather the the physical.

I can't ask any of you to prove your statements because I know you can't, I couldn't prove that there's no such thing as inhumane ro humane either,as these things that have to be understood through one's own obsevations. Humane and inhumane are discripttions of a person's treatment of others and is observable. How can it be said that humane and inhumane don't exist when it's a label for and observable fact that has been wittnessed and catagorized. The label is nothing more then a discription of and act of harm. A harmfull act has been given a label, so what is labeled has to exist because it has been observed. The term "inhumane" discribes a mental condition as the act itself is a product of will and thourght, so if there is inhumane then it has to be a extract of human. If inhumane is the opposit of human then human has to be a mental condition because it is opposit the mental condition of inhumane---so human of a mental fact not a physical fact. This analysis then shows that there are some definitions of human that are skewed because they don't match what is observed. That means that at the time during and inhumane incedent the perpitrator was not human during that same time. So what was he during the time of the incedent---there's only one thing to go to---overly animalistic. The Old Seers know this from obsevation. Very simple.

You're a liar. You've been proved wrong. And YOU are the one failing to provide evidence. ANY evidence for ANY of the dozen or so equally ridiculous assertions you've made.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
old jackass wrote:You have

old jackass wrote:
You have no idea on how often Brian is correct.



really? now that you mention it, i have no idea either. where is he correct precisely? in his misquotings of marx? in his misquotings of myself and many other contributors here? in his utter ignorance of any of the religions he flippantly condemns? his knowledge of south asian religions, for example, can't even be classified as elementary. i mean, a statement like "you're right, hindus, vishnu exists" is so fucking stupid it doesn't even merit debunking. if he can't even get his bloody facts right, why should anyone pay attention to his ideas? just how many gods are there, yajnavalkya?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
It doesn'tmake any difference

iwbiek wrote:
old jackass wrote:
You have no idea on how often Brian is correct.

really? now that you mention it, i have no idea either. where is he correct precisely? in his misquotings of marx? in his misquotings of myself and many other contributors here? in his utter ignorance of any of the religions he flippantly condemns? his knowledge of south asian religions, for example, can't even be classified as elementary. i mean, a statement like "you're right, hindus, vishnu exists" is so fucking stupid it doesn't even merit debunking. if he can't even get his bloody facts right, why should anyone pay attention to his ideas? just how many gods are there, yajnavalkya?

he still retains my proper respect for his person and input, whether he be right or wrong. I will still regard him from a "human" outlook as all others of you here. I forward no ill intent toward anyone and merely post what our studies found and leave it to the other to decide what it is or isn't. I didn't say he was right on everything--no one is. But he nor anyone else requies being ill treated or called names.

What you all have exibited here is exactly what is wrong with your society, and once again you showed me correct, disrespect and negative attidudes toward others, and some of you are saying I'm wrong. What I post needs no resaerch to find out--it is evidenat all arouind you. Llifes experiences are enough to know what I am conveying. Evolution gave all both ways to be, and what we're recommending is--try the other, that also is all around you. Become "one" of them not both. That's what we're attempting to have understood.  

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:iwbiek

Old Seer wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
old jackass wrote:
You have no idea on how often Brian is correct.

really? now that you mention it, i have no idea either. where is he correct precisely? in his misquotings of marx? in his misquotings of myself and many other contributors here? in his utter ignorance of any of the religions he flippantly condemns? his knowledge of south asian religions, for example, can't even be classified as elementary. i mean, a statement like "you're right, hindus, vishnu exists" is so fucking stupid it doesn't even merit debunking. if he can't even get his bloody facts right, why should anyone pay attention to his ideas? just how many gods are there, yajnavalkya?

he still retains my proper respect for his person and input, whether he be right or wrong. I will still regard him from a "human" outlook as all others of you here. I forward no ill intent toward anyone and merely post what our studies found and leave it to the other to decide what it is or isn't. I didn't say he was right on everything--no one is. But he nor anyone else requies being ill treated or called names.

What you all have exibited here is exactly what is wrong with your society, and once again you showed me correct, disrespect and negative attidudes toward others, and some of you are saying I'm wrong. What I post needs no resaerch to find out--it is evidenat all arouind you. Llifes experiences are enough to know what I am conveying. Evolution gave all both ways to be, and what we're recommending is--try the other, that also is all around you. Become "one" of them not both. That's what we're attempting to have understood.  




just what is "my" society? you don't even know where i live. and no thank you, i don't care for any world where fools are suffered, "animal" or "human."

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
WARNING! The opinions

WARNING!
The opinions expressed by Old Seer in this topic have no logical foundation, and are not supported by facts or evidence. For entertainment purposes only.
WARNING!

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
My society

iwbiek wrote:
Old Seer wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
old jackass wrote:
You have no idea on how often Brian is correct.

really? now that you mention it, i have no idea either. where is he correct precisely? in his misquotings of marx? in his misquotings of myself and many other contributors here? in his utter ignorance of any of the religions he flippantly condemns? his knowledge of south asian religions, for example, can't even be classified as elementary. i mean, a statement like "you're right, hindus, vishnu exists" is so fucking stupid it doesn't even merit debunking. if he can't even get his bloody facts right, why should anyone pay attention to his ideas? just how many gods are there, yajnavalkya?

he still retains my proper respect for his person and input, whether he be right or wrong. I will still regard him from a "human" outlook as all others of you here. I forward no ill intent toward anyone and merely post what our studies found and leave it to the other to decide what it is or isn't. I didn't say he was right on everything--no one is. But he nor anyone else requies being ill treated or called names.

What you all have exibited here is exactly what is wrong with your society, and once again you showed me correct, disrespect and negative attidudes toward others, and some of you are saying I'm wrong. What I post needs no resaerch to find out--it is evidenat all arouind you. Llifes experiences are enough to know what I am conveying. Evolution gave all both ways to be, and what we're recommending is--try the other, that also is all around you. Become "one" of them not both. That's what we're attempting to have understood.  


just what is "my" society? you don't even know where i live. and no thank you, i don't care for any world where fools are suffered, "animal" or "human."

is the groupof Old Seers. It is a society of proper human regard for others. We do not compete, are not predators, and respect each other. We have nor can find any reason to condemn or degrade each other, nor care to degrade any other. We gave up using animal traits in our relations. Their is no boss, leader, status system, ---we have solved the social realtions problem amoung our selves. We are constantly having to put up with "the other" (yours) which is a hinderence and saddening to watch you all ripand tear each other. Be as us and your relationship problems will cease.

You are suffering animal and human, it is evident.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Ok

Vastet wrote:
WARNING! The opinions expressed by Old Seer in this topic have no logical foundation, and are not supported by facts or evidence. For entertainment purposes only. WARNING!

I repsectfully request you prove there is no such thing (personage) of humane or inhumane. Now--if your contemporaies find you wrong I will expect them to rip and tera into you as you all do Brian. Prove you assertion. Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Sorry about that.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Look up the facts on the financial situation of 2008 and what caused it. It should be online somewhere--it was on PBS frontline. Are you saying you missed 2008.

Wow, you are a sarcastic dick. The man asked a real question. Lots of shit is "online somewhere".  I happen to be extremely well versed in the subject of the 2008 collapse and have had many discussions on it both here, on other forums and IRL. The claim that it is somehow a result of human predatory manner is one I've heard before, but it is not a popular view and certainly not the prevailing one, nor obvious. It can be argued, but I've a hunch that you aren't half as capable of providing an interesting an explanation as others I've discussed it with.

 

Quote:
 

Why is it that the four of you can't treat others in a humane manner.

In what way was Digital not humane? Vastet is a little dismissive and snide sometimes, he has been the same way towards me in a few discussions, but when you throw a valid argument at him he always addresses it and his responses are usually good counterpoints and add a lot to the discussion. You have failed to address his points as well. I wasn't even talking to you, I was responding to one of Vastet's points that I believed was incorrect and actually taking your side. You butted in with complete unsupported bullshit and have failed to address any specifics of my points. You only speak in broad generalizations that can't be supported.

For example, my last post to you was over nothing more than your claim that lions and chickens have the "same" social structure. You have shown nothing to support that despite hundreds of studies being available on a social structures of both animals. You haven't even bothered to respond. I could point you towards journal articles detailing the social structures of the creatures which are obviously very different, but I don't have enough respect for you to go through that much effort. Mostly, because I don't think you have enough respect to actually take in the information. I don't respect willful ignorance and I believe that is exactly what you are. You think you have figured out the world with your smurfs, and any new information you are provided with will either be forced into what you believe, or completely ignored. 

 

Quote:

You four are a bad representatation of Atheism.

Good thing none of us claim to represent atheism then. Who is the fourth? Dana? How can you not love Dana? She has given you far more respect than anyone on this site, certainly more than you have earned. She is a loving person like that who sees the best in everyone. It is a quality I admire and one you should be appreciative of since everyone else on here has pretty much written you off as a complete nutjob. 

Sometimes I miss postings:

OK Lets pick on the chickens for a moment. I'm assuming that you all are aware (perhaps not) that chickens have a "pecking order". A peccking order shows they have a system of domination, powerover each other etc causing discontent and disorder in the flock,. Being a farm boy I wittnessed this myself--and the cows, and the horses, and the pigs, and the buffalo, and the lions, and the tigers, and the bears, and people. This is well known and varified. Is you society structured any different. If it's the same as yours then we say it's an animal socierty because the patterns are the same. A human society refrains from this structure, that'swhat makes the difference. The opposite of this structure then is a human society. To create a human society takes one to "reason" (we do have a better abilty to reason then the others do we not) the difference between these two and go to a society that is minus use of the the chicken pecking order society. Understanding what causes these problems thay can be put aside. BUT, there's going to be holy hell and high water (as they say) to make this change as the system in place  depends on the animal mind for it's existance and process.  During this change the major elements will be removed at the cost of huge social uprisings. This we also understand. We produced a delemma for all to deal with. You either make the change, or you keep going as is. How does one want to keep with the systems in place when all realized the animal concept cannot change anything--then what- The way out is hazardous so in order to make the change enough people will have to elect to undergo the consequences of the change.

Sorry about the fourth if there isn't four. I withdraw my input for Digitalbeachbum. He is correct. he has always been cordial to me no matter where I comennted on his postings. He's even thanked me at times fo my input. My appologies to Mr beachbum.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I disrespectfully demand you

I disrespectfully demand you prove there is 'such thing (personage) of humane or inhumane' before I will allow you to make any further request of me. Put up or quit spouting lies.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You are a person

Vastet wrote:
I disrespectfully demand you prove there is 'such thing (personage) of humane or inhumane' before I will allow you to make any further request of me. Put up or quit spouting lies.

are you not so. Thats what personage is, or,personage can be equal to personality. Personality is a discription of what personal traits you exhibit more so to others. Such as--Vastet has a rotten personality(inhumane)---or--Vastet has a pleasent personality(humane). One os thse is derives from negative personal traits all have, and the other is derived from the positive peraonal traits all have. If Vastet has no personality he cannot be a person. You yourself are proof of personage.

 

 

1 :  a person of rank, note, or distinction; especially :  one distinguished for presence and personal power 2 :  a human individual :  person 3 :  a dramatic, fictional, or historical character; also :  impersonation See personage defined for English-language learners »See personage defined for kids »

Examples of PERSONAGE

  1. The premiere was attended by no less a personage than the president himself.
  2. <these sci-fi conventions attract personages of every description>

First Known Use of PERSONAGE

15th century

Related to PERSONAGE

Synonyms
baby, being, bird, bod [British], body, character, cookie (or cooky), creature, customer, devil, duck, egg, face, fish, guy, head, human being, individual, life, man, mortal, party, person, human, scout, slob, sort, soul, specimen, stiff, thing, wight
Antonyms
nobody, noncelebrity

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Now--if your

Old Seer wrote:
Now--if your contemporaies find you wrong I will expect them to rip and tera into you as you all do Brian. Prove you assertion. Smiling



we don't "rip and tear into" brian because he's wrong. we "rip and tear into" him because he's an obnoxious liar who refuses to ever admit he's wrong, even about concrete facts that can be indisputably demonstrated, and intentionally misrepresents others' words and ideas. respect should not be automatically given. respect is earned or lost.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:OK Lets pick

Old Seer wrote:

OK Lets pick on the chickens for a moment. I'm assuming that you all are aware (perhaps not) that chickens have a "pecking order". A peccking order shows they have a system of domination, powerover each other etc causing discontent and disorder in the flock,.

Yes, chickens have a very clear pecking order (and are the origin of the term). That is pretty rare among animals. You can watch a flock of 50 chickens and given time, you could number them 1-50 in a linear hierarchy. None of the other animals you listed are the same way. I will stick with the lions since that was brought up first. You could watch a pride of lions for the entire life of a pride and never be able to tell which female is dominant over another female. Lions can be seperated by their gender roles, but they don't have a clear pecking order, instead they have generally a communal structure.  

 

Quote:

 This is well known and varified. Is you society structured any different. If it's the same as yours then we say it's an animal socierty because the patterns are the same.

Where is this verified? Why do people spend their entire lives studying the social structures of different species if they are all the same? Why do we have different names for them if they are all the same? They are only the same in the most broad and meaningless sense that they all provide structure for social interaction. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The pecking order

Beyond Saving wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

OK Lets pick on the chickens for a moment. I'm assuming that you all are aware (perhaps not) that chickens have a "pecking order". A peccking order shows they have a system of domination, powerover each other etc causing discontent and disorder in the flock,.

Yes, chickens have a very clear pecking order (and are the origin of the term). That is pretty rare among animals. You can watch a flock of 50 chickens and given time, you could number them 1-50 in a linear hierarchy. None of the other animals you listed are the same way. I will stick with the lions since that was brought up first. You could watch a pride of lions for the entire life of a pride and never be able to tell which female is dominant over another female. Lions can be seperated by their gender roles, but they don't have a clear pecking order, instead they have generally a communal structure.  

 

Quote:

 This is well known and varified. Is you society structured any different. If it's the same as yours then we say it's an animal socierty because the patterns are the same.

Where is this verified? Why do people spend their entire lives studying the social structures of different species if they are all the same? Why do we have different names for them if they are all the same? They are only the same in the most broad and meaningless sense that they all provide structure for social interaction. 

 

an order of dominantation. All societies (except the Old Seers) have this social order. This not rare, it's the main way oresent societies function. The dominant pig will push others out of the way to get to the trouph. All the other pigs well know which are the sucessful dominaters and move out of their presence. The same with the cows. and other types--this is ongoing everyday, not just once in a while. There isn't an ongoing continuious fight because all in the heard have experienced which is the dominate one and the lessor dominate ones. Farmers are very experienced with this phenomenon. IE. A sow is lett into the farrowing bard to have her piglets. 2 months later she is let back out--but ,is confined to a small pen outside the farroeing barn for here protection. She forgot whoall the other pigs are and who's dominant, and they forgot who she is and the dominats will attack and very likely kill her. The other pigs try to harm her and try to get at her through the fence. Over time they get to know each other she can be let out with the herd.  This is also why there is --"the Bull pen", because after a certain age and weight the bull becomes a threat to the entire herd and has to be seperated. Cows also try to dominate the bull, and that's fine until the bull gets to big for the cows to handle. Knowing this from boyhood and being that there are two hog farmers from Iowa in our group confirm this also. All farmers from boyhood know this very well. This also why cows are polled (horns removed)(show herds aren't) Just playing around can be injurious. Experience-----In the spirng the winter calves are let out into the calf pasture seperate from the cows becasue the cows don't know them after they've been weaned and on milk replacer. Being that they can be seen by the other cows they get use to each other--and suprisingly--the mothers don't know their own calves. Experience----In the fall the calves have become hefers and are let into the main herd. But--guess who rules----the hefers----with HORNS.Weapons make the difference. The twice as big once dominat cow doesn't stand a chance. Once the hefers get big enouph the continutiy of the heard is broken up as all the hefers get into dominantion fights, and--if you can guess it---off come the horns. And--the once dominant cow takes back her position. 

The society you are in is no different---you exist within a dominant structural order of things. That's why you have the "1%"--they are the most dominant predators, in this case--financial predators.

No sarcasim on my part. I am not attacking or condeming. We don't do that in our society. I am informing of certain conclusions we've made from expeience and long study. If we're not right for some then we're not, that's OK with us. You're equating me with "the dominant" socierty, we don't belong to it anymore so we don't do the same. What we want is for others to look into these things for themselves. And, we came across these finding inadvertantly--we we/re looking for them--we encountered them. So, we're attempting to inform others. And for these findings we've re-created our own society without the problems of present societies. 

A point of reasoning- consider the conditions of societies in the world presently. The conditions are the consequences, wouldn't that be correct. Whatn is causing these particular consequences.

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Alert - Dangerously close to opening the valve to a gun debate

  

 

On -  Site -- 

  To :: OldSeer ::

 

   How does that deal with aggression in general  .. ? 

      [IMG]http://www.quickmeme.com/img/2f/2fa09b1c806886e20bf3acafb1e4f0a67b24f1449bae0d4cc84d112cee3b8718.jpg[IMG]]
 

  Would  de-horning  everybody  make them  a  **Saint ?!??

    Animal husbandry: ethicals   hmmm  dilemmas?

 

   You know . . .   This is only a hop and skip away from full-on opening up the valve to a renewed gun debate, (which you'd or I would think would only detracting from the current topic

  Nothing remoting profound, to remind you a heavy duty shears can open extra thick clamshell plastic packaging but so can a 9 inch Chef knife. One is considered a tool  and the other can be considered a dangerous deadly weapon. Thank you so much for sharing and this is a very interesting thread but your I get the distinct feeling that analogies about practices rearing youngins within  animal husbandry. Does little in terms of understanding the Biology of Violence nor in understanding the brain, behavior of often the cyclic nature of vicious circle of aggression. Conflicts can be very prolonged and man is rather destructive,  . . what of that then ???

 

   Dont get me wrong   it's  a  serious  question  to  ask of anyone  . . .  (View/See::  Image)

 



  You've  read in sacred  literature  . .  In  the  Epistle of Paul to the church at Colossae  (Read  just  Below)  --

 

   " .. giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us (the Saints).. who has delivered us from the power(s) of darkness''

 

 

  >> Not that this has anything to do with this but   Alert  ---  Dangerously  close to opening the valve to the gun debate!

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"You're equating me with

"You're equating me with "the dominant" socierty, we don't belong to it anymore so we don't do the same. What we want is for others to look into these things for themselves."

Yes you do belong to it. The fact that you can't recognise your own characteristics is telling.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I took your post

over to For Araujo in the General converstions forum. I don't know if I'm allowed to do that--if not it i expect it to be deleted. There the OP doesn't have to be followed.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:an order of

Old Seer wrote:

an order of dominantation. All societies (except the Old Seers) have this social order. This not rare, it's the main way oresent societies function. The dominant pig will push others out of the way to get to the trouph. All the other pigs well know which are the sucessful dominaters and move out of their presence. The same with the cows. and other types--this is ongoing everyday, not just once in a while. There isn't an ongoing continuious fight because all in the heard have experienced which is the dominate one and the lessor dominate ones. Farmers are very experienced with this phenomenon. IE. A sow is lett into the farrowing bard to have her piglets. 2 months later she is let back out--but ,is confined to a small pen outside the farroeing barn for here protection. She forgot whoall the other pigs are and who's dominant, and they forgot who she is and the dominats will attack and very likely kill her. The other pigs try to harm her and try to get at her through the fence. Over time they get to know each other she can be let out with the herd. 

This is not the behavior that has been observed in auto-sort, large pen hog houses, where they have all the pigs running around free within the same barn instead of in seperate pens. It is common that new pigs are introduced while older ones are still around, they don't kill each other. They don't even attack each other. It has been discovered. (surprise, surprise) that when you contain animals they become more aggressive. This is even true with chickens- while they still maintain a very strict pecking order in the wild, they tend to be far less aggressive. The pecking order isn't determined by the biggest chicken, it has been discovered that the pecking order is passed down maternally- so the #1 chicken could actually be the physically weakest. Your rationalization completely fails, I suggest you do some research on the subject if you are seriously interested (I don't believe you are so I'm not going to waste my time pulling the appropriate links like I normally would, I have more important things to do)

 

Quote:

This is also why there is --"the Bull pen", because after a certain age and weight the bull becomes a threat to the entire herd and has to be seperated. Cows also try to dominate the bull, and that's fine until the bull gets to big for the cows to handle.

Um, no. The reason bulls are separated from cows isn't because they get too big or too old. They are separated only during the mating season because when cows are in heat, bulls want to fuck, and generally, ranchers want to control which bulls mate with which cows and during that period bulls will have a tendency to fight if you have more than one in the same pasture. The rest of the year, most bulls get along with the cows and other bulls just fine. 

Among cows, (left to their own devices) the social structure has been found to be matriarchal, with the top class of cows (the ones who get preferential places to eat, sleep etc) passing their status mother to daughter. The calves that become friends with the royal calf tend to move up in social status. (Males generally head off and make their own friendships creating a bachelor herd, and like all good male friends of any species start fighting as soon as a hot girl comes by that they both want). 

I'm not going to bother with the rest, your anecdotal observations are over 100 years out of date with modern farming techniques and our scientific observations of animal behaviors. Even ignoring the fact that farming methods have a huge effect on behaviors and that the social behavior of farmed animals often bears little resemblence to wild or feral animals, you are simplistic and flat out wrong. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
We had to keep the bull

Beyond Saving wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

an order of dominantation. All societies (except the Old Seers) have this social order. This not rare, it's the main way oresent societies function. The dominant pig will push others out of the way to get to the trouph. All the other pigs well know which are the sucessful dominaters and move out of their presence. The same with the cows. and other types--this is ongoing everyday, not just once in a while. There isn't an ongoing continuious fight because all in the heard have experienced which is the dominate one and the lessor dominate ones. Farmers are very experienced with this phenomenon. IE. A sow is lett into the farrowing bard to have her piglets. 2 months later she is let back out--but ,is confined to a small pen outside the farroeing barn for here protection. She forgot whoall the other pigs are and who's dominant, and they forgot who she is and the dominats will attack and very likely kill her. The other pigs try to harm her and try to get at her through the fence. Over time they get to know each other she can be let out with the herd. 

This is not the behavior that has been observed in auto-sort, large pen hog houses, where they have all the pigs running around free within the same barn instead of in seperate pens. It is common that new pigs are introduced while older ones are still around, they don't kill each other. They don't even attack each other. It has been discovered. (surprise, surprise) that when you contain animals they become more aggressive. This is even true with chickens- while they still maintain a very strict pecking order in the wild, they tend to be far less aggressive. The pecking order isn't determined by the biggest chicken, it has been discovered that the pecking order is passed down maternally- so the #1 chicken could actually be the physically weakest. Your rationalization completely fails, I suggest you do some research on the subject if you are seriously interested (I don't believe you are so I'm not going to waste my time pulling the appropriate links like I normally would, I have more important things to do)

 

Quote:

This is also why there is --"the Bull pen", because after a certain age and weight the bull becomes a threat to the entire herd and has to be seperated. Cows also try to dominate the bull, and that's fine until the bull gets to big for the cows to handle.

Um, no. The reason bulls are separated from cows isn't because they get too big or too old. They are separated only during the mating season because when cows are in heat, bulls want to fuck, and generally, ranchers want to control which bulls mate with which cows and during that period bulls will have a tendency to fight if you have more than one in the same pasture. The rest of the year, most bulls get along with the cows and other bulls just fine. 

Among cows, (left to their own devices) the social structure has been found to be matriarchal, with the top class of cows (the ones who get preferential places to eat, sleep etc) passing their status mother to daughter. The calves that become friends with the royal calf tend to move up in social status. (Males generally head off and make their own friendships creating a bachelor herd, and like all good male friends of any species start fighting as soon as a hot girl comes by that they both want). 

I'm not going to bother with the rest, your anecdotal observations are over 100 years out of date with modern farming techniques and our scientific observations of animal behaviors. Even ignoring the fact that farming methods have a huge effect on behaviors and that the social behavior of farmed animals often bears little resemblence to wild or feral animals, you are simplistic and flat out wrong. 

the bull seperate at all times  from the cows. Every farmer in our region did, unless steered at a young age. Hogs are being bread today for more pasivity, the same for turkeys and large chickem farms.On the large chicken farms all hens are in separate cages. It's better for egging and eliminating the pecking order. I was told that by a my brother who (still farming) knows chicken raisers(neighbors) says that in a large flock the pecking order has to be removed or there'll be chickens pecked to death every morning. Even hogs are being bred for passvity. I also have a brother The youngest) that pig farmed and he also had to keep the different ages separated or little piggies would be dead. If the older ones got a hold of a smaller one they would all gang up and eat the little fellow completle gone. He would only buy piglets for raising if from a passively bred herd certified as such. But passivity only goes so far.

Why does a farmer let out the bull just for breeding times. According to what you're saying there's no need for it to be in a pen. A bull doesn't have to be angry to hurt a cow, their playfull ness can be harmful. A 3000 pound holstien bull can break a leg on a cow just playfully sparing with her. They spare with the cows to maintain dominace, just like men try to dominat the female (or would like to). Bulls can be out in a pasture together looking peaceful but that's because the dominance has been established. After that the dominant one has it made, or they're steers.  Buffaloe on the open plain are often sparing and fighting, females or not. The big guy has to keep reminding the others who's boss.  Lessor know enough to stay away from the dominants--so you don't see much fighting. It gets so the very presnce of the dominant one dominats by presence alone.

OK--you're saying--except in the wild--- there's a clue. Smiling Of course--they're not drugged or bred for passivity but natural. All this shows is--you have to remove dominance,competiton, superiority from society to eliminate social relations problems. That's why farm animals are being bred for passivity--to remove the things that cause social problems on the hog farm, and the chicken barn, and the turkey farm, the dairy farm. In my days on the farm we didn't have those things to use. Our livestock were the original thing. We had to keep our bull passive when out with the cows to streach his legs by putting a short chain on his nose ring. Bulls put there' heads low when charging and he steps on the chain causeing him to stop.

 

Highlights

  • Aggression is highest when sows are first introduced and hierarchies are formed.

  • Aggression negatively impacts sow welfare and production.

  • Published recommendations for optimal mixing conditions are inconsistent.

  • Research should identify practical improvements to mixing conditions.

Abstract

Aggression is at its highest when sows are first introduced to new animals and hierarchies are being established. Thus, methods to reduce aggression should focus on this period. The aggression that occurs during mixing results in physiological stress responses, which can have detrimental effects on sow welfare and reproductive parameters. In pigs, the short-term nature of this response means that these effects can be avoided with careful management. Many attempted aggression management techniques, such as sedation and boar presence, only lead to short term reduction of aggression at mixing. Other methods, such as high space allocation at mixing, same parity mixes and small group sizes, highlight that simple factors can reduce aggression, but optimum management has not yet been determined. The objectives of future studies should be to isolate the techniques which can be practically managed on commercial farms and aim to provide further and conclusive information on optimum mixing management. In the interim, management techniques such as providing as much space as practical at mixing and reducing the number of limiting resources can be implemented, until optimum management techniques can be defined.

 

on line articale.

Pigs even have a psychology.

 

 

 

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Lady Godiva eat your heart out --

Lady Godiva eat your heart out -- 

  IMAGE  THEME  RELATED . . .

 

     > http://tinypic.com/m/ic1lr5/3

    Bleeker  has a book I cannot access, with an ecstatic account of a personal epiphany  of the goddess Hathor,  in the wilds of the delta .. in which a Egyptian cowherd, tending his herd in the marsh, sees the  goddess Hathor  in the form of a naked woman,  though not quite human, and runs for his life  (smirk)

 

   
 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Somehow I didn't notice the

Somehow I didn't notice the response. *shrug* Easy to fix.

Old Seer wrote:
You are a person are you not so. Thats what personage is, or,personage can be equal to personality. Personality is a discription of what personal traits you exhibit more so to others. Such as--Vastet has a rotten personality(inhumane)---or--Vastet has a pleasent personality(humane). One os thse is derives from negative personal traits all have, and the other is derived from the positive peraonal traits all have. If Vastet has no personality he cannot be a person. You yourself are proof of personage.

Insufficient. All animals exhibit personality. Every quality you mention can be found in multiple species. You have still failed to demonstrate how humans are supposed to be different from animals in any way.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:the bull

Old Seer wrote:

the bull seperate at all times  from the cows. Every farmer in our region did, unless steered at a young age.

I can't speak as to what every farmer in your region did, I don't even know what region you are from. I can speak to bulls being in with cows not being an issue in the way you described. 

 

Quote:

Hogs are being bread today for more pasivity, the same for turkeys and large chickem farms.On the large chicken farms all hens are in separate cages. It's better for egging and eliminating the pecking order.

Sometimes, sometimes not. I've seen farms that use both caged and open floored methods. There are advantages and disadvantages to each but those are economic issues and have nothing to do with chicken social structure. 

 

Quote:

I was told that by a my brother who (still farming) knows chicken raisers(neighbors) says that in a large flock the pecking order has to be removed or there'll be chickens pecked to death every morning. Even hogs are being bred for passvity. I also have a brother The youngest) that pig farmed and he also had to keep the different ages separated or little piggies would be dead. If the older ones got a hold of a smaller one they would all gang up and eat the little fellow completle gone. He would only buy piglets for raising if from a passively bred herd certified as such. But passivity only goes so far.

Yay with more pointless anecdotes. Modern farming practices are pushing towards open barn methods where pigs are not seperated in any way except for when they reach the desired market weight. Violence among the pigs when such methods are used are substantially lower than old pen style farming methods that sought to keep them seperated. Are you suggesting that breeding is the only reason?

 

Quote:

 Buffaloe on the open plain are often sparing and fighting, females or not. The big guy has to keep reminding the others who's boss.  Lessor know enough to stay away from the dominants--so you don't see much fighting. It gets so the very presnce of the dominant one dominats by presence alone.

Nice to know your ignorance extends to buffalo too. Among many species of buffalo, the strongest and most energetic males tend to also be low in the social structure. They follow behind the herd. Age appears to be the dominant factor in social position, not strength. This shows its benefits when the herd is attacked because the predators usually come from the rear where the strongest of the buffalo are able to defend the weak, young, old and sick. You would never see such behavior in say, a flock of chickens. 

 

Quote:

OK--you're saying--except in the wild--- there's a clue. Smiling Of course--they're not drugged or bred for passivity but natural. All this shows is--you have to remove dominance,competiton, superiority from society to eliminate social relations problems. That's why farm animals are being bred for passivity--to remove the things that cause social problems on the hog farm, and the chicken barn, and the turkey farm, the dairy farm. In my days on the farm we didn't have those things to use. Our livestock were the original thing. We had to keep our bull passive when out with the cows to streach his legs by putting a short chain on his nose ring. Bulls put there' heads low when charging and he steps on the chain causeing him to stop.

Nice theory, until you read your attempt to link which goes against everything you have said. It sounds to me like the people you know were not competent farmers. When significant aggression is occurring so drastically that death is resulting, you are putting way too much stress on the animals. 

 

 

Quote:
 

Highlights

  • Aggression is highest when sows are first introduced and hierarchies are formed.

  • Aggression negatively impacts sow welfare and production.

  • Published recommendations for optimal mixing conditions are inconsistent.

  • Research should identify practical improvements to mixing conditions.

Abstract

Aggression is at its highest when sows are first introduced to new animals and hierarchies are being established.

Yes, animals are more aggressive when stressed. Introducing new animals into a society (the new kid in school) is going to result in tensions. 

 

Quote:

Thus, methods to reduce aggression should focus on this period. The aggression that occurs during mixing results in physiological stress responses, which can have detrimental effects on sow welfare and reproductive parameters. In pigs, the short-term nature of this response means that these effects can be avoided with careful management. Many attempted aggression management techniques, such as sedation and boar presence, only lead to short term reduction of aggression at mixing. Other methods, such as high space allocation at mixing, same parity mixes and small group sizes, highlight that simple factors can reduce aggression, but optimum management has not yet been determined.

Wait a minute, it can be reduced? How is that possible? It certainly isn't if your linear alpha-omega social structure is the only social structure that exists. The violence is absolutely necessary in such a structure until the new members know exactly where they are and physical strength is the determinant... So using your alpha-omega model, if you put in a big bad ass hog, it will always become number 1. 

 

Quote:

Pigs even have a psychology.

Yes, that is what I have been saying. At the very least, all large animals have demonstrable psychologies. They develop bonds (which we might call friendship) have loyalty to family, and will often defer leadership to animals that clearly are not physically dominant. None of that would be expected to be seen in a strict alpha-omega social system where social structure is solely decided upon physical dominance. Furthermore, we know that different species exhibit different preferences for leadership. There might be many similarities we can draw, but animal social structures are complex and variable. Among some animals, the social structure is rigid in that once in a social place, the animal can't move up the hierarchy. This is exhibited most obviously in bees where they have actual physical changes which prevent them from performing any other job. But also very much among chickens, which explains why introducing new chickens is more challenging. Pigs tend to be far more gregarious, much like dogs, in that they form bonds with unrelated pigs and for no apparent logical reason other than happenstance. Which pig is dominant is fairly fluid and the apparent dominance between two particular pigs could switch several times. 

Cows, along with most herd animals, tend to have strong familial loyalties and will remain loyal with "friends" they grazed with as calves- indeed it is precisely that type of behavior that causes the herding phenomena that you don't see in many species. Deer have an interesting social structure in that they tend to be in small groups- usually familial among females and fawns, while bachelor groups of young bucks that apparently meet through happenstance. Yet in cold areas in the winter they tend to herd up in groups of up to a couple hundred and during that period have a semi-herd like social structure. In warmer areas, the same species, that behavior doesn't happen. Then older deer, both male and female, tend to prefer to not socialize at all. They go their own completely separate direction and have a social structure more similar to what we see in most cat species. 

So in summation, my only points were that not all animals share the same social structures- sometimes even within the same species. And most don't follow the strict alpha-omega social structure based on physical domination that you described. Indeed, it has been found that wolves, the animal whose behavior the idea of the alpha-omega social structure was theorized to explain, do not follow such a social structure. The structure is only observed in wolves that are captured and forced to socialize with unknown wolves. Dr. L. David Mech is the guy who literally wrote the book on alpha-omega social structure among wolves. He has since edited his original book and has publicly appologized for being wrong (that is what scientists do when they find new evidence that doesn't fit their original theories, I know theists struggle with that)

http://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/267alphastatus_english.pdf

 
Quote:
Dominance and submission among pack membersThe concept, nature, and importance of the dominance hierarchy or pecking order(Schjelderup-Ebbe 1922) itself in many species are in dispute (summary in Wilson 1975).Similarly, in a natural wolf pack, dominance is not manifested as a pecking order andseems to have much less significance than the results of studies of captive packs hadimplied (Schenkel 1947, 1967; Rabb et al. 1967; Zimen 1975, 1982; Lockwood 1979). Ina natural wolf pack, the dominance rules bear no resemblance to those of the peckingorder, that of a group of similar individuals competing for rank.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Well--OK youn are correct

Vastet wrote:
Somehow I didn't notice the response. *shrug* Easy to fix.
Old Seer wrote:
You are a person are you not so. Thats what personage is, or,personage can be equal to personality. Personality is a discription of what personal traits you exhibit more so to others. Such as--Vastet has a rotten personality(inhumane)---or--Vastet has a pleasent personality(humane). One os thse is derives from negative personal traits all have, and the other is derived from the positive peraonal traits all have. If Vastet has no personality he cannot be a person. You yourself are proof of personage.
Insufficient. All animals exhibit personality. Every quality you mention can be found in multiple species. You have still failed to demonstrate how humans are supposed to be different from animals in any way.

 You haven't informed me of anything new to us, no sarcasim in mind. But-you are correct without understanding. What you posted here is what I had already done so in one of my past posts. I stated all mentalities are the same (I'm dealing mostly with mammals in this case). Every mental trait that we have also do the others. The one difference is that we have the ability of a higher level of cognation and can make decisions from complex information. The pig has limited intellectual capacity and doesn't have the mental agility as wee<---(that's a pun). The pig , dog, horse, etc have all the mental traits/characteristics as we. But they cannot indentify or understand them as we. We and they have a set of "bad" traits/characteristics and the good. They difference between them and us is a matter of being able identifying and understanding the difference of the characteristics. Once one make the ID then one can choose. If one(the pig) doesn't have the ability to ID them then they cannot choose and are stuck in the societal problems they're in.  And if one with higher intellectual ability is not aware of the characteristics that cause social problems and believes they are human they are stuck with the same society of the pigs. Becasue one set of characteristics is animal (for lack of another term)  and the other set is human. These two sets can be also regarded as help and harm, because it is from one set of these traits we harm each other, the other we don't, except inadvertently,and unintended. Ignorance of the self then is overtaken by the ID of the charateristics. This is why todays society (and past) have a persistant history of the same problems, the self is not understood and being human is an assumtion. Bear in mind now, evolution has created us in all these traits and the are automatically created by nature, we didn't volunteer to recieve them.

 

assuming then that one has identified their personal characteristics that don't make us any mentally different then the pig one can cogantively make the choice beteween the two sets of characteristics. If one makes no choice then they stay as the pig. If the pig is a victim of domination and heirarchal competion in it's social realm which brings harm upon it and other pigs---then the same characteristics will cause the very same result in any other society. The difference can only be a personal decision as to which set one is drawn to once ID'ed. If one chooses the harmles set (human) they still reamin as the pig--but in a different orientated society, and one is no longer has the problems of the pig society provided all others in this particular society make the same choice. It's up the individual. When one accomplishes this change of societies one becomes an---anarchist---with the good traits and harmless and a ruler of the self. One doesn't need to be ruled over by others be haviour is regulated by the understanding of what is harmful to others. If one slips back in to the way if the pig others in the society will know, so in order to belong to the "good characteristic society"one has to whact their Ps and Qs. One won't get away with being a pig without others knowing it.

These understandings then led us to concluede that "human" is a presence or state of mind and one is only human when in that state of mind, and outside that is the pig, or animal mind. The individual has to remain in the state of mind that are the good characteristics. If one makes that decision now it very likely wouldn't do any good as the present society will be an interference and be a constant hinderence to makeing personal changes, every Smurf already knows. (I'm attempting to answer questions before they are ask at this time). If one wishes to make the changes it's better to wait until a larger number of people care to.

The process is to have floks first understand it and wait for signs of others also interested. One still, will have to deal with what is, don't sweat it and don't worry about the change of others' worry about your own--it's persaonal thing on the first count.
 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:The one

Old Seer wrote:
The one difference is that we have the ability of a higher level of cognation and can make decisions from complex information.

We don't know we have any mental differences of significance. We've gone as far as we have because of a evolutionary benefit that allowed us to communicate with unprecedented efficiency, which then allowed us to teach each other new things. It all came from education, facilitated by communication. Without that, we'd still be chasing herds of animals and picking berries like other mammals similar to us. Higher thoughts are a myth propagated by idiots who think humans are not animals. There is no evidence to support the suggestion we are more intelligent than everything else on the planet. The basis of our understanding is communication capabilities, not brain power.

Humans are animals, period.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
> Mirror Mirror . . Viva La Revolution

 

   Okay !!  Nobody say anything !!   I am just being humorous, in the following ..  Otay !! Read  this  page and you may know what I am talking about in the following :

 

 

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmDYbiyMHvo {http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmDYbiyMHvo}  LOL!!

  !! Viva La Revolution  !!

  My friend Tim still has the Star Trek, the original series  on DVD  . .  Relevant dialog --

 SPOCK w/ the Schwa (Shwa) Beard -- : One man cannot summon the future.   Non-parallel universe: KIRK :: But one man can change the present., hun! BE THE CAPTAIN of this Enterprise,  Mister Spock.  Find a logical reason for sparing the Halkans and make it stick. Push till it gives. You can defend yourself better than any man in the fleet.  SCOTT: Captain, get in the chamber!  Non-parallel universe: KIRK:: What about it, Spock!? SPOCK w/ the Schwa (Shwa) Beard -- : A man must also have the power (δύναμις). Non-parallel universe: KIRK:: In my cabin is a device that will make you invincible. SPOCK w/ the Schwa (Shwa) Beard -- : Indeed?  Non-parallel universe: KIRK:: What will it be? Past or future? Tyranny or freedom?  It's up to you! SPOCK w/ the Schwa (Shwa) Beard -- : It is time to go!  Non-parallel universe: KIRK:: In every revolution, there's one man with a vision. SPOCK w/ the Schwa (Shwa) Beard -- : Captain Kirk, I SHALL CONSIDER IT!

 


 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The only way

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
The one difference is that we have the ability of a higher level of cognation and can make decisions from complex information.
We don't know we have any mental differences of significance. We've gone as far as we have because of a evolutionary benefit that allowed us to communicate with unprecedented efficiency, which then allowed us to teach each other new things. It all came from education, facilitated by communication. Without that, we'd still be chasing herds of animals and picking berries like other mammals similar to us. Higher thoughts are a myth propagated by idiots who think humans are not animals. There is no evidence to support the suggestion we are more intelligent than everything else on the planet. The basis of our understanding is communication capabilities, not brain power. Humans are animals, period.

I can think of to measure our intelligence level compared to a Chimp would be to give one of our kind and a Chimp an IQ test to make a comparision. It would seem that our intellectual abilities have to be astronomical in comparance if our kind can engage in the complexities of building a skyscraper and compare how long it would take the Chimp to learn, draftsmanship, engineering, mathematics, reading etc. I don't think the Chimp would make it to kindergarten. There would have to be a comparison of level and ability. But now---wouldn't all you mentioned above be what you're saying makes the difference, so there is a difference of some kind. Intelligence is neither human or animal, it's neutral and can be use to figure out anything that can be figured out. Thinking in itself isn't either human or animal either. If thinking were human then chimps would be human as they do have an abilty to think. If it's degree of thinking that's makes one human ---at what level does thinking become human.If one can intelligently make war or peace then intellect has to be neutral.

If as you say --humans are animals then what use is there for the term human. It's not needed according to your aceptance of what is human. If you are a human animal and a pig is an animal being mentally as yourself then a pig also has to be a human animal. If human animal is to hold water then there has to be a difference between you and the pig and your saying in essence--there's no difference. What is the difference from you then as compared to a pig. If you are a human and a pig is animal how does human animal change you to be different then the pig. If there's no difference the term human applies to nothing and is meaningless. What does human animal mean compared to animal. ? If human does applies to something that something has has to be added to animal--what is it. ??  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Nice to

Beyond Saving wrote:

Nice to know your ignorance extends to buffalo too. Among many species of buffalo, the strongest and most energetic males tend to also be low in the social structure. They follow behind the herd. Age appears to be the dominant factor in social position, not strength. This shows its benefits when the herd is attacked because the predators usually come from the rear where the strongest of the buffalo are able to defend the weak, young, old and sick. You would never see such behavior in say, a flock of chickens. 

[facepalm] HAHAHAHAHA! STOP YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE ME LAUGH TO DEATH!

"Nice to know your ignorance extends to buffalo too!"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...  Beyond you're my hero!

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:   

danatemporary wrote:

 

   Okay !!  Nobody say anything !!   I am just being humorous, in the following ..  Otay !! Read  this  page and you may know what I am talking about in the following :

 

I never know what the fuck you are talking about and after watching the video and reading the Star Trek bit I'd say I'm even more confused at what you do on these boards


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:If as you say

Old Seer wrote:

If as you say --humans are animals then what use is there for the term human

We use human because calling each other Homo would cause a lot of fights


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:The only way

Old Seer wrote:
The only way I can think of to measure our intelligence level compared to a Chimp would be to give one of our kind and a Chimp an IQ test to make a comparision.

Which is impossible because a chimp doesn't understand English.

Old Seer wrote:
It would seem that our intellectual abilities have to be astronomical in comparance if our kind can engage in the complexities of building a skyscraper and compare how long it would take the Chimp to learn, draftsmanship, engineering, mathematics, reading etc

Astronomical my ass. It took man almost 200,000 years to accomplish those things. If you took a completely uneducated human, who'd never even been taught a language, I guarantee the chimp would be just as successful as the human in building a skyscraper, aeroplane, or computer. You have absolutely no comprehension of just how impossible it would be for our civilisation to exist without the ability to communicate complex information reliably.

Old Seer wrote:
If as you say --humans are animals then what use is there for the term human. It's not needed according to your aceptance of what is human. If you are a human animal and a pig is an animal being mentally as yourself then a pig also has to be a human animal. If human animal is to hold water then there has to be a difference between you and the pig and your saying in essence--there's no difference. What is the difference from you then as compared to a pig. If you are a human and a pig is animal how does human animal change you to be different then the pig. If there's no difference the term human applies to nothing and is meaningless. What does human animal mean compared to animal. ? If human does applies to something that something has has to be added to animal--what is it. ??

There are two primary purposes behind the term 'human'. The first is the arrogant assumption, exceptionally common until recently, that we are somehow better than everything else. Usually this is rooted in religious belief coupled with simple ignorance.

The second is the scientific label for our species. Humans, or more precisely homo sapeins, is the name of our genus and species. Much like dogs are of the genus canidae. This description does not suggest that we aren't animals, quite the contrary: they enforce that we ARE animals. Canidae and homo are both genera of the class: mammal, which is of the phylum: chordata, in the kingdom: animalia, or ANIMAL. Long after animals existed, dogs and humans had a common ancestor. We must be animals. Every bit of biological science ever known confirms it beyond argument.

Humans are animals, period.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I undersrtand your input.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Nice to know your ignorance extends to buffalo too. Among many species of buffalo, the strongest and most energetic males tend to also be low in the social structure. They follow behind the herd. Age appears to be the dominant factor in social position, not strength. This shows its benefits when the herd is attacked because the predators usually come from the rear where the strongest of the buffalo are able to defend the weak, young, old and sick. You would never see such behavior in say, a flock of chickens. 

[facepalm] HAHAHAHAHA! STOP YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE ME LAUGH TO DEATH!

"Nice to know your ignorance extends to buffalo too!"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...  Beyond you're my hero!

 

The buffaloe and the deer and whatever still have a social order as your society. That's  the point, not to what degree they are the same not why a smaller is the dominant ior not.. When a buffaloe doesen't get along with the others it's for the same reason in your society.You're not showing me anything new. Bulls have temperment, and not all are the same degree. Some don't socialize to the same degree as others---just as in your society. I'm focused on why they have problems.

I am very well aquainted with cattle, sir, In the 80s I raised up and trained up a team of oxen, and you have to know cattle to do that. I would say my first hand experience with cattle is better and then yours and I don't mean that as an attack. I can post pics of Brute and Buddy if you need proof. Can you train up a team of oxen, can you name 3 things you need to know to do the job amoung a number of others.  You may get this correct--what is the first thing. It's the same with horse's. Would you have to learn "how" to do it and what's all needed--if you need to learn--then you don't know cattle. Do you request the pics of young Brute and Buddy. How long does to take to train up a team of oxen. What is needed to be done at 9 months into training young one's. If you don't know what--you don't know cattle.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
After 200,000 years Chimps

still don't have the language skills we have. And it's very likely it'll take another 200,000 or never. How did you get an idea that a chimp can build a skyscraper. Why don't they at least build themselves a doghouse instead of staying out in the rain. Respectfully people--get real. Chimps didn't build what material objects we have today. It takes a better intelectual ability then a Chimp.

OK lets get this on record so there'll be no doubt.

Vastet---you are sure a Chimp today can build a skyscraper--yes---no

Beachbum, do you a gree with Vastet that a chimp can build a skyscraper--yes ----no.

Beyondsaving, samo-------------------------------------------------------------------  yes-----no.

Anyone else,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yes-----no.

 

OK--Man up and lets see.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: still don't

Old Seer wrote:

still don't have the language skills we have. And it's very likely it'll take another 200,000 or never. How did you get an idea that a chimp can build a skyscraper. Why don't they at least build themselves a doghouse instead of staying out in the rain. Respectfully people--get real. Chimps didn't build what material objects we have today. It takes a better intelectual ability then a Chimp.

Beachbum, do you a gree with Vastet that a chimp can build a skyscraper--yes ----no.

OK--Man up and lets see.

Your argument is null and void. Apes and chimp might or might not be able to build skyscrapers. If all humans were killed off and they were left on their own maybe/maybe not, they would eventually learn more advanced tools and language. However I have been told they learned other human abilities and I have found proof of such actions.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I agree.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

still don't have the language skills we have. And it's very likely it'll take another 200,000 or never. How did you get an idea that a chimp can build a skyscraper. Why don't they at least build themselves a doghouse instead of staying out in the rain. Respectfully people--get real. Chimps didn't build what material objects we have today. It takes a better intelectual ability then a Chimp.

Beachbum, do you a gree with Vastet that a chimp can build a skyscraper--yes ----no.

OK--Man up and lets see.

Your argument is null and void. Apes and chimp might or might not be able to build skyscrapers. If all humans were killed off and they were left on their own maybe/maybe not, they would eventually learn more advanced tools and language. However I have been told they learned other human abilities and I have found proof of such actions.

Chimps may evolve someday to be able to build a skyscraper. But that's not the question. This is "today", so my input is not void. I'm not going to hold you to make a direct answer because I don't care to get into verbal shootouts and try to put others on the hook. As I understand things, if a young chimp were to enter kindergarten today it would die of old age before it could even set a cornerstone, maybe not, but a corner stone is about as far as it'll get. Smiling I presented my information on subject of societal domination and it's causes on society. Good enough for me. If one doesn't agree I'm not going to holler stupid or jackass. We present this info for the study of others and it's up to them to accept or not.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:After 200,000

Old Seer wrote:
After 200,000 years Chimps still don't have the language skills we have

In 200,000 years, they have still not seen an evolutionary tweaking of their vocal chords which would allow them to begin developing language skills, so the fact they have yet to develop them is irrelevant. It has no bearing on their intelligence.

Old Seer wrote:
How did you get an idea that a chimp can build a skyscraper.

You're the one who brought up the idea, ask yourself.

No life form on earth could or has ever built a skyscraper. Groups of hundreds of humans have accomplished it, with sufficient training, but it is well beyond the capabilities of a single human or any other life form.

Interestingly, humans are not the only creatures to build skyscrapers. Ants and termites do it too. Proportionally, some of them are much higher than the tallest skyscraper, and include things like air conditioning. Funnily enough, bugs were doing it long before our species even existed. So I guess, by your reasoning, ants and termites are much smarter than humans. Despite the fact they use an even more authoritarian society than we do.

Every time I look around, I see a dozen things that prove you wrong, absolutely. At this point I begin to question your intelligence, because you're still making a fool of yourself defending a lie and an impossible strategy despite absolute proof of its failure. I bet the chimp has a higher IQ than you do.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Subliminal world Just another manic Sunday, wish it were Monday

 

    The dialog and quote actually ties into the whole call for a  revolution, starting with the individual first  (read the entire page) . . .

 

 Re:: Just another manic Sunday, wish it were Monday
 

  DigitalBeachBum  . .

 

   Yeah   about that  . . 

0ldSeer wrote:
. . provided all others in this particular society make the same choice. It's up to the individual.

  Uproarious laughter or not.  They say if you have to explain a joke, you've failed . .  I definitely DO NOT need to either explain the joke  nor  provide  the following quote in this case :

 

 

    A Sneaky pete   --   In a pool hall with pool or billiards, a "hustler's cue." Being a well-designed cue  that looks like  a well-worn house cue.

 Clue-In  Quote  from OldSeer 

0ldSeer wrote:
. . provided all others in this particular society make the same choice. It's up to the individual.
  p.s. --  Next  time  I say, .. nobody  say anything   that very much includes  you buddy !!  Although,  I am actually very glad I could clarify though, all-the-same! It's all good (smile).

 

 

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Sorry.

danatemporary wrote:

 

    The dialog and quote actually ties into the whole call for a  revolution, starting with the individual first  (read the entire page) . . .

 

 Re:: Just another manic Sunday, wish it were Monday
 

  DigitalBeachBum  . .

 

   Yeah   about that  . . 

0ldSeer wrote:
. . provided all others in this particular society make the same choice. It's up to the individual.

  Uproarious laughter or not.  They say if you have to explain a joke, you've failed . .  I definitely DO NOT need to either explain the joke  nor  provide  the following quote in this case :

 

 

    A Sneaky pete   --   In a pool hall with pool or billiards, a "hustler's cue." Being a well-designed cue  that looks like  a well-worn house cue.

 Clue-In  Quote  from OldSeer 

0ldSeer wrote:
. . provided all others in this particular society make the same choice. It's up to the individual.
  p.s. --  Next  time  I say, .. nobody  say anything   that very much includes  you buddy !!  Although,  I am actually very glad I could clarify though, all-the-same! It's all good (smile).

 

 

 

I thought you ment don't post on a particular subject of your post. sometimes there's more subjets then one , if I underastand this right. Have a neat day Dana. Smiling

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I said they can't

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
After 200,000 years Chimps still don't have the language skills we have
In 200,000 years, they have still not seen an evolutionary tweaking of their vocal chords which would allow them to begin developing language skills, so the fact they have yet to develop them is irrelevant. It has no bearing on their intelligence.
Old Seer wrote:
How did you get an idea that a chimp can build a skyscraper.
You're the one who brought up the idea, ask yourself. No life form on earth could or has ever built a skyscraper. Groups of hundreds of humans have accomplished it, with sufficient training, but it is well beyond the capabilities of a single human or any other life form. Interestingly, humans are not the only creatures to build skyscrapers. Ants and termites do it too. Proportionally, some of them are much higher than the tallest skyscraper, and include things like air conditioning. Funnily enough, bugs were doing it long before our species even existed. So I guess, by your reasoning, ants and termites are much smarter than humans. Despite the fact they use an even more authoritarian society than we do. Every time I look around, I see a dozen things that prove you wrong, absolutely. At this point I begin to question your intelligence, because you're still making a fool of yourself defending a lie and an impossible strategy despite absolute proof of its failure. I bet the chimp has a higher IQ than you do.

build a skyscraper--you said they could. When do you suppose the vocal tweeking will take place. Their going to need more then complex wordings. The body will do, but the mental ability is short. When do you suppose that will change. Physically they would be better at building skyscrapers, in my opinion.

I,m assuming that it would take more then one chimp to build a skyscraper. How many chimps collectively can reason out how to build a skyscraper. I don't think termites build skyscrapers. Proportionatly to their size perhaps but not proportianatly to the size of a chimp. You haven't specified any criteria as to what constitutes a skyscraper.  As to whose intelligent here plus or minus I'll leave for others to decide.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:I said they

Old Seer wrote:
I said they can't build a skyscraper--you said they could.

No I didn't. Why is it that morons who believe in impossible things always try to win arguments by making up lies about their opponents statements? All my responses are still here for everyone to see. I never said a chimp could build a skyscraper, and that is a fact supported by the history recorded in this topic.

Old Seer wrote:
When do you suppose the vocal tweeking will take place.

Who's to say it ever will? Out of billions of species, only one that we know of has developed such a capacity in a good 4 billion years. And it wasn't even humans who did it, it was the ancestors of humans who developed the ability to speak. By the time humans were an identifiable species we were already talking, and had been for thousands of years.

If the descendants of chimps learn to communicate similarly to us, by the time it happens both humans and chimps will be extinct.

Old Seer wrote:
I don't think termites build skyscrapers. Proportionatly to their size perhaps but not proportianatly to the size of a chimp.

What you think is irrelevant. And so what? We haven't built skyscrapers proportionally to the size of termites. We can't. It is beyond our capability.

Old Seer wrote:
You haven't specified any criteria as to what constitutes a skyscraper

I don't have to. There's something called a dictionary that does that for me. I suggest you acquire one.

Old Seer wrote:
As to whose intelligent here plus or minus I'll leave for others to decide.

Good. Don't be shocked when noone thinks that you are intelligent.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: 

danatemporary wrote:

  Uproarious laughter or not.  They say if you have to explain a joke, you've failed . .  I definitely DO NOT need to either explain the joke  nor  provide  the following quote in this case :

I have a friend who has an extremely dry sense of humor. When he was in high school he often lost people who weren't in our circle of gamers. Now that he has moved away, gotten married and had kids, he uses emails to keep in touch. When he sends emails with jokes we are now the ones scratching our heads.  I have learned that familarity to an individual and being in the same room can often help with this type of humor.

I seriously never get any of your posts. Never. Your posts are always akward to me. Your formatting of a post is "whackadoodle". You have large font, small font, pictures which are off the screen and you seem to be one with a dry sense of humor.

Maybe it is my dyslexia, ADD and my picture thinking mind which is the problem.

PS - If you post stuff and I'm lost I get to say something. I'm seriously trying to figure stuff out and asking me to stay in the dark isn't fair.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: I can think

Old Seer wrote:

I can think of to measure our intelligence level compared to a Chimp would be to give one of our kind and a Chimp an IQ test to make a comparision. It would seem that our intellectual abilities have to be astronomical in comparance if our kind can engage in the complexities of building a skyscraper and compare how long it would take the Chimp to learn, draftsmanship, engineering, mathematics, reading etc. I don't think the Chimp would make it to kindergarten. There would have to be a comparison of level and ability. But now---wouldn't all you mentioned above be what you're saying makes the difference, so there is a difference of some kind.

As it has already been pointed out, you brought up the subject of a chimp building a skyscraper as comparison. You wanted to compare a chimp on how long it would take them to do all the things needed to build such an object.

However Vas didn't bring it up. He has been saying all along that in order to take up the challenge other humanoids (chimps) would need to have the communication skills that we have already developed. With out those communication skills chimps would never be able to coordinate enough to express such ideas even if they had those thoughts or images in their minds.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Fair enough

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

I can think of to measure our intelligence level compared to a Chimp would be to give one of our kind and a Chimp an IQ test to make a comparision. It would seem that our intellectual abilities have to be astronomical in comparance if our kind can engage in the complexities of building a skyscraper and compare how long it would take the Chimp to learn, draftsmanship, engineering, mathematics, reading etc. I don't think the Chimp would make it to kindergarten. There would have to be a comparison of level and ability. But now---wouldn't all you mentioned above be what you're saying makes the difference, so there is a difference of some kind.

As it has already been pointed out, you brought up the subject of a chimp building a skyscraper as comparison. You wanted to compare a chimp on how long it would take them to do all the things needed to build such an object.

However Vas didn't bring it up. He has been saying all along that in order to take up the challenge other humanoids (chimps) would need to have the communication skills that we have already developed. With out those communication skills chimps would never be able to coordinate enough to express such ideas even if they had those thoughts or images in their minds.

 

I see you're detecting a problem, So have I, but can't put an ID on it. He's taking me as I'm attacking him which isn't the case. I'm trying to re-enforce or claify an item but I think he's taking me the wrong way. There's even something in his last post that is confusing to me. I'll go back in the postings and see if I can find what happened. You may very well be correct. It could be a result of not understanding a post. I have been trying to figure out why he's upset. Thank you for your help. 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Got it.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

I can think of to measure our intelligence level compared to a Chimp would be to give one of our kind and a Chimp an IQ test to make a comparision. It would seem that our intellectual abilities have to be astronomical in comparance if our kind can engage in the complexities of building a skyscraper and compare how long it would take the Chimp to learn, draftsmanship, engineering, mathematics, reading etc. I don't think the Chimp would make it to kindergarten. There would have to be a comparison of level and ability. But now---wouldn't all you mentioned above be what you're saying makes the difference, so there is a difference of some kind.

As it has already been pointed out, you brought up the subject of a chimp building a skyscraper as comparison. You wanted to compare a chimp on how long it would take them to do all the things needed to build such an object.

However Vas didn't bring it up. He has been saying all along that in order to take up the challenge other humanoids (chimps) would need to have the communication skills that we have already developed. With out those communication skills chimps would never be able to coordinate enough to express such ideas even if they had those thoughts or images in their minds.

 

His post #85. I found it very baffelling, it should be common knowledge that chimps cannot build skyscrapers and I'm thinking he's saying they can. Looking at the post I see he states they "would" be able to. I took that as presently because it's the present times that I have in mind. I take it now that he means if they evolve to a time when they can. I see in a recent post of yours you brought up the evolution factor  and agreed that if/when they evoved they wouild be able to. I took his wording to mean that if they undertook the project they could.  Evolution is not included in the statememnt, in yours it is, note the difference in the reply between yours and his.

 What started my confusion was his first input on the IQ (that was not meant in derogatory terms, I seriously ment if that were to be done) and goes as such. [ Which is impossible because a chimp doesn't undersatnd English] Combining that with the second really made things confusing. Such as, if one knows that then how can one state that a chimp can build a skyscraper. If thats the case the two statements are incompatable. BUT, if he is saying as you--then I agree with him as I agreed with you. I can see why this may have been confusing to you, I also detected that there was a problem and didn't realize there were two different thought lines. You nailed it. Thanks again . I know he is aware of evolution and is very familiar with it, and I don't rate him as stupid or dumb, (nor anyone else)and couldn't see how one with an understanding of evolution could say that a chimp could build a skyscraper. I was also under the impression that he thinks a chimps intellect is equal to ours.

After I got on this site I noticed this word string problem and posted on it. --Words on paper and screen are flat, they have no expression verbal tone and can be taken wrong . Changing a word in a string changes the intent of the sentence using some word placed differently. It will allways be a problem.This is one of the reasons I don't get into condeming sessions of others, I sense or realize I could be misunderstanding something.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Agree

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Old Seer wrote:
Not a single invented device will solve the social problems.

 

                                                Including those invented devices known as "gods".

This is where we do agree. The god idea has to go.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
No post

No post.