The Beasts Within

So do elephants

No, they are taught/trained to do so

And orcas have culture. Your point?

lol please explain orca culture

Lots of animals have culture
> doing a certain activity a slightly different way because you live in a different area, even though the difference doesn't affect the outcome of the action

As crude as it is, it's still "culture"

newscientist.com/article/2091134-orcas-are-first-non-humans-whose-evolution-is-driven-by-culture/amp/

So are humans.

You'll never win against the muh special snowflake poster. Eventually he'll just pull out bullshit unquantifiable anthropomorphisms like "sapience".

You can't convince a human to think he's not the center of the universe. You may as well convince the Sun to orbit the Earth.

No. It is not culture. It is abstracting the meaning of culture to the point where the word becomes nearly meaningless. It's the same with Art. No animal other than man has the requisite social ability, complexity of behavior, or conscious awareness to express and have a sense of culture. Animal lovers are obnoxious precisely for this reason, they project all sorts of human qualities that animals simply do not have. They have no Art. No rights. No morality. Many may be social creatures and many are sure to have some degree of consciousness, but without language, they are simply beasts-the subject of nature alone without a the intellect and will to express art, morality, law, belief, etc.

Because humans are animals who have convinced themselves that they arent animals.

tl;dr ITS NOT CULTURE CUZ I SAID ITS NOT

so tired of retards pretending they know culture when in reality they're shitposting on a basket weaving forum and are so far from any form of real culture they may as well be in the desert

It's very telling that you offer nothing more than a strawman. I asserted a very clear definition involving language, art, morality, law, belief, etc., and all you have to offer as a counter-argument is an insult. What a hypocrite for you to construe as shitposting. You may as well be in a desert if that's all you have to offer.

are you retards being ironic on purpose or...?

tl;dr IT'S NOOOOT CULTURE GUYS IT'S NOOOOOOOTTTT PLEASE LISTEN ;____;

also lol @ morality, law being culture

lemme guess, liberal arts major? it's okay user, you can be honest.

Some people do not love lies, liars, or the process of lying.

People who do not love lies do not love your fantasy that you are just a monkey.

And you would object to me hunting you and your family down like monkeys, and eating you all.

Because you know deep down YOU'RE NOT A FUCKING MONKEY.

t. butthurt monkey doesn't realize about the head hunters in PNG

>Because you know deep down YOU'RE NOT A FUCKING MONKEY.

Of course not, I'm a fucking ape you bloody nigger.

Honestly what I find so sinister about it is the way people will use this line of argument to justify the inhumane treatment of primitive people or the lower class.

Could you provide some specific instances of this? As far as I'm aware "there's no god so I can be a dickwad for no reason >:^)" is just an edgy fedora strawman that no one actually says. I'm legitimately curious.

Although I do agree, the "it's natural so it's good" fallacy is one of the stupider ones.

Rape, murder, genocide, cannibalism, slavery, necrophilia, war, spousal abuse, and the murdering of homosexuals are all natural things that several species engage in. Should we do the same just because apes, monkeys, dolphins, ants, and birds engage in this too?

That's what it's designed to do. Equate blacks with monkeys, and elevate whites to ubermensch.

Wake the fuck up you idiots.

Again, you engage in the same sort of rhetoric. It's hard to tell if you're trolling or just an idiot. You seriously can't understand how morality and law are part of the cultural expression of a group of people? Please explain how any species of monkey or ape express any meaningful form of culture that isn't based on a definition of culture so abstract as to account for any slight variation in the behaviors different groups. Do a group of monkeys that have been conditioned to live in a Zoo vs monkeys that live in the wild express something so distinct as a different culture. Do monkeys from a Zoo in Australia vs a zoo in Germany express conflict when you put them together because they're attitudes and behaviors are so distinct from one another that it can be said they have their own cultures? Sure they may be unfamiliar with one another and they may have separate social structures, but it is nothing so complex as the barrier that separates Germans and Australians. The integration and even the conflict of the monkeys mentioned is much simpler.

It makes them feel less special if they are not Gods precious and unique creation. They view it as an insult to thier special status. People with fragile self conceptions and even less scientific reasoning like to believe they are at the top of the pyramid and made in the "Image of God" so you are basically calling God an Ape which is intolerable.

Source: Raised by and amongst these monstrously brain cucked religious apes.

Funny story, I was talking about a galaxy at a family gathering and my mom didn't understand what a galaxy was. I told her our star was in the Milky Way galaxy with billions of other stars. She was visibly upset. Then I told her there were billions of other observable galaxies all replete with their own menagerie of billions of stars. She was almost shaking and crying. She said I should stop talking about such things because they are just theories and not in the bible. She cant conceptualize anything other than the black sky and shiny stars she sees. She doesn't even believe in the concept of galaxies even though we have pictures of them

So no, evolution is forever beyond thier grasp.

>so far from any form of real culture they may as well be in the desert

human cultures exist and even thrive in deserts you uncultured swine.

>Mongolians
>Bedouins
>Navaho

You have never heard of these cultures?

Humans literally are apes, just compare a chimp's skeleton to yours, evolution is just an application of DNA, if DNA didnt exist then evolution would be invalid.
There use to be tons of "people" here 100,000 years ago but they disappeared.

Its the lack of bipeds on earth, if something bipedal other than humans existed humans would think they were natural creatures.

>treatment of primitive people
Who gives a shit? Primitive humans treat eachother horrendously because empathy is a recent part of our brain evolution showing up in the Mesolithic era.

Here is you biped Plato you dumb fuck

My bad quadru-bipeds.

>Rape, murder, genocide, cannibalism, slavery, necrophilia, war, spousal abuse, and the murdering of homosexuals are all natural things that several species engage in. Should we do the same just because apes, monkeys, dolphins, ants, and birds engage in this too?

You're not thinking like a scientist and you're just talking out your ass. Animals don't murder. They kill each other, but they don't murder because murder pertains to the law and morality, aspects of culture which you keep shoehorning onto animal behavior. An elephant may kill another elephant out of aggression and the elephant that it killed may have happened to be homosexual, but you can provide no evidence of animal killing another animal based on the fact that it discerned that the other animal was homosexual and was motivated to kill it based off of that fact. I challenge you to provide a single scientific paper that refutes this claim.

Further more, you can provide no evidence that any animal has a concept that another animal has a right to its own life. Some animals may react to violence against another animal based on their sentiments for that animal, and an animal may kill another animal and feel something like guilt as a consequence of its actions, but you're projecting too much when you say that one animal murdered another. It's the same for slavery and war.

I'm more sympathetic towards applying rape,spousal abuse, necrophilia, and cannibalism directly to animal behaviors, because those are de facto cases.

Mmm dat thigh

Pretty much all modern hominoids can walk bipedally to some extent, with the humans being the most well-adapted, the gibbons and orangs being second-best, and the African apes rating among the most clumsy (aside from the bonobo).

Also, you can actually observe two animals that have bonded with one another and observe one partner acting violently or aggressively towards the other with that other still persisting in a bond with the other, and call it spousal abuse, although this again is wanting because 'abuse' has moral connotations and 'spouse' also has cultural connotations. Pair bonding in birds, for instance, is an instinctive behavior which of course has may compel one bird to stay with the other, even if the violence or aggression would would compel that bird to stay away from the other. But when you say "spousal abuse" I can't help but wonder what that means to you, because you seem to be same user who ass-blasted me over providing a strong definition of culture as to make rigorous and clear observations on and inferences from non-human animal behavior.

The irony. Heck even Abrahamic religion is a varied and complex cultural expression, relating to human behavior as shaped by a desert environment. But, "oh, look at this user acting like he knows culture on this muh basket weaving board."

Seems odd to me that the tree-dwellers are better at it than the land dwellers. I'd expect tree living to afford fewer incentives to bipedalism.

Reaching for branches, better maneuverability, and a better vantage point, those are probably the big ones.

Humans are animals that got too intelligent for their own good. we are an evolutionary mistake

>mistake
According to what? The fruity "harmonious nature" meme?

You can't when you're closely related to the universe.

Animal culture not being as advanced as human culture does not mean it isn't culture. Animal intelligence not being as advanced as human intelligence doesn't mean they aren't intelligent.

humans have rationality, they have internal reasonings about what is wrong and what is right
other animals seem not to, in that sense humanity is unique
other animals are also a lot less sociable, you don't see worldwide communities of different species working together, or even against each other

Denial of mortality and inability to accept impermanence. If we spook ourselves into believing we came out of an angel's butt then we never have to die!

Would you consider the inherent preference for humans over animals to be speciesism?

>humans have rationality
>we kill and rape and beat each other senseless
>we go to war and butcher each other by the thousands
>all for the sake of PUSSY
Face it, we're the same as animals. Only difference is we have fun toys. And before you say "we have morals and know right from wrong!" our "morals" change every single decade when some group gets an edge over another. Right and wrong are simply perspective.

This.

And while I do accept that Killer Whales have culture, I also accept that we're a lot better at it than Killer Whales and other great apes.

Woe to the Vanquisher, right of Conquest and all that.

*Vanquished

I rather like the idea of humans evolving from apes. It adds to our history, gives us a foundation to cling to and look back at, and allows us to see how far we've come.

TL;DR they're not as good as us so I don't consider it culture.
Boohoo go cry somewhere else, cunt.

No. You're still not quite getting it. I never made an argument about their behavior not being "good" enough to be culture. That's the most annoying misrepresentation.

>Animal culture not being as advanced as human culture does not mean it isn't culture. Animal intelligence not being as advanced as human intelligence doesn't mean they aren't intelligent.
You're still operating on a false premise of animal culture and misconstruing my argument. Obviously I'm not saying "animal culture isn't culture.", because that is a mere *logical* inconsistency. Anyone can point that out. What you're really saying is, just becuase animal *behavior* isn't as advanced as human *behavior* doesn't mean its not culture. --this is a sounder counter-argument, although I still don't see how you can make if after Do not forget, that although things can be ordered by *degrees*, there are categories within the spectrum. You would never say that, "Low frequency light waves of 380nm not being as advanced as high frequency light waves of 700nm, doesn't mean the 700nm light isn't violet." In fact there is a clear distinction, one is red the other is violet .

That is partly why I say that there is a clear distinction in the complexity between animal behavior and human behavior that makes one capable of culture and not the other. But I also want to be clear something so complex as culture does NOT fit a simple gradient. It requires a number of requisite abilities.

Consider the following scenario. If you were to transplant a population of monkeys from the same place in the world, split them into groups, disperse them separately among viable artificial biomes of the same type, and observe each after 200 years, would their shared or collective behavior be so *distinct* as to be said to be different cultures?

Why do people get triggered if you suggest x thing has it's origins in a thing that they don't like?

Cont. with the scenario. Suppose that after 200 years you observe that one group of monkeys had developed a habit from their caretakers of going to one area of the biome for food drops vs another area for another group of monkeys, would this difference in habit be sufficient to call it culture? No. Because under the right conditions, any group of monkeys would learn to do the same thing. This is the first criteria for culture. That it is a unique set of behaviors and expression that arises from a social organism in a given environment.

Suppose that you observed one group of monkeys had learned to summon their caretakers by banging on a door with sticks, each group equally capable and being in a similar enough environment to have learned this thing. Further, suppose that almost every monkey did this and each generation learned how to do it from a previous generation up to the initial generation. This is something I would argue converges on culture. But I would argue that given sufficient time and given habits of the caretakers accross all groups, each group of monkey would likely develop, just as humans commonly learn to use bludgeoning weapons to kill each other across all human populations. Further more, I would argue that the habit would easily die out if the caretakers no longer responded to it.

Therefore the second criteria, it must be a custom, habit, behavior, or that is taught to others in the group and is passed down from generation to generation. In so far as it can be extinguished, it must result from a significant breakdown in the social structure that enabled it. Such as when Ancient Greece and Rome lost much of their academia because of various cataclysmic events.

I can say this for black people at least: When your race between the 1500s to around the 1900s is described as being barely above chimpanzees and gorillas (and when they were discovered by Europeans, Aboriginals), and various racial slurs referring to you as apes (porch monkeys, pavement apes for example), would you like it to be confirmed that you being an ape is 100% fact? Never mind the fact that other races are equally as simian as you are, or the fact that other races had the tendency to call each other subhuman apes (Chinese to early redheaded whites who visited before more recent history, Somalis referring to Bantu people as apes), when those stereotypes are said by a few people to this day, you can understand why some people wouldn't want to be called apes, even though all humans are apes. But then again, this is just from what I've witnessed.

Hell, some of us are now calling white people apes in equally racist ways these days. I've seen pictures of people comparing the pale skin of chimpanzees to white skin, not to mention the lips as well, making them look more like racist Irish stereotypes from back in the day.

It's very strange. It's like being butthurt about the fact that Earth isn't the center of the universe. On the other hand, it makes me think that maybe nothing about the universe and our place in it is that disturbing unless you've been raised to believe otherwise. Makes me want to explore existentialism further.

If we don't pretend that we're human (aka "not animal"), we are going to act like animals.

This is why people need laws and governments - without civilization, we'd act uncivilized.

>YOU'RE NOT A FUCKING MONKEY.

Yepp.
Because you're more like an ape.

I hope you are a white person, because I hate niggers.
And if you are a nigger you said that probably unironically.

Underrated post

Did anti-evolution Jesus poster with his psychotic text walls and infographics get banned or is he asleep? I figured he would've destroyed the thread by now.

Now that's what I call apey.

Because it hurts them to think they're even close to the other beings inhabitting this Earth.
Despite the fact that often those that deny any similarities and these origins are the ones that more closely resemble said animals in behavior.
See Islamists.

You're the one operating under the misguided idea there are no relevant differences between the groups' behavior because it harms your sense of self.
Hell, your entire argument is "they can't have culture because they are animals", rather than evidencing no animals exhibit some form of culture.
This is the apex of circular reasoning, and your fake example is proof you have no idea about the subject matter other than "I guess it's that way even if I'm no Biologist and not well read in the area".
Goddamn, this is why everyone from real areas of study hates Humanities faggots.

>If we realize the things that make us special are these structures we've built, and not us being completely separate from all other beings, then we will abandon said structures
Stupidest thing I've read all day.

Because God created man in his image, not in the image of monkies.

Because science proves humans and monkies are related by DNA. Evolution explains the divergence, not God. This puts their faith at conflict with modern science.

>She doesn't even believe in the concept of galaxies even though we have pictures of them
To be fair aren't those pictures of "galaxies" edited so they look pretty and are visible?
Aren't actual galaxies not visible to the human eye?

>I find it scary therefore it's not real
Are you serious?

Of you think that poster is anything but white, you're as dumb as the niggers you hate, you double nigger.

t. black

>When Plato gave Socrates's definition of man as "featherless bipeds" and was much praised for the definition, Diogenes plucked a chicken and brought it into Plato's Academy, saying, "Behold! I've brought you a man." After this incident, "with broad flat nails" was added to Plato's definition.[26]

>Why do people feel so uncomfortable with the idea of being closely related to the apes?
because the realization breaks the minds of weak people causing them to embrace nihilistic relativism like .

If human life is no more valuable than animal life and we extirpate animal life by the countless trillions, where does law and order and morality fit into the equation?

Realizing that humans are "just animals" is meta-gaming, and like all meta-gaming, inherently destructive to the long term sustainability of the "game", and therefore the longterm survival of the species.

ROASTED AND TOASTED

Your analysis of meta-gaming doesn't work in game theory or vidya games. I don't know which one you're going for but it's wrong either way

We need to recognize that we're animals, but we're a team. It's us vs everything else.

It's always amusing to see a mental defective parading his own deformities as a superior trait.

Your mother experienced the proper humbling existential terror that the experience of the infinite should provoke, while you on the other hand see but do not comprehend and think yourself wise for not grasping the ramifications of your own insignificance.

>Realizing that humans are "just animals" is meta-gaming, and like all meta-gaming, inherently destructive to the long term sustainability of the "game", and therefore the longterm survival of the species.

Nice logic dumbass

The educated aren't. There is no shame in it, it is just a description of reality.

I'm not going to explain a simple concept to you.
>We need to recognize that we're animals, but we're a team. It's us vs everything else.
Why?
Why do we need to recognize that we're animals? Furthermore what logic do you use to deconstruct the concept of humanity that still allows you use the concept of "teams"?

>Why do we need to recognize that we're animals?

Because it's true.

Yes, it's pretty hard to explain something you pulled out your ass in the heat of the moment to validate your opinion. Come on, tell me what you mean

>Because it's true
Truth is a philosophical concept, it has no value to animals. If humans are animals then we have no need of truth, if we have no need of truth then we have no need to recognize the truth that we are animals.

>Truth is a philosophical concept, it has no value to animals. If humans are animals then we have no need of truth

bzzzzt you've failed logic

The human experience is a "game".
It operates by a certain ruleset which was established over hundreds of millions of years through evolution. When we deviate from that ruleset we stop playing the game as it is "intended" to be played and begin doing something else entirely which inevitably leads to the collapse of the original game as no one is actually playing it anymore.

Which in this case means people begin to abandon the values based systems that have allowed humans to survive to this point in favor of navel-gazing about how we're just animals and none of the social structures or inherited knowledge that civilization is based on matter because "we're just animals", as if all animals are interchangeable with equivalent rule-sets.

bzzzzt not an argument

Well yes it's a statement, so nicely spotted there

>values based systems that have allowed humans to survive to this point

The african clawed frog doesn't have values and yet has also survived the same length of time.

You don't know what you're talking about.

You're tempting fate, user.

Bump

...

Actually a fucking dog was in space before any human was so u might want to rethink that

Human languages are qualitatively different from animal communication systems, and our language use is the best candidate for what 'separates us from the animals.'

Because people are uncomfortable with lies.

Only Satan has an interest in making man believe that we are nothing but animals.

...

>And before you say "we have morals and know right from wrong!" our "morals" change every single decade when some group gets an edge over another. Right and wrong are simply perspective.
Which is another reason that differentiates us from animals.