Icelander said:

What conclusions do you draw from this?

---

at all those those people who said other animals can't think?

As you wish. 

Icelander said:

I just heard this on NPR. A case of a captive Orangutan that taught himself how to pick the lock to his cage with a piece of wire. He had never seen anyone do this before. Here's the most interesting part, they caught him at it but couldn't figure out what he was using. So they removed every twig, stick, or anything that he might possibly use to get out. The next day he was out and the next. Then a keeper happened to see something shiny in his mouth. He opened the Orangutan's mouth and removed the piece of wire which he had curved around his gums so it would stay hidden from his keepers, they assumed to keep the keeper from taking it away.

What conclusions do you draw from this?

---

Quote:

No matter how many commands your dog responds to, no matter how many words Koko can sign, no matter how many words your parrot can mimic, language is human-species specific. We don’t and can’t “know” what animals think. Despite our own linguistic abilities, it’s difficult enough to know what people think.

---

Diploid said:

What conclusions do you draw from this?

That humans are animals are humans and anyone who thinks we're somehow special is as stoopid as the Catholics who sentenced Galileo to life in prison for having the balls to show them the Truth that the Earth isn't special or at the center of the universe any more than humans are anything special or created by god but ordinary animals.

Nothing new. Just more evidence of what critical thinkers have been pretty sure of for a long time.

---

Icelander said:

That gullible materialists will believe anything, even if they have to anthropomorphize.

Then a keeper happened to see something shiny in his mouth. He opened the Orangutan's mouth and removed the piece of wire which he had curved around his gums so it would stay hidden from his keepers, they assumed to keep the keeper from taking it away.

How do you interpret this story? What conclusions do you draw about the animals actions? If you had to guess.

---

Icelander said:

Do you think Orangutans  anthropomorphize towards humans?

---

you mean orangomorphize?

Icelander said:

What conclusions do you draw from this?

---

Icelander said:

In working with animals much of my life I find I have much in common with them or so it seems and they aren't even primates.

---

Icelander said:

I worked professionally as a dog trainer. My sister raised quarter horses and I helped out there and I have owned many pets of many kinds.

Oh and my dog and I were attacked by a deer this morning.

---

Lucky you had the dog with you.  A man in our town was gored to death by a buck.

And as far as the animal thing goes whatever anyone wants to think is cool.  We can't be expected to agree on everything.  Besides, you said you liked Santana back in the day. 

Formal logical phallacy: Poisoning the well.

BZZZT! Nope. That might be so if I were arguing to some end instead of complying with a request for opinion.

Quote:

Ice asked: What conclusions do you draw from this?

---

Diploid said:

Formal logical phallacy: Poisoning the well.

BZZZT! Nope. That might be so if I were arguing to some end instead of complying with a request for opinion.

Quote:

Ice asked: What conclusions do you draw from this?

---

---

Yep.

Quote:

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

---

Whether your opinion was asked for or not you gave it in such a way as to ridicule and discredit a specific target, i.e. Catholics, i.e. Christians (by assumption).  The description says nothing about whether the person was asked for their opinion or not.  The sentence "Just more evidence of what critical thinkers have been pretty sure of for a long time" implies those who don't agree with you aren't critical thinkers, also poisoning the well.

Just so we're clear, it isn't my intention to convince you of a logical phallacy.  I am merely pointing it out.

Icelander said:

Actually my dog was lucky he had me with him. The deer was trying to kill him and I drove the deer off by throwing handfuls of gravel at it's face.

---

 

Man, I wish I had been there to see it!  HIIIIII YA!

Quote:

That humans are animals are humans and anyone who thinks we're somehow special is as stoopid as the Catholics who sentenced Galileo to life in prison for having the balls to show them the Truth that the Earth isn't special or at the center of the universe any more than humans are anything special or created by god but ordinary animals.

---

teknix said:

Dude, whats the link? I want to send it to my communications teacher.
We had an argument about a test question that said "The ability to assign meaning to symbols is a uniquely human trait."

It ended with me telling her that she will never convice me that it is unique only to humans.

---

Quote:

with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

---

Guess you missed this part.

Diploid said:

Quote:

with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

---

Guess you missed this part.

---

No, but at least I understood it.

Perhaps an example will clarify the matter.

Quote:

Example:

    I wish it were possible for men to get really emotionally involved in this question [abortion]. It is really impossible for the man, for whom it is impossible to be in this situation, to really see it from the woman's point of view. That is why I am concerned that there are not more women in this House available to speak about this from the woman's point of view.

Source: House of Commons Debates of Canada, Volume 2, November 30, 1979, p. 1920

---

Quote:

Analysis of the Example:

This is a common type of circumstantial poisoning of the well, which claims that men should either not make a judgment about abortion, or should keep it to themselves if they do. This illustrates the effect that poisoning the well tends to have, which is to forestall opposition in debate. It also shows the mistake underlying all poisoning of the well, since the sex of the arguer is irrelevant to the merits of the argument. No doubt one could always find a woman to advance the argument, whatever it is.

---

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

Your target was a preemptive strike against Catholics.