What seperates us from the animals?

Language.


That's it.


Without language, a human couldn't express his thoughts to himself or others. No single human has ever made a massive technological advancement, almost all have been made in groups, or at least with the knowlege passed down through the thousands of years we've been able to talk. If you gave monkeys language, they wouldn't do much for the first hundred years. However, with thousands of years of passing knowlee down, they would figure out electricity, and maybe even advance to the point where they could bomb each other over oil.

This however, does not mean we aren't better than the animals, in all fairness, the fact that we figured out how to talk first gives us the right to enslave, kill, and eat everything else without any moral dillema. I mean...fuck....they don't need rights...they can't talk

 

Not all language is verbal (body language) animals have various forms of language for communication, what separates us is zhu zhu pets, although I'm sure some cats probably take those for themselves.

 

I agree with you that our facility for language is what gives us advantage but we did not figure out how to talk, we were given the ability.

Ability is not the same thing as a right, however you may use your advantage in any way you like.

 

opposable thumbs, don't underestimate them.

 

The repetoire of verbal identification displayed by humans, is a unique feature in the animal kingdom. An animal cannot relay the identification of an object without physically pointing out the object. However our language is descriptive enough to use a verbal description to identify something you subsequently find in the field.

 

An octopus has no thumbs or fingers but displays amazing manipulative prowess.

 

That's up for debate... But you don't think there's any chance of an animal ever finding the ability to form words, and understand what they mean? My dog understands much of what I say, "treat, outside, no, ride, come" and a lot more. He instantly knows what I mean. Now, what if a sort of mutated dog was born who (like scooby doo ) could coppy speech, as well as understand it. (unlike parrots who copy without understanding.) and maybe even learned how to speak in sentences. He would no longer be treated as a dog. If he could ask for food that wasn't dry and discusting, he would. If his offspring could be taught to speak as well, dogs would eventualy be integrated as members of society. (while of course, the idiot lambs would be tied down through their childhood so muscle wasn't allowed to grow, and be slaughtered for that nice tender baby meat the humans and dogs love so much.)

 

That's fine, but i'm not worried about an octopus apocalypse anytime soon

 

I think animals and humans have effective means of communicating with each other. What I said was very specific in pointing out the uniquely descriptive nature of verbal identification.
My dog can differentiate between her toy named duck soup and her toy named Ernie, but had my dog never seen duck soup, the sound would be meaningless to her.

 

They obviously wouldn't want us to expect it...



THE END IS NEAR

 

Animals are more instinctual than the human, but humans have more intuitive.

 

You have been reading a few too many cartoons

 

Say what you will, the unprepared will be the first to go

 

Only because you havnt taught her to assosiate the words "duck soup" with duck soup. As she built her understanding of the world through learning and using speech, she would be told the siginicance of both words. Much like I couldn't explain to someone who doesn't speak English the nature of duck soup, he would obviously understand after some time learning English even if I had no duck soup.

 

Our capacity to "name the animals", is our claim to distinction. It is said that a man is justified as well as condemned by his own words.

 

It is the ability to paint abstractions with verbal identification that is unique. My dog certainly could not distinguish the term duck soup if she had to choose between two objects using the term. for instance the difference between duck soup her toy, and duck soup, the soup.

 

The thing that really separates man from animals is a pail of really hot water; at least that was the only thing that worked when cousing Jeb would get caught out in the barn.

 

you seem to have a necessity of taking some of these threads to an analytical abyss.

Yes we have more proficient verbal Identification and like like t.I.b mentioned opposable thumbs and our fully erect bipedial stature is unique and blah blah blah. But without trying to turn into charles fucking Darwin (or whoever it is you may idolize) I was simply saying language is not strictly limited to humans.

 

Look, guys

it's all well and good that a dog can identify various words like duck soup. And yes, maybe pointing out actual duck soup as apposed to what the animal images duck soup to be is also a fair statement, but it's equally irrelevant. It's like asking a foreign language speaker, since they know the odd phrase, whether they could correctly apply a words meaning to the context of a sentence.

Point is, dogs woof, people don't. They bloody well transmit in their own way, the dope seems to think that every living thing must be able to speak English to an adequate degree in order to be defined as communicative.

I mean, unless we can all understand the language of bark, and all divulge in a little butt sniffing that is.

 

Not at all, I think you may be having difficulty understanding a simple thing.

By language I mean the human use of words both spoken and written for communication. Animals, no doubt communicate with each other as well as with us, however no other animal uses words for communication.