Do you believe in the need for rules or "order"?

[ydoaPs]

yes, I am interested in paleoanthropology.

 

 

However, people often contradict, whether in word or deed. Hence, I can believe in an anthropological sub-discipline and not believe in the rationale for social structures. Comprende?

You must not know much about paleoanthropology then. Tell me, how on earth does paleoanthropology suggest that the handaxe was developed by an individual? Tell me how paleoanthropology suggests that early humans weren't social animals despite ceremonial burials.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

nyouremyperfect10,

 

You are trolling. Cooperate with this discussion, or stop replying to it.

 

Do not reply to this note in the thread. If you have a problem with this warning, you can use the report button at the bottom of the post.

 

[zapatos]

We are all animals, yourself included. You don’t get to have an opinion where facts are concerned.

Just to be fair...

 

Being an animal is not a 'fact', unless you are saying that it is a 'fact' that certain humans created a category and put themselves in it in an attempt to bring order to their understanding of the world.

Why can't other humans have a different opinion on how to categorize life?

[nyouremyperfect10]

You must not know much about paleoanthropology then. Tell me, how on earth does paleoanthropology suggest that the handaxe was developed by an individual? Tell me how paleoanthropology suggests that early humans weren't social animals despite ceremonial burials.

 

Er.. no noted paleoanthropologist I've ever heard of has said that hominids were not social animals. Not Orrorin, the australopithecenes, homo habilis, homo erectus or archaic homo sapiens.

Just to be fair...

 

Being an animal is not a 'fact', unless you are saying that it is a 'fact' that certain humans created a category and put themselves in it in an attempt to bring order to their understanding of the world.

Why can't other humans have a different opinion on how to categorize life?

 

This is like saying "water is not a compound, I have my OWN definition, damnit!"

 

So animal is a socially constructed label? And? Did the label come from God himself?

[zapatos]

This is like saying "water is not a compound, I have my OWN definition, damnit!"

 

So animal is a socially constructed label? And? Did the label come from God himself?

Yes, it came from God himself.

[iNow]

I see no evidence that humans are indeed "social".

Your personal incredulity is hardly a valid argument. It matters not what you personally happen to see or understand. Reality doesn't care about your opinion.

[nyouremyperfect10]

Reality is shaped by the individual. All persons know that, I'd have thought.

[john5746]

Reality is shaped by the individual. All persons know that, I'd have thought.

 

Sorry, you aren't Neo and this isn't the Matrix. Sure, you do have a very limited ability to change your environment, but not the rules that govern it. You might not be social, you might be a sociopath and a psychopath, but most humans, as with many mammels are social.

 

I suggest you watch something like Naked and Afraid on Discovery Channel to get a small taste of how your life would be without society.

[John Cuthber]

I believe the fact we are social animals is something scientists say to dupe us.

 

Doesn't a sapient individual acknowledge that a person can do as they please in life?

 

What utility do "rules" actually bring?

OK, what about the other social animals? Did scientists dupe bees into cooperating?

Yes, briefly until he gets beaten up fr breaking the rules. Also, a person on their own can't really achieve much. We work much better as teams.

 

answer if the to ignore even a of rules- those of becomes grammar.apparent few think decides someone the I

[nyouremyperfect10]

OK, what about the other social animals? Did scientists dupe bees into cooperating?

Yes, briefly until he gets beaten up fr breaking the rules. Also, a person on their own can't really achieve much. We work much better as teams.

 

answer if the to ignore even a of rules- those of becomes grammar.apparent few think decides someone the I

 

Humans are sapient, bees are not. We can choose to violate "rules", though I doubt bees are,

[iNow]

Humans are sapient, bees are not.

Most likely, you meant to use the word sentient here, not sapient. Regardless, that doesn't negate the argument to which you were responding since other sentient animals are also social and cooperate, not just bees.

[WWLabRat]

One argument that I'm surprised hasn't really come up much is about evolution. If it's survival of the fittest, it only seems logical that evolution would choose (for lack of a better term) to have creatures be social animals. This allows them to work together towards a common goal, whether it's two velociraptor working in tandem to take down a larger prey or prairie dogs alerting each other when predators were nearby. Social creatures stretch back as far as we can tell and will always exist because it allows for the continued viability of a species.

[nyouremyperfect10]

No, I meant sapient. A cat is sentient (nay, all mammalians are) but is not as far as we can tell sapient.

 

Thus, we can reflect on our social structures, bees cannot (again, as far as we can tell).

[WWLabRat]

No, I meant sapient. A cat is sentient (nay, all mammalians are) but is not as far as we can tell sapient.

 

Thus, we can reflect on our social structures, bees cannot (again, as far as we can tell).

 

Are you using "sapient" as a noun or an adjective. Because as an adjective it means "to appear to be wise". As a noun, it simply means "to be homo sapiens". Some clarity would be useful.

 

And since when do bees not have a social structure? There is the one queen bee, drones (male) and workers (female). The sole purpose of the drones is to mate with the queen to produce eggs and therefore more bees. And the workers will do the hive "maintenance", taking care of everything going on. They also have communication in the way that they walk. This also indicates a level of intelligence.

[nyouremyperfect10]

Do you know if bees can philosophise on their social structures? Again, humans can, right?

[ydoaPs]

Er.. no noted paleoanthropologist I've ever heard of has said that hominids were not social animals.

Indeed.

[WWLabRat]

I believe the fact we are social animals is something scientists say to dupe us.

 

Doesn't a sapient individual acknowledge that a person can do as they please in life?

 

What utility do "rules" actually bring?

 

 

 

Er.. no noted paleoanthropologist I've ever heard of has said that hominids were not social animals. Not Orrorin, the australopithecenes, homo habilis, homo erectus or archaic homo sapiens.

 

This is like saying "water is not a compound, I have my OWN definition, damnit!"

 

So animal is a socially constructed label? And? Did the label come from God himself?

 

OP has refuted their own argument. Troll discussion over?

[nyouremyperfect10]

People contradict. You do, all humans do it.

 

Kindly state why mine are wrong, and yours are right?

[WWLabRat]

The problem is that your post directly contradicts your other post, the OP, which is the whole basis for this thread.

[kristalris]

Do you believe in the need for rules or "order"?

 

Yes

 

I believe the fact we are social animals is something scientists say to dupe us.

 

Doesn't a sapient individual acknowledge that a person can do as they please in life?

 

What utility do "rules" actually bring?

Read history: (continuing) disorder has without exception as far as I know caused great hardship and toil for many.

 

You should organize freedom in a way that needs an as little amount of rules on logically reaching a collective goal as possible.

 

Say a collective goal as living ones life in a most agreeable way causing the least bother to others including future generations.

 

This can IMO be reached by organizing all education, science and law in having R&D departments with the open-minded, quick thinking ones, that are relatively available, in the lead of those departments to provide advice and to do investigation afterwards if things a thought to have gone wrong.

 

In production the conscientious take lead and the others in support.

 

All ventures in life can be seen in this context of R&D, production and sales. All critical and requiring rules and organisation.

 

So wisdom can be organised by us apes.

 

This is not in any way undemocratic for it has as such little to do with politics given any parliamentary democratic just society. It is not left, or right wing or religious.

Edited August 31, 2013 by kristalris

[Jwolffe]

I beleive in the need for rules since without rules there will be chaos as people will be free to choose to act as they wish.Without rules there will be chaos and we will be plunged back into the dark ages.

[Delta1212]

What rules in particular don't you like?

[s1eep]

I am not an animal.

What are you then?

There is no complete difference between Man and a dog, each is fulfilled by it's own senses, each has it's own character and enjoys life; sure, on the face of things, within their beauty, they are different, but their special relationships outweigh their differences, You are the same as the dog, the only reason you think you're separate is because you can say it, and that's the only thing that separates us from other animal. You are more alike the animal than you are the word human, you're just too delusional to believe different, but this is probably through years of mental abuse from government funded educators. I imagine you say that you aren't Nature too,

Edited February 24, 2014 by s1eep

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

s1eep,

While your post seems to start off as a valuable contribution to the forum, it ended as an insult to one of our ex-members. Even though ADreamIveDreamt has been banned for rule violations already, there is no reason to start breaking our rules yourself).

 

You have already been suspended for rule violations. A continuation of this behavior will result in a ban from our forum.