NationStates Jolt Archive

Keep in mind that this is completely hypothetical. I can't tell you how many stupid people will ignore words in the title.

Say, somewhere, in some remote forest or whatever, we find a new humanoid species, say bigfoot's foxy cousin, foxy. Yes, I have a foxy obcession. Say that this newly discovered species is humanlike in many ways. It depends on learning and thumb usage for survival. It has mastered lighting things on fire and making synthetic circles for transportation purposes. Alright, the closest thing to human known to man. If such a species did exist, would you support giving it rights?

Say, we cut down the forests or whatever the hell it thrived in and put houses there. Would you support letting them move in? they didn't invade our lands. Quite the opposite. Would the least we could do be to give them free stuff until they learn(forced to learn, I should say) to live like normal, non-leechy, non-disabled people?

Would you:
a. Give up your "humans are the only sentient things in existance. Only they deserve to live. Kill everything else that we don't need in the most painful way possible" stance?
b. Ignore them completely.
c. Call them human so that you can keep your stance without looking like a jackass.

And, for the idiots among you, this is hypothetical. I mean, sheiss. How many times to I have to repeat myself so that the dumber among you get it? This is hypothetical.

Keep in mind that this is completely hypothetical. I can't tell you how many stupid people will ignore words in the title.
<snip hypothetical situation>
And, for the idiots among you, this is hypothetical. I mean, sheiss. How many times to I have to repeat myself so that the dumber among you get it? This is hypothetical.

The problem is, some of the people here don't believe you when you say hypothetical - they say that merely considering a hypothetical means you really support a specific viewpoint, and are only posting to conduct an ambush. And, that you're secret viewpoint is probably the most heinous of the choices (in their eyes), and there's no arguing the hypothetical anymore.

Thread ruined.

I vote for giving them no rights. It turns out, for instance, that we were wrong about dolphins.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&click_id=143&art_id=vn20060817031855765C442092

Manager said it took up to five years to train a dolphin, and that was done through a stimulus response system - where the mammal was rewarded for what it did.

"Compare a dolphin to a sheep dog: the dog can be trained to control a flock of 30 sheep. But dolphins don't have that level of intelligence," Manger said.

I vote for giving them no rights. It turns out, for instance, that we were wrong about dolphins.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&click_id=143&art_id=vn20060817031855765C442092
Heh, I wouldn't rush to judgment too quickly. The fact that we cannot domesticate dolphins the way we can dogs doesn't necessarily mean they're stupid. The fact that dolphins appear to have a higher percentage of glial cells in their brains doesn't necessarily mean they're dumber, either. The verdict isn't in yet.

Myself, I'm going to continue living in fear of the day when we are all crushed under the oppressive flippers of our blowhole-bearing overlords. :D

I vote not to cut down their forest and not destory their habitat.

And they can get rights (beyond mere animal ones) if they can pass through the school system.

Heh, I wouldn't rush to judgment too quickly. The fact that we cannot domesticate dolphins the way we can dogs doesn't necessarily mean they're stupid. The fact that dolphins appear to have a higher percentage of glial cells in their brains doesn't necessarily mean they're dumber, either. The verdict isn't in yet.

Myself, I'm going to continue living in fear of the day when we are all crushed under the oppressive flippers of our blowhole-bearing overlords. :D

Arguably, cats are smarter. They don't listen to us. We feed them, we clean up their shit and piss. We buy toys and houses for them. And they lay around all day and kill things when they feel like it. And they infect us with parasites that make us want to care for them.

I vote not to cut down their forest and not destory their habitat.


Why? It's not like we don't already do that to other humans, never mind these fox-people.

I think adopting them as humans is a legitimate response, of course they aren't Homo sapiens, but they are clearly an intelligent, tool using species. Although I think that we might want to cordon them off from the outside world for a while to see if they actually are capable of surviving on their own, or if they go the way of neaderthalensis

My opinion towards the animal kingdom is:

"You can join us if you can prove that you don't suck."

Curious are they homo sapiens?

Why? It's not like we don't already do that to other humans, never mind these fox-people.Yeah, so? That doesn't mean it's right, nor that I'm for it, nor that I have anything against forests.

I think adopting them as humans is a legitimate response, of course they aren't Homo sapiens, but they are clearly an intelligent, tool using species. Although I think that we might want to cordon them off from the outside world for a while to see if they actually are capable of surviving on their own, or if they go the way of neaderthalensis
This works for me. And the thing about training dolphins and comparing them to sheepdogs ... it's not a fair comparison, I mean, the sheep all drown before the dolphins get a chance to do anything!

Would you:
a. Give up your "humans are the only sentient things in existance. Only they deserve to live. Kill everything else that we don't need in the most painful way possible" stance?
b. Ignore them completely.
c. Call them human so that you can keep your stance without looking like a jackass.

At least it isn't a loaded question...


Well, in the spirit of the original post, I guess my answer would depend entirely on how the new creature in tasted.

I think adopting them as humans is a legitimate response, of course they aren't Homo sapiens, but they are clearly an intelligent, tool using species. Although I think that we might want to cordon them off from the outside world for a while to see if they actually are capable of surviving on their own, or if they go the way of neaderthalensis

why are they not homo sapiens?
Human are a subspecies of homo sapiens ie homo sapien sapien
Could these creatures not be homo sapien foxy?

This works for me. And the thing about training dolphins and comparing them to sheepdogs ... it's not a fair comparison, I mean, the sheep all drown before the dolphins get a chance to do anything!

don't be daft! you either give the sheep snorkels or put the dolphins on wheels. duh!!!

why are they not homo sapiens?
Human are a subspecies of homo sapiens ie homo sapien sapien
Could these creatures not be homo sapien foxy?
Genus homo represents a specific evolutionary chain, descended from Homo habilis.

Instead they'd be Foxy sapiens or whatever their proper genus would be, but their chain of descent is not of Homo habilis.

Furthermore, they would not fit inside the current biologic definition of subspecies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

The odds are their genetics would be sufficiently different from ours to keep the two groups from successfully breeding.

Furthermore, they would not fit inside the current biologic definition of subspecies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

The odds are their genetics would be sufficiently different from ours to keep the two groups from successfully breeding.

Sorry why could they not be a sub-species?

If they were tool users would they have not followed down the path of homo abilis?

Also why would they're genetics be substantially different. Considering all the different types of people on the planet, including groups that have been cut of from each for thousands of years are still able to interbreed, why not these "foxies".?

Sorry why could they not be a sub-species?

If they were tool users would they have not followed down the path of homo abilis?

Genetic path. We no longer identify species by phenotype, only genotype is required.

Also why would they're genetics be substantially different. Considering all the different types of people on the planet, including groups that have been cut of from each for thousands of years are still able to interbreed, why not these "foxies".?
We're not talking about thousands of years of genetic separation existing between humans and foxes, we're talking about millions of years of genetic separation. The odds are these foxies would retain similar chromosomes to their dog-like ancestors, and those chromosomes would be totally incompatable.

Genetic path. We no longer identify species by phenotype, only genotype is required.


We're not talking about thousands of years of genetic separation existing between humans and foxes, we're talking about millions of years of genetic separation. The odds are these foxies would retain similar chromosomes to their dog-like ancestors, and those chromosomes would be totally incompatable.

oh ok i see what's happened.

The original poster Avika wrote:
Say, somewhere, in some remote forest or whatever, we find a new humanoid species, say bigfoot's foxy cousin, foxy. Yes, I have a foxy obcession. Say that this newly discovered species is humanlike in many ways. It depends on learning and thumb usage for survival. It has mastered lighting things on fire and making synthetic circles for transportation purposes. Alright, the closest thing to human known to man. If such a species did exist, would you support giving it rights?

I don't think s/he meant "fox related" but was using the word foxy in one of the following ways:

fox‧y  /ˈfɒksi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fok-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective, fox‧i‧er, fox‧i‧est. 1. foxlike; cunning or crafty; slyly clever.
2. yellowish or reddish brown, as of the color of the common red fox.
3. Slang. a. sexually appealing; attractive.
b. stylish; modish: a foxy outfit.
c. exciting and appealing, as a place, entertainment, or the like.

And even more than that, a subspecies is typically a segment of the population that has become isolated due to some external factor for an extended period of time, not something that has arisen from another species to have similar characteristics to the original species. The odds of something like that happening are so long it boggles the mind. The variables of DNA are nigh infinite.

I think Cullons is right about where the thread went awry. And the question is, not so much a matter of human or animal rights, but what makes a sentient species.

I think the world would be so amazed at discovering another sentient species that any suggestion of NOT protecting their rights and habitat would be met with worldwide condemnation. You would see them all over the news, in literature and on talk shows.

Some enterprising pornographer would take advantage of it as well.

Genus homo represents a specific evolutionary chain, descended from Homo habilis.

Instead they'd be Foxy sapiens or whatever their proper genus would be, but their chain of descent is not of Homo habilis.

Says who? According to the natural history museum in London there have always been around 4 different species of human on the planet at the same time. Unless you follow all the classification procedure you can't rule out descendancy.

So this hypothetical species are like the "cavemen" of old? Or are they just like primitive humans who could be taught advanced technology and brought to our level?

Says who? According to the natural history museum in London there have always been around 4 different species of human on the planet at the same time. Unless you follow all the classification procedure you can't rule out descendancy.
The only currently surviving descendant of habilis is sapiens, though, and for another species to come from that line, it would have to have evolved from sapiens.

No other 'human' species (besides us) has existed since neanderthalensis died out.

No rights for them, they aren't people. We will use them and abuse them as it fits our needs. That being said, a creature that intelligent would make a very good servant and could easily become a very valuable pet..... Hmm... rights would only be a possibility for it if it could exist in a human society successfully and if giving them rights would further the economic success of humanity.

No rights for them, they aren't people. We will use them and abuse them as it fits our needs. That being said, a creature that intelligent would make a very good servant and could easily become a very valuable pet..... Hmm... rights would only be a possibility for it if it could exist in a human society successfully and if giving them rights would further the economic success of humanity.
put 'em on the moon.

Sigh...not even NSG is furry free.

Sigh...not even NSG is furry free.
Ugh. You just ruined the thread for me.

Ugh. You just ruined the thread for me.

*wins*

The only currently surviving descendant of habilis is sapiens, though, and for another species to come from that line, it would have to have evolved from sapiens.

No other 'human' species (besides us) has existed since neanderthalensis died out.

Ok, I may have forgotton what the sign actually read. :headbang:

Anyhow there's a lot of evidence suggesting we weren't directly decended from neandertal man and according to Wiki's description of human:

Quote:Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes).

Wouldn't this new species also belong to the same family (great apes) as we do? If so why shouldn't the same rules apply for them with regard to rights etc?

Sigh...not even NSG is furry free.
You are right.
Those varmints are everywhere.

But if that creature can shoot any kind of gun, then I'm going to use it for scaring the hell out of my enemy.
:sniper:
:mp5:

Hunt them, wear their skins, eat their flesh, destroy their habitat, and put them in zoos. And when they become "endangered" pass legislation to make the hunting illegal, make new laws about their domestication and slaughter, preserve their habitat by passing laws, and watch the ones in the zoo say, "get your paws off me, you damned dirty ape!"

Ok, I may have forgotton what the sign actually read. :headbang:
Trust me, we've all done that before.

Anyhow there's a lot of evidence suggesting we weren't directly decended from neandertal man

Actual the evidence shows that there is virtually no neaderthalensis link in modern human DNA, and that they were a competing species to sapiens that wasn't up to the challenge.


Wouldn't this new species also belong to the same family (great apes) as we do? If so why shouldn't the same rules apply for them with regard to rights etc?
Oh, I see what you're arguing, I agree with you entirely. My argument was that they shouldn't be classified as the same species as Homo sapiens, because they aren't. That doesn't mean that they'd be devoid of equal rights, but, yeah.

Hunt them, wear their skins, eat their flesh, destroy their habitat, and put them in zoos. And when they become "endangered" pass legislation to make the hunting illegal, make new laws about their domestication and slaughter, preserve their habitat by passing laws, and watch the ones in the zoo say, "get your paws off me, you damned dirty ape!"

And then wait for the onslaught and the enslavement/killing of humans and banning of the word "NO"

Do they have a language?

Do they have a language?
I'd imagine that if they're tool using, they have the rudimentary basics of language. And espescially if they've got wheels.

Give them their rights. It's not as if we respect other humans' rights anyway...

Say, somewhere, in some remote forest or whatever, we find a new humanoid species, say bigfoot's foxy cousin, foxy. Yes, I have a foxy obcession. Say that this newly discovered species is humanlike in many ways. It depends on learning and thumb usage for survival. It has mastered lighting things on fire and making synthetic circles for transportation purposes. Alright, the closest thing to human known to man. If such a species did exist, would you support giving it rights?

Yes; it would be morally equivalent to us. As part of affording it rights, I would support doing our best to leave them alone.

Say, we cut down the forests or whatever the hell it thrived in and put houses there. Would you support letting them move in?

I would support nullifying the theft of their land.

they didn't invade our lands. Quite the opposite. Would the least we could do be to give them free stuff until they learn(forced to learn, I should say) to live like normal, non-leechy, non-disabled people?

No. We should leave them alone. We should let them live as they please in the places where they live, and we should leave them alone.

To forcibly assimilate them into our societies, or to give them no decent option but to assimilate into our societies, would be an abominable crime.

Would you:
a. Give up your "humans are the only sentient things in existance. Only they deserve to live. Kill everything else that we don't need in the most painful way possible" stance?

I don't hold to such a stance now.

b. Ignore them completely.

I would deliberately leave them alone. Not quite ignoring them, but along those lines.

c. Call them human so that you can keep your stance without looking like a jackass.

They are not human. They are worthy of equal moral consideration to humans.

My opinion towards the animal kingdom is:

"You can join us if you can prove that you don't suck."


So, why are humans even allowed in the club?

I think there remains a vital question that has yet to be asked.

Are these animals tasty?

Would you:
a. Give up your "humans are the only sentient things in existance. Only they deserve to live. Kill everything else that we don't need in the most painful way possible" stance?
b. Ignore them completely.
c. Call them human so that you can keep your stance without looking like a jackass.
I choose D) never cut down their forest in the first place!!!

No other 'human' species (besides us) has existed since neanderthalensis died out.

except, perhaps, floresiensis. assuming they actually were a seperate species.