NationStates Jolt Archive

:confused: Mmmm, actually we are animals, being an animal is a necessary condition for being human. Anything that is not an animal is not a human being...so you are saying that all animals then are human?

I think not. we are technically animals. but we are not Animalistic. we have reason and we do so much that isn't defined in the laws of the wild (Survival of the fittest)

so if you are going to be nitpicky, then yes, we are animals.

and unlike animals, we can change our nature.

so you are saying that all animals then are human?
No, and frankly I doubt very much that you actually thought I were. Would you believe I were suggesting all animals were cats if I stated all cats were animals? I sincerely hope not!

I think not. we are technically animals. but we are not Animalistic. we have reason and we do so much that isn't defined in the laws of the wild (Survival of the fittest)
If we are animals (and we are) whatever we are is animalistic, because animalistic includes whatever it is that we are.

so if you are going to be nitpicky, then yes, we are animals.

and unlike animals, we can change our nature.
What you are saying just does not make sense, we are animals but we can do something animals cannot do... if we can do something, then animals can do that thing, because we are animals.

No, and frankly I doubt very much that you actually thought I were. Would you believe I were suggesting all animals were cats if I stated all cats were animals? I sincerely hope not!good I hoped not.
If we are animals (and we are) whatever we are is animalistic, because animalistic includes whatever it is that we are.if you take Chimps (our closest relatives) then by your definition we should be more like chimps in lifestyle. yet our lifestyle is farther from their society than elvolution would dictate.
What you are saying just does not make sense, we are animals but we can do something animals cannot do... if we can do something, then animals can do that thing, because we are animals.Then go and live like an animal. I will choose not to. I would rather keep human civilization and human learnings which places us above animals. be sure however, not to demand your right to partake in the fruits of human labor, for no Animal demands that but is given it by humans.

good day.

I'm curious as to whether any other posters are aware of the data arising from Herdt's fieldwork among the 'Sambia', and if so what do they make of it with regards to sexuality?

I didnt think anyone on these forums would be aware of such an obscure (to laymen) topic. I think it is yet more evidence of how sexual attraction isnt carved in stone and is heavily influenced by environmental factors. Of course there are other examples of how sexuality can be altered by the environment (prison populations, sailors out at sea, and other such examples), but the Sambia example is a much more intriguing one because it shows how society and not just necessity can influence this shift in sexual orientation.

good I hoped not.
if you take Chimps (our closest relatives) then by your definition we should be more like chimps in lifestyle. yet our lifestyle is farther from their society than elvolution would dictate.
I have no idea how you came to such a conclusion, but I am certain there is no sound argument that would produce such a conclusion.

Then go and live like an animal.
There is no 'like' about it. I live as an animal, how else is an animal to live?

I will choose not to.
Right, good luck with that! Were you intending instead to live like a vegetable, or mineral, or what exactly?

I would rather keep human civilization and human learnings which places us above animals.
Human civilisation is an animal civilisation. It is nonsense to suggest we are placed above ourselves, such a suggestion requires that we can be in infinite places, which is so far as I can ascertain, not possible.

be sure however, not to demand your right to partake in the fruits of human labor, for no Animal demands that but is given it by humans.

good day.
Every human being is an animal, if something is not an animal it is not a human being.

Good day. :D

I didnt think anyone on these forums would be aware of such an obscure (to laymen) topic. I think it is yet more evidence of how sexual attraction isnt carved in stone and is heavily influenced by environmental factors. Of course there are other examples of how sexuality can be altered by the environment (prison populations, sailors out at sea, and other such examples), but the Sambia example is a much more intriguing one because it shows how society and not just necessity can influence this shift in sexual orientation.
Fair enough (with regards to 'laymen').
As for your comments, I agree, the Sambia data certainly made me rethink the Western conception of sexuality.

In a manner of speaking I've chosen to be hetero. I am very much attracted to women, which means that I could at most be bi. I have to admit that I am attracted to some guys, but the thought of having sex with them isn't that appealing, though I am a virgin in that area. I am not so repulsed by the idea of kissing guys, and have known to do so when a little drunk, but how is that different from hetero girls that kiss other girls? (I can count the number of girls I know that have never kissed another girl on one hand.) Anyway, as such I have chosen to be hetero, and only see myself ever having a relationship/sex with women.

Though I have to admit... sometimes I think it might be easier batting for the other team... :p