If evolution is true..why is it only human in the entire living world practice morality?

[beanieb]

Animals kill each other, mostly for sustanance and to win the chance for mating, but sometimes over territorial disputes and even for fun.

Yet as we can see from national geographic programs about wild beasts killings, man call these behaviours "the natural order of life".

 

The concept of "morality" seems to be absent from the animal kingdom.

Like eg a hyena kills the cub of a lioness, the stronger, more experienced alpha bear mauls the younger bear for infringing its harlem and space..

there seems to be no justice, right and wrong when it comes to animals..

that is one of the outtake of evolution, because "survival of the fittest" is the key drive for it.

 

So if humans came about by evolution, why is it man did not maintain this brutal system of eliminating the weak and promoting the toughest?

How did we evolve the need to create accountability of taking another's life (to be punishable by death or jail), when the other animals do it rampantly?

Has anyone ever thought of putting a tiger, python or great white that killed many to court for its actions?

 

What is it we possesss specifically that the animals don't, that holds us "accountable" for our actions to self and others, even for the "sickest most deranged murderer" (so can he claim he's just like the animals, acting according to instincts, and so we can treat him as how we see other animals kill each other, and thus feel ok for this sick murderer too)?

 

 

[Arete]

There's several flaws in the argument:

 

1. Humans are by no means the only organisms for which a set of rules govern their social interactions. Many organisms have highly complex social patterns and hierarchies. Wolf packs, chimpanzee troupes, bee hives, zebra herds, lion prides, etc all have "rules" and social norms regarding the interactions of members of their society. There's plenty of examples of order and "right and wrong" in animal interactions and behaviors.

 

2. Humans can and do kill each other, en masse. There have been countless violent confrontations between humans.

 

3. Humans also kill other species (like tigers, great white sharks, etc) en masse. Most human societies consume animals.

[Thorham]

Animals kill each other, mostly for sustanance

So do we.

 

to win the chance for mating

So do some of us.

 

sometimes over territorial disputes

We used to do this all the time, take a look at human history

 

and even for fun.

So do some of us.

 

The concept of "morality" seems to be absent from the animal kingdom.

The concept of morality seems to be absent from certain species of animals, such as lions, bears and other such predators, but does that really mean that you can't find a single species apart from humans that shows some form of morality or empathy?

 

"survival of the fittest" is the key drive for it.

It's not survival of the fittest, it's survival of the ones well adapted enough to the particular environment in which they exist.

 

How did we evolve the need to create accountability of taking another's life

We probably didn't. Such a notion is probably based on empathy.

 

when the other animals do it rampantly?

Not all non-human species do this rampantly, and there are plenty of peaceful creatures from which we could learn a thing or two. Also, can I say WW2 and other nasty wars? Humans can be one of the most brutal species in existence.

[beanieb]

@ Thorham

With regards to emphathy, what is the evolutionary advantage of it?

The disadvantages of it are that it makes the creature feel bad about a particular issue, and to solve this issue, additional effort is required (usually at the expense of the creature).

Am i right to think that Evolution is like electricity, it takes the fastest and easiest way (path of least resistance) to arrive at the most optimum condition of the environment setting?

That being so, emphathy seems more a hindrance than advantage to have isnt it?

 

 

@Arete,

Yes, agree in some animals species, there exists a social code of conduct of do's and don'ts.

However, when we compare the background of the "morality" between the best animal examples vs humans', we see that for humans the drive behind has a deeper tone.

The animals (eg the primates) don't do the don'ts mostly because of fear, lesser confidence and the likes, They are instinct led and basically it is still quite the "strong don't challenge" rule.

For humans, the deeper impression of morality that most people universally follow, have elements of self control --> to be able to not do the don'ts, not out of fear alone, but because of "right and wrong".

The morality we understand and practiced, is not simply grounded by outwardly characteristics but by "beliefs" , something which is not yet found in animals i believe (or are there already animals like that?).

It is to the point that we practice it like an "absolute standard".

 

For evolutionists however, morality would be merely just a theory or philosophy, since the only rule that guides and pushes life is "the toughest wins".

So morality would be just 1 of another tool to enhance survivabilty, to maintain and manage peace that's all, but not a "real standard".

That being said, for those people who don't "practice" morality, from the evolutionists point of view, since there is no true "right and wrong", conman, murderers and psycho killers etc are just "wrong" on accounts that they violate and disrupt the "agreed acceptable behaviours" of that society they lived in.

Would it be also correct to say then "if it doesnt affect others, you can do anything you like, since moral laws exists only to govern peace of people living in a community"?

 

yet quite a number of us cannot agree with that kind of saying, because it seems to infringe our understanding that the "right and wrong" of things extends deeper into individuals.

Thus the heading title that if you believe in the abovementioned morality that humans practiced, it would infringed the beliefs of evolution --> evolution paradox?

[Moontanman]

@ Thorham

With regards to emphathy, what is the evolutionary advantage of it?

The disadvantages of it are that it makes the creature feel bad about a particular issue, and to solve this issue, additional effort is required (usually at the expense of the creature).

Am i right to think that Evolution is like electricity, it takes the fastest and easiest way (path of least resistance) to arrive at the most optimum condition of the environment setting?

That being so, emphathy seems more a hindrance than advantage to have isnt it?

 

 

@Arete,

Yes, agree in some animals species, there exists a social code of conduct of do's and don'ts.

However, when we compare the background of the "morality" between the best animal examples vs humans', we see that for humans the drive behind has a deeper tone.

The animals (eg the primates) don't do the don'ts mostly because of fear, lesser confidence and the likes, They are instinct led and basically it is still quite the "strong don't challenge" rule.

For humans, the deeper impression of morality that most people universally follow, have elements of self control --> to be able to not do the don'ts, not out of fear alone, but because of "right and wrong".

The morality we understand and practiced, is not simply grounded by outwardly characteristics but by "beliefs" , something which is not yet found in animals i believe (or are there already animals like that?).

It is to the point that we practice it like an "absolute standard".

 

For evolutionists however, morality would be merely just a theory or philosophy, since the only rule that guides and pushes life is "the toughest wins".

So morality would be just 1 of another tool to enhance survivabilty, to maintain and manage peace that's all, but not a "real standard".

That being said, for those people who don't "practice" morality, from the evolutionists point of view, since there is no true "right and wrong", conman, murderers and psycho killers etc are just "wrong" on accounts that they violate and disrupt the "agreed acceptable behaviours" of that society they lived in.

Would it be also correct to say then "if it doesnt affect others, you can do anything you like, since moral laws exists only to govern peace of people living in a community"?

 

yet quite a number of us cannot agree with that kind of saying, because it seems to infringe our understanding that the "right and wrong" of things extends deeper into individuals.

Thus the heading title that if you believe in the abovementioned morality that humans practiced, it would infringed the beliefs of evolution --> evolution paradox?

 

 

I would like to know where you think morals come from before i confront your assertions in this post please... But remember that animals do lots of things humans do but only "deeper" and to say a chimp or a wolf only has instinctive behavior makes me wonder how you define instinctive behavior as well.

[Phi for All]

Am i right to think that Evolution is like electricity, it takes the fastest and easiest way (path of least resistance) to arrive at the most optimum condition of the environment setting?

That being so, emphathy seems more a hindrance than advantage to have isnt it?

 

Like most analogies, yours breaks down when taken too far. Evolution makes conservative changes over long periods of time, but it does NOT always take the fastest and easiest way.

 

The laryngeal nerve used to connect our ancestor's brain to its gills, a short little gap that looped over the heart. As those little fish evolved into all the vertebrates we have now, that nerve continues to connect the brain to the gills (or larynx for many now). And it still does so by looping over the heart, but now the heart, brain and larynx have shifted into many variations. Those variations have brains that are much closer to the larynx than to the heart, yet that laryngeal nerve still loops around the heart instead of taking the "fastest and easiest path". In giraffes, the laryngeal nerve can be over 15 feet long for a connection that spans less than a foot!

[nyouremyperfect10]

"If evolution is true, why are blue whales the largest ever known animal?"

 

"If evolution is true, why do bovine species have four stomachs?"

 

"If evolution is true, why do some snakes kill prey by injecting venom whilst others kill prey via constriction?"

 

Erm, if anything this proves evolution, since they all arose due to natural selection and adaptation to environments.

 

I would say though that many other social mammalians have "rules", namely:

 

- Chimps and Bonobos

- Gorillas

- Lions

- Old World and New World monkeys

- Dolphins

- Aucas/Killer whales

- Seals

- Sealions

- Walrus

- Baleen whales (e,g. blue whales as above, humpbacks, etc.)

- Horses, Zebra and other equines

- Bovines including domestic cattle

- Canines including domestic dogs and wolves

 

If one disputes this, see what happens if an omega wolf tries to usurp the alpha wolf's position.

Another thing, look at recorded human history. There have been COUNTLESS instances of inhumanity occurring. It's only due to the Enlightenment that we really believe cruelty is wrong.

 

IMO, anybody who believes humans are not an inherently savage species (not inherently, not exclusively) is too naive for his or her benefit.

[Thorham]

With regards to emphathy, what is the evolutionary advantage of it?

I don't know, but does it have to have an advantage? As long as something doesn't hinder an organism's ability to survive and procreate, it doesn't matter. Humans have empathy, but it doesn't hinder us and we are in fact one of the most successful organisms on earth.

 

Am i right to think that Evolution is like electricity, it takes the fastest and easiest way (path of least resistance) to arrive at the most optimum condition of the environment setting?

A new species only has to be adapted well enough to be able to survive and procreate adequately in the environment in which it exists, and doesn't have to be optimal.

 

Edit:

 

For evolutionists however, morality would be merely just a theory or philosophy, since the only rule that guides and pushes life is "the toughest wins".

Just a theory or philosophy? I'd say it would be one of the most important philosophies in existence!

Edited August 28, 2013 by Thorham

[nyouremyperfect10]

It's clear that empathy arose from more complex social interactions.

 

There is again an insinuation that animals lack empathy, and that they're somehow less "moral" than we are.

 

The primary difference between humans and animals is our brains and how we walk. Little else. If anything, many traits we thought were exclusively human have been noted in animals. An example is tool use. Though if we ever see chimps cracking open stones and hammering them on bones and nuts, then the shit will really hit the fan lol.. (or habilis is back from the dead...)

[Moontanman]

It's clear that empathy arose from more complex social interactions.

 

There is again an insinuation that animals lack empathy, and that they're somehow less "moral" than we are.

 

The primary difference between humans and animals is our brains and how we walk. Little else. If anything, many traits we thought were exclusively human have been noted in animals. An example is tool use. Though if we ever see chimps cracking open stones and hammering them on bones and nuts, then the shit will really hit the fan lol.. (or habilis is back from the dead...)

 

 

Well since chimps have indeed been seen in the wild doing those things I'd get a tarp before i sat in front of that fan...

[nyouremyperfect10]

@ Thorham

With regards to emphathy, what is the evolutionary advantage of it?

The disadvantages of it are that it makes the creature feel bad about a particular issue, and to solve this issue, additional effort is required (usually at the expense of the creature).

Am i right to think that Evolution is like electricity, it takes the fastest and easiest way (path of least resistance) to arrive at the most optimum condition of the environment setting?

That being so, emphathy seems more a hindrance than advantage to have isnt it?

 

 

@Arete,

Yes, agree in some animals species, there exists a social code of conduct of do's and don'ts.

However, when we compare the background of the "morality" between the best animal examples vs humans', we see that for humans the drive behind has a deeper tone.

The animals (eg the primates) don't do the don'ts mostly because of fear, lesser confidence and the likes, They are instinct led and basically it is still quite the "strong don't challenge" rule.

For humans, the deeper impression of morality that most people universally follow, have elements of self control --> to be able to not do the don'ts, not out of fear alone, but because of "right and wrong".

The morality we understand and practiced, is not simply grounded by outwardly characteristics but by "beliefs" , something which is not yet found in animals i believe (or are there already animals like that?).

It is to the point that we practice it like an "absolute standard".

 

For evolutionists however, morality would be merely just a theory or philosophy, since the only rule that guides and pushes life is "the toughest wins".

So morality would be just 1 of another tool to enhance survivabilty, to maintain and manage peace that's all, but not a "real standard".

That being said, for those people who don't "practice" morality, from the evolutionists point of view, since there is no true "right and wrong", conman, murderers and psycho killers etc are just "wrong" on accounts that they violate and disrupt the "agreed acceptable behaviours" of that society they lived in.

Would it be also correct to say then "if it doesnt affect others, you can do anything you like, since moral laws exists only to govern peace of people living in a community"?

 

yet quite a number of us cannot agree with that kind of saying, because it seems to infringe our understanding that the "right and wrong" of things extends deeper into individuals.

Thus the heading title that if you believe in the abovementioned morality that humans practiced, it would infringed the beliefs of evolution --> evolution paradox?

 

If this is the case, it simply stems from our more advanced brain.

 

The distinction between humans and animals is not so black and white as once thought.

 

Besides, who is to say animals cannot abstract? Nobody can and ever has read the mind of a dog, a tiger, or a chimpanzee to see if they have spirituality or a belief in supernatural forces.

[Bill Angel]

 

If this is the case, it simply stems from our more advanced brain.

 

The distinction between humans and animals is not so black and white as once thought.

 

Besides, who is to say animals cannot abstract? Nobody can and ever has read the mind of a dog, a tiger, or a chimpanzee to see if they have spirituality or a belief in supernatural forces.

Richard Dawkins offers an opinion about consiousness in animals.

Excerpts from an article in the New York Times about Richard Dawkins titled "A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy":

"...it would be no great surprise if the interior lives of animals turned out to be rather complex. Do dogs, for example, experience consciousness? Are they aware of themselves as autonomous animals in their surroundings?" Consciousness has to be there, hasnt it? Professor Richard Dawkins replies. Its an evolved, emergent quality of brains. Its very likely that most mammals have consciousness, and probably birds, too.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html

[Mr Monkeybat]

The biggest difference between humans and chimps is our complex spoken language. The big brains that enable such complex language are expensive using about a quarter of our calories when at rest, making birth more difficult, and making us more vulnerable to dehydration and concussion. Our mouth and throat adaptions also make us more vulnerable to choking. That is why it took millions of years for a species like us to come along it took a unique situation for those adaptions to remain positive for survival until we became spear chuckers.

 

Bonobos are bit different but in common chimps a strong alpha gets his way and frequently bullies others. But often the alpha is not the strongest but the next two strongest who became friends and ganged up on the previous alpha. When humans developed language and sharp weapons the game changed. Now people can conspire and the big bully can find himself ganged up on and/or stabbed in the back. As a result tribal hunter gatherers are pretty communist, no one wants to be seen as greedy or selfish. And a tribe which is less good at using there language adaptation to cooperate effectively will likely be wiped out by a tribe that is.

 

When agriculture began leading to much denser populations and eventually cities the game changed again with specialist warriors and all kind of other professions. Our capacity for complex language and thought allows us to adapt to many situations, but it also makes us vulnerable to propaganda, a skilled propagandist can manipulate emotions and ideas that are normally adaptive and make you do all sorts of things that are against your interests.

 

On another thread also, I recently posted some of my thoughts on the evolution of morality:

 

Modern morality is the product of the industrial age and the great food surpluses it has produced, when there is enough food around the common instinct is to not make unnecessary enemies. In more Malthusian times peoples mindsets are quite different. For example when the bible was written the main character called God frequently tells the Hebrews to exterminate rival tribes including all the women and children, but sometimes they are allowed to take slaves and concubines. These things where considered good and moral, sometimes the god character does the genocide himself with powers akin to nuclear weapons or great floods.

 

When societies advance from tribalism to despotism however the elite consider it in there interests to have some starving masses around to drive down the market value of labor to starvation rations, so philosophies that extol the virtues of peace are encouraged.

 

If Malthusian times return democracies will revert to either tribalism or perhaps despotism.

[WWLabRat]

Animals kill each other, mostly for sustanance and to win the chance for mating, but sometimes over territorial disputes and even for fun.

Yet as we can see from national geographic programs about wild beasts killings, man call these behaviours "the natural order of life".

 

The concept of "morality" seems to be absent from the animal kingdom.

Like eg a hyena kills the cub of a lioness, the stronger, more experienced alpha bear mauls the younger bear for infringing its harlem and space..

there seems to be no justice, right and wrong when it comes to animals..

that is one of the outtake of evolution, because "survival of the fittest" is the key drive for it.

 

So if humans came about by evolution, why is it man did not maintain this brutal system of eliminating the weak and promoting the toughest?

How did we evolve the need to create accountability of taking another's life (to be punishable by death or jail), when the other animals do it rampantly?

Has anyone ever thought of putting a tiger, python or great white that killed many to court for its actions?

 

What is it we possesss specifically that the animals don't, that holds us "accountable" for our actions to self and others, even for the "sickest most deranged murderer" (so can he claim he's just like the animals, acting according to instincts, and so we can treat him as how we see other animals kill each other, and thus feel ok for this sick murderer too)?

@ Thorham

With regards to emphathy, what is the evolutionary advantage of it?

The disadvantages of it are that it makes the creature feel bad about a particular issue, and to solve this issue, additional effort is required (usually at the expense of the creature).

Am i right to think that Evolution is like electricity, it takes the fastest and easiest way (path of least resistance) to arrive at the most optimum condition of the environment setting?

That being so, emphathy seems more a hindrance than advantage to have isnt it?

 

 

@Arete,

Yes, agree in some animals species, there exists a social code of conduct of do's and don'ts.

However, when we compare the background of the "morality" between the best animal examples vs humans', we see that for humans the drive behind has a deeper tone.

The animals (eg the primates) don't do the don'ts mostly because of fear, lesser confidence and the likes, They are instinct led and basically it is still quite the "strong don't challenge" rule.

For humans, the deeper impression of morality that most people universally follow, have elements of self control --> to be able to not do the don'ts, not out of fear alone, but because of "right and wrong".

The morality we understand and practiced, is not simply grounded by outwardly characteristics but by "beliefs" , something which is not yet found in animals i believe (or are there already animals like that?).

It is to the point that we practice it like an "absolute standard".

 

For evolutionists however, morality would be merely just a theory or philosophy, since the only rule that guides and pushes life is "the toughest wins".

So morality would be just 1 of another tool to enhance survivabilty, to maintain and manage peace that's all, but not a "real standard".

That being said, for those people who don't "practice" morality, from the evolutionists point of view, since there is no true "right and wrong", conman, murderers and psycho killers etc are just "wrong" on accounts that they violate and disrupt the "agreed acceptable behaviours" of that society they lived in.

Would it be also correct to say then "if it doesnt affect others, you can do anything you like, since moral laws exists only to govern peace of people living in a community"?

 

yet quite a number of us cannot agree with that kind of saying, because it seems to infringe our understanding that the "right and wrong" of things extends deeper into individuals.

Thus the heading title that if you believe in the abovementioned morality that humans practiced, it would infringed the beliefs of evolution --> evolution paradox?

It's clear that empathy arose from more complex social interactions.

 

There is again an insinuation that animals lack empathy, and that they're somehow less "moral" than we are.

 

The primary difference between humans and animals is our brains and how we walk. Little else. If anything, many traits we thought were exclusively human have been noted in animals. An example is tool use. Though if we ever see chimps cracking open stones and hammering them on bones and nuts, then the shit will really hit the fan lol.. (or habilis is back from the dead...)

 

Sorry for the long post, but I wanted things to also be shown in context... So... In order:

Like eg a hyena kills the cub of a lioness, the stronger, more experienced alpha bear mauls the younger bear for infringing its harlem and space..

Um, no... The diet of hyenas include anything from bugs, birds, and reptiles to impalas, horses, and wildebeests, depending on which species you're talking about. And if someone were to break into your house, would you not defend your possessions and family? That is essentially what the Alpha of any familial species does when threatened.

why is it man did not maintain this brutal system of eliminating the weak and promoting the toughest?

Hi, I'm Aaron. Welcome to modern society where we have been battling for millenia over territory, religion, and race.

How did we evolve the need to create accountability of taking another's life (to be punishable by death or jail), when the other animals do it rampantly?

Again, it's present in familial species. Anything that's family based, ie mammals especially, protects its own. Doing otherwise is illogical in the sense of evolution. If a species doesn't protect itself from further outside destruction, it risks being wiped out entirely. The only difference with humans is that we eventually created due process to prevent those wrongfully accused from being able to be executed.

Has anyone ever thought of putting a tiger, python or great white that killed many to court for its actions?

Being that we haven't developed true two way communication between these species, I'd say my point is made.

What is it we possesss specifically that the animals don't, that holds us "accountable" for our actions to self and others, even for the "sickest most deranged murderer" (so can he claim he's just like the animals, acting according to instincts, and so we can treat him as how we see other animals kill each other, and thus feel ok for this sick murderer too)?

Where in the world do you see murder, in the first degree, within animals (humans excluded)? You don't see it. You only see when they are fighting for survival (defense), challenging the alpha (coup d'etat), or eating their stillborn young (preventing potential predators from tracking the scent). So based on that, this point is moot.

With regards to emphathy, what is the evolutionary advantage of it?" & "That being so, emphathy seems more a hindrance than advantage to have isnt it?

It's what allows us to function as social animals. To be able to feel what another feels is what helps us to be able to make rational decisions for the betterment of the whole as opposed to the self. Helping the whole then is advantageous because you are more likely to have others help you in your time of need.

Yes, agree in some animals species, there exists a-social code of conduct of do's and don'ts.

With this one line, you completely tear apart your entire argument. A social code of do's and do not's IS morality.

The animals (eg the primates) don't do the don'ts mostly because of fear, lesser confidence and the likes, They are instinct led and basically it is still quite the "strong don't challenge" rule.

For humans, the deeper impression of morality that most people universally follow, have elements of self control --> to be able to not do the don'ts, not out -of fear alone, but because of "right and wrong"

What keeps you following your morals? At its basis it boils down to fear. Fear of repurcussions taking negative action... The same can be said of self control. Who hasn't come into a confrontation and wanted to be the stuffing out of the opponent but refrained because they could probably tear you limb from limb or in some way jeopardize your survivability?

since the only rule that guides and pushes life is "the toughest wins"

There is a very distinct difference between the survival of the toughest and survival of the fittest. I don't care how much you can bench press, you won't survive for very long in the frozen tundra without a coat of some kind. Thus animals living in colder climates evolved to handle the cold.

That being said, for those people who don't "practice" morality, from the evolutionists point of view, since there is no true "right and wrong", conman, murderers and psycho killers etc are just "wrong" on accounts that they violate and disrupt the "agreed acceptable behaviours" of that society they lived in.

And as I said above, the ones who go against the social code (ie morals) are subject to the consequences of such.

if you believe in the abovementioned morality that humans practiced, it would infringed the beliefs of evolution

On the contrary, we weed out those people who destroy society in some way or another. Someone kills someone, they will be put to death or spend life behind bars. They aren't fit for society, so we take them out of it and place them in a cell. And with them out of the gene pool, unfortunately sometimes too late, it's less likely that they will be able to pass on their beliefs and genetics and the following generations will benefit from it, whether it's immediately understood or not.

There is again an insinuation that animals lack -empathy, and that they're somehow less "moral" than we are.

 

Read my post.

Though if we ever see chimps cracking open stones and -hammering them on bones and nuts, then the shit will really hit the fan lol.. (or habilis is back from the dead...)

 

I debated about even replying to this part... You might want to duck and cover, or just leave completely. Your home is about to be redecorated.

[Greg H.]

An example is tool use. Though if we ever see chimps cracking open stones and hammering them on bones and nuts, then the shit will really hit the fan lol.. (or habilis is back from the dead...)

You do realize that aside from chimps, there are other mammals that are extensive tool users. Otters, for example, use rocks to bash open mollusk shells. Bottlenose dolphins have been observed using tools to hunt prey. Your example, chimps, have been known to make stone hammers and spears. Orangutans make whistles to scare off predators.

 

I would say that the fecal matter has indeed struck the rotary air impeller. Try not to get any on you.

[Ophiolite]

So if humans came about by evolution, why is it man did not maintain this brutal system of eliminating the weak and promoting the toughest?

 

I take it you have never been employed in a small, medium, or large sized company, nor observed the politics of schools and universities, or of organised religions, women's sewing circles, boy scout troops, or just about any human organisation involving more than one person. Perhaps you should get out more.

[zapatos]

It's clear that empathy arose from more complex social interactions.

Despite professing such intelligence, you've obviously been duped by the agenda of scientists. I see no evidence that humans are indeed "social".

Wait. What?

[WWLabRat]

nyouremyperfect10, on 28 Aug 2013 - 1:34 PM, said:

It's clear that empathy arose from more complex social interactions.

nyouremyperfect10, on 28 Aug 2013 - 06:00 AM, said:

Despite professing such intelligence, you've obviously been duped by the agenda of scientists. I see no evidence that humans are indeed "social".

 

Wait. What?

 

^This is what we've been waiting for.

[zapatos]

^This is what we've been waiting for.

Yep. I guess we fed him so much that he lost track of what he said.