Re: virus: Abortion, etc.

Ronald Ferruci (
Fri, 15 Mar 1996 18:55:42 -0600

> They probably don't start engaging in conversation with us because
> they don't understand our words. It's like coming accross a group of
> people whose languarge you don't understand, unless someone you know
> understands what they are saying you're going to have a hard time
> even figuiring out what they are trying to say.

>>Yet most human beings manage to figure it out.

Unfortunetly, when it comes to other animals, their vocal chords are
different than ours. When you're discussing other groups of humans,
the vocal chords are the same and so (over time) we could figure out
what they are saying. And when we figure out what other launguages
words mean, it's usually by association (unless there is somebody
that speaks both languages, then the task becomes a little bit
easier). Thats how it is possible to teach gorillas sign language,
the reason they can't learn as much sign language as humans is
because a lot of the words are abstract. When you teach a gorilla
how to say banana, you show him a banana and then the sign, but how
are you going to teach him imagination, or feelings , there is
nothing concrete that you could show him so that he understands. And
with humans you could show them the sign and then have them read the
word. Even deaf people can read, but i don't think that gorillas can
read english.
>>>As an aside, I wonder if and how the opposable thumb and human
>>>intelligence are related. Any thoughts, anyone?
>> I didn't say that intelligence and the opposable thumb are related,
>> just that even if you could come up with the things you say, without
>> an opposable thumb these things are nothing but a pipe dream

>I didn't say you said they were related.

No, but you asked how they were related. That sounded like a
retorical question to me.

>Verbal or other similarly complex forms of human communication _are_
>possible without opposable thumbs.

Really, how many people do you know withot opposable thumbs.

>Several times in this discussion, you have refered to "rights" in terms of
>animal-human interactions. I am curious as to the basis of whatever
>system of ethics/morality you're using to determine these rights. So far
>I'm not convinced that your basis is anything other than kneejerk,
>reactionary, irrational emotionalism.

All i have heard from you is knee-jerk , reactionary, irrational

>I'm not aware of any such thing as a completely autonomous and independant
>organism. It seems to me that "usage" of others for "selfish" ends occurs
>throughout the vast spectrum of life on this planet.

By selfish, I mean that there are somethings that animals are used
for that we could either do without or find an alternative for.