"Adultery" site sued

Originally posted by lemon lime
....I now know what to say to my wife...

"What are you so upset about? Monkeys do it all the time, so why can't I do it too?"

I much better excuse and one that is used quite regularly would be: "Its human nature."
Or you could go with slight exaggeration: "But everybody does it!" In reality not everybody does, but it is quite common.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I much better excuse and one that is used quite regularly would be: "Its human nature."
Or you could go with slight exaggeration: "But everybody does it!" In reality not everybody does, but it is quite common.

It's "human nature" to make moral choices.

Is the fact that adultery is "quite common" evidence for defining adultery as merely of human invention for the purpose of "controlling the masses" as is so often asserted in this forum by atheists, or could it be that humans have a capacity to make moral judgements based on an innate knowledge of right and wrong, unlike animals?

Originally posted by josephw
Is the fact that adultery is "quite common" evidence for defining adultery as merely of human invention for the purpose of "controlling the masses" as is so often asserted in this forum by atheists,

What an odd thing to say.

or could it be that humans have a capacity to make moral judgements based on an innate knowledge of right and wrong, unlike animals?
I suspect that many animals also have an innate knowledge of right and wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What an odd thing to say.

[b] or could it be that humans have a capacity to make moral judgements based on an innate knowledge of right and wrong, unlike animals?
I suspect that many animals also have an innate knowledge of right and wrong.[/b]

"I suspect that many animals also have an innate knowledge of right and wrong."

Now that's odd! Animals behave according to instinct as their genetic code dictates. Animals don't think about making moral choices. They respond to the environment according to their genetic program. Anyone that suggests that animals have cognitive abilities to think through even the simplest concepts associated with human thought processes is only projecting their own ideas onto animals, and speculating at best.

Only human beings can make moral choices based on conscience and an objective code of conduct. Animals have instincts, not consciences.

Originally posted by josephw
Now that's odd! Animals behave according to instinct as their genetic code dictates.

No, they most definitely do not.

Animals don't think about making moral choices.
And how do you know this?

They respond to the environment according to their genetic program.
Not so.

Anyone that suggests that animals have cognitive abilities to think through even the simplest concepts associated with human thought processes is only projecting their own ideas onto animals, and speculating at best.
Or just better educated than you.

Only human beings can make moral choices based on conscience and an objective code of conduct. Animals have instincts, not consciences.
And you know this how?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, they most definitely do not.

[b]Animals don't think about making moral choices.
And how do you know this?

They respond to the environment according to their genetic program.
Not so.

Anyone that suggests that animals have cognitive abilities to think through even the simplest concepts associated with human thought processes is ...[text shortened]... objective code of conduct. Animals have instincts, not consciences.
And you know this how?[/b]

Don't be silly! Observation of the animals actual behavior tells us they don't use cognitive powers to live, much less the fact of the size of their brains. Animals act and react with nature according to instinct. Prove otherwise.

Man on the other hand, we know, thinks and plans his activities way beyond the limits set for animals. There's no comparison other than the fact that all living organisms on earth are made of the same dust. That's where the comparisons end. Man isn't an animal, he's a human being. An exceedingly flawed one at that.

Man's full potential is realized when he is compared with his creator, who made man in His own image and likeness. Man is a free moral agent capable of choosing between right and wrong.

Animals don't know right from wrong. There's no evidence they do. Just ask one! 😕

"Or just better educated than you."

Anyone who thinks animals can think about and know the difference between right and wrong, and act and react with the environment based on a moral code is lacking in understanding no matter how educated they may be. There are a lot of educated idiots everywhere behaving worse than animals with virtually no moral compunction at all.

Besides, God isn't impressed with educated people. God is impressed with humility.

Originally posted by josephw
Don't be silly! Observation of the animals actual behavior tells us they don't use cognitive powers to live, much less the fact of the size of their brains. Animals act and react with nature according to instinct. Prove otherwise.

Man on the other hand, we know, thinks and plans his activities way beyond the limits set for animals. There's no comparison o ...[text shortened]... n at all.

Besides, God isn't impressed with educated people. God is impressed with humility.

No1Marauder referenced a paper in the thread over in debates about Natural Rights a few months ago which showed evidence of moral behaviour in Rhesus monkeys. They'd strap the Rhesus monkeys into little electric chairs and get another rhesus monkey to shock them in return for food. They understood the set up and apparently one of the monkeys starved itself for a considerable time rather than apply shocks to another monkey. I'll dig out the reference to the other thread.

Edit: They were capuchin monkeys Thread 161694 second to last post on page 14.

Originally posted by josephw
Don't be silly! Observation of the animals actual behavior tells us they don't use cognitive powers to live, much less the fact of the size of their brains.

You clearly haven't observed animals very much. Have you ever had a pet?

Animals act and react with nature according to instinct. Prove otherwise.
There is no need for me to prove otherwise, you are the one making the ridiculous claims. Remain in your ignorance if you wish.

Man isn't an animal, he's a human being.
Well that depends on your definition of the word 'animal'. But biologically speaking, man is most definitely an animal.

Anyone who thinks animals can think about and know the difference between right and wrong, and act and react with the environment based on a moral code is lacking in understanding no matter how educated they may be. There are a lot of educated idiots everywhere behaving worse than animals with virtually no moral compunction at all.
Yes, its easy to think everyone who thinks differently from you is an idiot, not so easy to actually demonstrate it.

Besides, God isn't impressed with educated people. God is impressed with humility.
I am not trying to impress God. If you are, then the lack of humility you just displayed, didn't impress him.

Originally posted by DeepThought
No1Marauder referenced a paper in the thread over in debates about Natural Rights a few months ago which showed evidence of moral behaviour in Rhesus monkeys. They'd strap the Rhesus monkeys into little electric chairs and get another rhesus monkey to shock them in return for food. They understood the set up and apparently one of the monkeys starved it ...[text shortened]...

Edit: They were capuchin monkeys Thread 161694 second to last post on page 14.

That's very interesting. Were other animals tested in the same way? I can tell you right now that cats wouldn't care less! 😉

I wonder how different the results would be if the experiment was conducted on humans.

Did the experiment conclude that the monkeys could think and reason on a cognitive level? Perhaps enough to realize their actions were causing pain to another monkey? Do you think they would have pulled the chain if it were another kind of animal or even a human being?

Maybe their sensitivity was due to some basic primitive instinct for group survival and had nothing to do with thinking about moral choices. Maybe the experiment was set up to condition a response as with training dogs to sit or fetch.

Originally posted by josephw
That's very interesting. Were other animals tested in the same way? I can tell you right now that cats wouldn't care less! 😉

I wonder how different the results would be if the experiment was conducted on humans.

Did the experiment conclude that the monkeys could think and reason on a cognitive level? Perhaps enough to realize their actions were causi ...[text shortened]... . Maybe the experiment was set up to condition a response as with training dogs to sit or fetch.

What No1 referenced was Carl Sagan's and Ann Druyan's book, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. No1's intention was to demonstrate that natural rights exist. I don't know that Sagan and Druyan's interpretation of the experiment necessarily had much to do with science, equally I don't know that it didn't.

What I heard a biologist of some sort say once on the television (sorry I can't give you a reference for this, it's too long ago) is that it's not that humans have any one single unique characteristic that is not in some other animal species, what we do have is more of each one and the complete set. Compared with body mass our brains are huge and have a very high neural density. So, while you might find horses that can do basic addition (what is 2 + 2, stamps foot 4 times) you won't find one that can do calculus.

What this is all leading to is that I'd be wary of a blanket statement to the effect that no species of animal has this or that cognitive function associated with humans. It's just we have them all and to a much more highly developed degree.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

"Were they (a newly married couple) sincerely making promises they intended to keep?"
--Lemon Lime

People change. People may make promises that were sincere when
they were made and later be sincerely unable to keep them.

Under what circumstance or circumstances can you imagine someone being unable to keep a promise like fidelity? Someone changing their mind based on an inability to remain faithful not only trivializes the relationship, it suggests they had no choice in the matter. How good can someones intentions have been at the start if it's this easy to come up with a flimsy excuse like "I was unable to keep my promise of fidelity"?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Human behavior is much more complex and nuanced than some reactionary dogmatic (and likely sanctimonious) moralizing men like to believe it must be.

And more complex and nuanced than you might think. For instance, I am well aware of how it would have been more accurate for you to say 'unwilling' instead of 'unable'. But I'm also aware of the greater problem you'd face saying 'unwilling' to keep a promise rather than saying 'unable' to keep it... the word 'unable' carries with it a small measure of justification whereas the word 'unwilling' doesn't. So you're probably better off suggesting people aren't smart enough to accomplish (or capable of accomplishing) something as simple as keeping a personal promise.

By the way, these thinly disguised diatribes against the people you disdain and religion you hate have not gone unnoticed. If you're expecting a reaction or response to this kind of low brow trolling then here it is... but it's only going to happen this one time, so savor the moment while you can.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You seem to me to be preoccupied with imaginative and even cinematic extreme examples of why people could be adulterous. I wonder where this comes from.