> >>Despite the fact that
> >>some birds, for instance, can mimic human speech patterns, they generally
> >>don't start engaging in dialogue with us... yet a human being learning to
> >>imitate speech patterns does.
> They probably don't start engaging in conversation with us because
> they don't understand our words. It's like coming accross a group of
> people whose languarge you don't understand, unless someone you know
> understands what they are saying you're going to have a hard time
> even figuiring out what they are trying to say.
Yet most human beings manage to figure it out.
> >>As an aside, I wonder if and how the opposable thumb and human
> >>intelligence are related. Any thoughts, anyone?
> I didn't say that intelligence and the opposable thumb are related,
> just that even if you could come up with the things you say, without
> an opposable thumb these things are nothing but a pipe dream
I didn't say you said they were related.
Verbal or other similarly complex forms of human communication _are_
possible without opposable thumbs.
> >>Um... have you ever taken a tour of one? Seen the plans for one? Talked
> >>to an engineer who has worked on or studied one?
> The environmental destruction caused by the building and
> implementation of the dam are not very intelligent. And some of the
> most beutiful songs I have ever heard have come from birds
Whatever environmental damage does or does not occur may reflect a certain
lack of foresight. Foresight and intelligence may not be unrelated, but
I certainly wouldn't suggest that one is equivalent with the other.
Regardless of how beautiful you may find bird songs, an objective
side-by-side comparison of the structure and complexity of a symphony and
a bird song would most likely reveal that the former evidences a greater
sophistication of construction.
> >>Says who? You? God? Why should let either one you tell me what I do or
> >>do not have the right to do?
> You're on a atheist list and you're talking about god (and
> capitalizing it nonetheless). And i think you should check the
> structure of your last sentence, i don't think it's grammatically
> correct. What do you mean by "either one?"
"Either one" refers to you or the aforementioned "God". There should
have been an "I" before the word "let" in the fourth sentence.
Several times in this discussion, you have refered to "rights" in terms of
animal-human interactions. I am curious as to the basis of whatever
system of ethics/morality you're using to determine these rights. So far
I'm not convinced that your basis is anything other than kneejerk,
reactionary, irrational emotionalism.
> >>perhaps we should also define what we mean by "exploit".
> I mean the usage of to fulfill our own selfish designs.
I'm not aware of any such thing as a completely autonomous and independant
organism. It seems to me that "usage" of others for "selfish" ends occurs
throughout the vast spectrum of life on this planet.
--Jay
-----------------------=============================::::::::::::::::::::::::::
jwt@dana.ucc.nau.edu
http://dana.ucc.nau.edu/~jwt
:::::::::::::::::::::::=============================-------------------------