|
|
 Up |
  |
Author: trinlaytrinlay Date: Aug 16, 2008 06:38
After catching some weird news (almost certainly a hoax)... there's
been some interesting discussion around the house:
Bigfoot...animal or person?
at what point would a wild hominid be considered a person rather than
just an animal?
using tools? using language? burial /ritualized disposal of the
dead? religion?
could said being be protected by "human rights"? What about
citizenship?
What about such beings as say aliens (from outer space or other
dimensions) that are clearly sapient, and using technologies, as well
as being sentient?
go to it folks, (I think I'll survey my friends in various fora and
come up with some kind of hopefully interesting, if not necessarily
meaningful results.)
|
| |
| 93 Comments |
|
|
Author: Leigh ClaffeyLeigh Claffey Date: Aug 16, 2008 18:09
trinlay wrote:
> After catching some weird news (almost certainly a hoax)... there's
> been some interesting discussion around the house:
>
> Bigfoot...animal or person?
I'll bite, but I think this newest 'evidence' is a hoax. We'll find out
on monday
when they're supposed to be presenting the remains to their local M.E. for
examination.
>
> at what point would a wild hominid be considered a person rather than
> just an animal?
> using tools? using language? burial /ritualized disposal of the
> dead? religion?
Tool use does not a human make. If it did then chimpanzees (Bonobos?) would
be considered human. They have (limited) tool use up to and including
fashioning
primitive spears* (deliberately sharpening...
|
| Show full article (3.91Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Marten KempMarten Kemp Date: Aug 16, 2008 19:30
Leigh Claffey wrote:
> trinlay wrote:
>> After catching some weird news (almost certainly a hoax)... there's
>> been some interesting discussion around the house:
>>
>> Bigfoot...animal or person?
>
> I'll bite, but I think this newest 'evidence' is a hoax. We'll find out
> on monday
> when they're supposed to be presenting the remains to their local M.E. for
> examination.
>
>>
>> at what point would a wild hominid be considered a person rather than
>> just an animal?
>> using tools? using language? burial /ritualized disposal of the
>> dead? religion?
>
> Tool use does not a human make. If it did then chimpanzees (Bonobos?)
> would ...
|
| Show full article (4.18Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John W. VinsonJohn W. Vinson Date: Aug 17, 2008 00:53
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:38:30 -0700 (PDT), trinlay hotmail.com>
wrote:
>at what point would a wild hominid be considered a person rather than
>just an animal?
I wonder if it's a meaningful distinction.
As a vegetarian, I decline to kill warmblooded animals (or have them killed
for me) in order to eat them. I don't try to persuade others to take it to
this extreme but I'm not the only one who takes this stand.
Even without that... I'd say that a chimpanzee, or a dolphin, or a humpback
whale, or a Bigfoot (if there are any such), might be "just an animal" but
that it has a claim on us for humane treatment and empathy.
--
John the Wysard JVinson *at* Wysard Of Info *dot* com
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Clovis ManClovis Man Date: Aug 17, 2008 01:28
trinlay hotmail.com> wrote:
>After catching some weird news (almost certainly a hoax)... there's
>been some interesting discussion around the house:
>
>Bigfoot...animal or person?
Good question. Reliable evidence of bigfoot's existence,
including a DNA profile, would help.
>at what point would a wild hominid be considered a person rather than
>just an animal? using tools? using language? burial /ritualized disposal of the
>dead? religion?
|
| Show full article (2.05Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: D.J.D.J. Date: Aug 17, 2008 03:23
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:38:30 -0700 (PDT), trinlay
hotmail.com> wrote:
]After catching some weird news (almost certainly a hoax)... there's
]been some interesting discussion around the house:
]
]Bigfoot...animal or person?
I don't know.
I do know on MonsterQuest on History channel there have been
several serious documentaries on them. The original film has been
scrutinzed for anomolies; like could a person wear a suit that
looked like the original film and made those exact movements. No,
they couldn't. Seems there are some musculature movements that
cannot be performed by a human. They had a male gymnist, and
several other people, look at the film frame by frame, and see if
they could duplicate the movements. Computerized the results, and
ran both films at the same time, etc. Some, but not all, were
possible for a human. DNA tests have been run to. etcetera.
|
| Show full article (1.13Kb) |
| 6 Comments |
|
|
Author: Wes StruebingWes Struebing Date: Aug 17, 2008 02:41
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:28:02 -0600, Clovis Man
3lefties.com> wrote:
>trinlay hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>After catching some weird news (almost certainly a hoax)... there's
>>been some interesting discussion around the house:
>>
>>Bigfoot...animal or person?
>
>Good question. Reliable evidence of bigfoot's existence,
>including a DNA profile, would help.
Too bad the dna was mostly 'possum and one sample was human...
Oy!
>
>Given our past and current behavior, I'm not sure _we_ deserve
>our continued existence.
|
| Show full article (0.82Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: The Nerdy DuoThe Nerdy Duo Date: Aug 17, 2008 02:42
We agree that it's probably a hoax. Have you guys seen the picture? It
looks like a pile of fun fur and ketchup in a bathtub.
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: The Nerdy DuoThe Nerdy Duo Date: Aug 17, 2008 02:50
On Aug 16, 8:42 pm, The Nerdy Duo gmail.com> wrote:> We agree that it's probably a hoax. Have you guys seen the picture? It
> looks like a pile of fun fur and ketchup in a bathtub.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Clovis ManClovis Man Date: Aug 17, 2008 05:26
Wes Struebing carpedementem.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:28:02 -0600, Clovis Man
> 3lefties.com> wrote:
>>>trinlay hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>After catching some weird news (almost certainly a hoax)... there's
>>>been some interesting discussion around the house:
>>>
>>>Bigfoot...animal or person?
>>
>>Good question. Reliable evidence of bigfoot's existence,
>>including a DNA profile, would help.
>
>Too bad the dna was mostly 'possum and one sample was human...
"But you have to *believe*!!!" Yeah, right. Roswell alien
autopsy, anyone?
|
| Show full article (1.14Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
