The voters have decided that Frank_n_Furter is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
Also by Frank_n_Furter+32It pisses you off when you're hanging out with someone and out of no where they're just like "Oh yeah, my friend you've never met before is gonna come over and hang out with us". Especially if you're not good at meeting new people. And even more when they ignore you for their other friend. amirite?
Also by Frank_n_Furter+5In "Interview with the Vampire" Louis and Claudia's relationship was really creepy, amirite?
Also about Animals & Nature+127Most animals are bastards... amirite?
Also about Animals & Nature+152A male dogs penis just gets to swing around in a hammock all day. amirite?
Also about Animals & Nature+155Clouds are lakes/oceans in the sky, amirite?
Also by Frank_n_Furter+13It would be interesting to watch the progress of the universe form to where it is now then to see what it would look like in the future. To see all the gases and rocks and shit crash into each other then be warped into a sphere by gravity would be mind blowing, and to even begin to fathom what is it going to look like millions of years from now is nearly impossible, amirite?
For the record, this post was inspired by a previous post I made but didn't phrase too well and was reminded of because of new comments. http://amirite.com/726566-its-s...-in-the-animal And I really like what Wobbuffet said: "There's a funny kind of self-importance going on in these comments. "But humans are more special because we're smart/talk/walk..." But we only care about those attributes because it's important to human life. A bumblebee would consider all of those things a complete waste of time and energy. We're no more special than the trees that can live a thousand years or the whales that grow to 100ft or the bacterium that can live in 200 degree water or the corn species that is now perhaps the most successful species on Earth because humans chose it as a necessary food."
I remember reading that comment! It changed my entire view on animals!
Yeah! I wish I could have said what I meant as clearly as they phrased it. There was a lot of (understandable) misinterpretations, ex: But we are different and you undermine your whole post by pointing out differences! When what I meant was that we're as different from other animals as every other animals is different from each other- we're all equal, even if some of us are on top of the food chain, we all have equally valuable qualities.
My favorite part was when someone called me ignorant on the whole subject-despite naming several ways other animals are very close to humans- just because I had an opinion differing from their own.
There are many criteria for an animal being better than another. I think intelligence is the most important one, but then I have the benefit of hindsight. Intelligence grants artificial strength (weapons, armour) but only after a critical point.
Strength would enable one species to pound any other species into the ground, but again, only after a critical point.
Speed, in my opinion, is the least important because it can't do anything by itself, other than run away. Trapping, and building both require intelligence, and attacking and a dodge require strength.
In a battle between a critically strong species and a critically intelligent species, the intelligent one would win because of ranged weapons.
We are, physically, probably the most useless animal ever, but our intelligence offsets that and more. We may only specialise in one aspect, but that aspect seems like the biggest one to me. Also, if any other species took over the world, they'd probably die off because they don't bother with sustainable...anything.
You missed the point. I'm not saying we're not the most intelligent or that it has given us the best evolutionary advantage. What I'm saying is just being better at something doesn't mean those who aren't as good are lesser creatures.
Well there's got to be some distinction. Otherwise, we'd all have to be vegetarian. And even then, who's to say plants don't deserve the right to live more than animals? Right now, rights are based on understanding. Humans cn understand that everything ends when they die, that pain can mean physical damage etc etc, so we have the most rights. A turkey only know it's something they don't want. Their understanding of pain and death is similar to a toddler's understanding of losing a toy. A plant doesn't even know it's being killed, so it has no rights at all, but it makes oxygen, so we should preserve them.
I'm sure no one would say lesser creature and think of a tiger, because tigers are pretty awesome in other ways. But take a slug for instance. We're faster, smarter, stronger and better at everything, including range of diet. Wouldn't that make a slug a lesser creature?
And I don't really think I missed the point. What makes one creature better than another? Isn't it the ability to survive, which is the whole point of existence? Humans, as a whole, have used intelligence to make natural abilities obsolete. Speed has been increased by vehicles, range of movement by
No, a slug is not a lesser creature. We're both organic life trying to make it in this world. Maybe he's slower than me, maybe I'm more aware of myself and the world, maybe I'm smarter- I've got a lot of qualities that are better than their qualities. There's people in this world who can solve a rubix cube with their eyes shut, run a mile in under 4 minutes, solve difficult math equations I never could- you see where I'm going with this? People aren't better than other people for being able to do something better than all the rest- the same thing applies across species- being able to rip a dolphins head off doesn't make the shark a better creature or the dolphin a lesser one- it means the shark is stronger physically. And this is where the conversation ends I think because the way I see it we're all equal and the way you see it being able to survive better means the animal is better. And yes, you did miss the point because I said being ahead evolutionary wise doesn't make the other animals lesser beings then you went on to explain what traits make an animal better.
I see your point. I disagree. Animals are trying to evolve to survive, so I think those better at it are also better. I think people who won the Nobel Prize, Olympic gold medalists and famous writers are better than me, and a person who's about to cure cancer's life is more valuable than mine in an emergency.
If one animal is much better in all ways except one than another, but that one way is something trivial, I think the first animal is a better animal. I could extend your argument to ridiculous limits. THe person who won the best drawing in second grade is equal to the person who won the Nobel Prize, so the first prize in a second grade art contest is equal to the Nobel. What makes the bacteria on your hand worth less than you that you have to wash your hands?
A lesser being is one that is less intelligent. No one even said it means they're inferior in all aspects.
ships and aircraft, attack power by guns, defense power by armour. What else is there to compare? You can't just take an advantage in its raw form and disregard it's implications.
But humans have souls. Would you rather your mom die or your pet fish? I know what I'd choose. And you're gonna say that a tree is more important than a human being? I don't think so. Like you said, there are so many different types of animals. But there are also so many different types of humans. Different races, religions, nationalities, even little things like different eye color. But we're all important and unique in some way. I just don't see how you could say we are the same as animals.
SOULS??? Kay- I'm leaving out make believe and unprovable shit.
Anyway. I would chose my mom because evolutionary wise we are all programed to continue our species. Your argument is invalid.
I like how this factually correct comment gets down voted not even 5 minutes after I post it because someone, probably the person I was replying to, disagreed but doesn't have an argument to present.
I didn't down vote your comment.
Anyway. You would choose your mom solely based on the fact that you're 'programmed to continue your species?' I would choose my mom because I love her and, in fact, I would choose someone I hate over an animal. Because they're important to someone. As much as you disagree with me and as much as you probably hate religion, we are inherently different from animals because of our intelligence and our ability to know, love, and have emotions. Animals, on the other hand, don't have emotions. They are the ones that are just programmed to continue their species.
"Animals don't have emotions." Are you serious?
Yeah, I am. They're motivated by instinct.
You've clearly never owned a pet before. Animals experience everything from happiness to depression and jealousy. Of course they have emotions.
Er, I don't hate religion just because I'm Atheist.
Except the part where we are at the top of the food chain
So what? We're good at getting food- and? We're better at some things, but we're not better than all the other animals just because of that. At least not in my opinion. If you wanna get technical- we suck at the food chain. There's a few of us that gather the food for the rest- but if you were to set all humans to go get their own food we'd ****ing starve Unless we reverted back to caveman days where we killed mammoths with sticks...
All joking aside though, we've got an evolutionary advantage when it comes to some thing, but we're no better than cheetah, jelly fish, bacteria, etc... we're all just life trying to survive. Sharks are above dolphins on the food chain, but dolphins have their own skills and life, they're valuable in their own way and their life isn't worth less than a shark's.
What I mean to say is: while we may be better at killing things, while a shark may be the apex predator of the ocean, they are good at THAT- and there's so many other things to consider that you can't judge an animals quality based off that.
I wanna add: "we'd **** starve until natural selection set in and all those who couldn't hunt would die. AND in caveman days natural selection would already be a factor.
My point is- no life is more valuable just because it's a fiercer or smarter hunter. If that was the case, my life is more valuable than a 2 year old infant's. A shark's life is more valuable than a jely fish. A dog's life is more valuable than a cat's. No. We all have different strengths- how something and how successful it is at surviving isn't the only factor when determining the value of it's life.
I'm sure all animals consider themselves the most important/best. The difference is we have the position in the natural system to back it up