What your analysis is missing is any kind of cultural context. These things don't just happen in a vacuum, and nor are all ideas created equal. In many cases you are just trading one type of chain for another. Yes, mass media certainly has the ability to create and shape the prevailing social norms, and this can inspire counter cultural movements within a society. That's what happened in the 1960s with the sexual revolution, which is a root cause for the sexual immorality we see in society today. But it didn't just happen because people 'gained more knowledge', it happened because there was already a fundamental shift in the cultural ethos. An idea does not begin to grow unless its seed lands on fertile ground. The social mores of this nation were always decidedly Christian, but were steadily eroding by the beginning of the 20th century (for various reasons). The deeper truth is that people rejected traditional morality because they wanted to be free to indulge their carnal desires without restriction. Transcendent moral values were being replaced with moral relativism, fueled by the notion that man was a higher primate and had no moral responsibilities to a creator, leaving people free to invent whatever style of living pleased them. It was only the world wars that temporarily reversed this trend and brought the nation back together under the banner of an American moral imperative. But the foundation, weakened as it was by radical liberal ideology, was thoroughly rotten. America snapped back like a rubber band, bursting open the flood gates during the 60's, and changing the cultural landscape forever. Now traditional values are viewed as archaic, a throwback to a bygone era, and it is the "new" thing which is touted as "enlightenment".

Yet, this new thing is simply what is old in different packaging. The behavior of human beings today isn't noticeably different from anything that hasn't been tried in countless failed civilizations in the past. The song remains the same, despite the shiny new backdrops. Bible prophecy predicts that knowledge will increase in the last times, but it mentions nothing about wisdom. The human condition hasn't changed; men are ruled by their passions, and no matter how much knowledge they gain, the same mistakes are repeated endlessly. Look at the world today and tell me that isn't true. If humans are learning anything it is something they've always known and loved; rebellion. This is certainly the age of self-glorification, but history will tell you that is nothing new either. You're right in that "the church", ie, the catholic religion, tried to impose (a caricature of) Christian morality on the masses, with horrific results. That is a nightmare any decent person should be awoken from. However, as it pertains to describing the essential human condition, it was entirely correct. Sin is increasing in the world, not decreasing. Human nature is inherently sinful.

Everyone has a different way of describing the problem. Most look to place the blame and hand wave everything on to a particular condition. They say it's because of overpopulation. They say it's because of religion (an atheist favorite). They say it's because of ignorance. They say it's because (insert your favorite reason here). The reality is, it's because human beings are corrupt sinners, and always will be corrupt sinners until the end of time; that's why Jesus Christ came. He came to restore us to right relationship with our Creator. Don't place your faith and trust in man, because man cannot save himself, and all men are headed for a day of judgment. As scripture predicts, there will be a one world government headed by the antichrist, a seven year tribulation where all the world will become deluded and follow after the beast. Those who refuse to love the truth will believe the lie that the antichrist will be selling. At the end of the tribulation, Jesus Christ will return as the Lord and judge of all the earth. No amount of knowledge will prepare for you that day; only a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

>> ^Sagemind:

In the past era, we hit a communications Boom.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Lowen:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
I don't even know where to start with how wrong that is.

Well, why don't you watch the linked video and then if you still think it's wrong, say why on that videos discussion page.

There's no need to watch the video.
Chimpanzees are not monkeys. Humans are not monkeys.
Chimpanzees and Humans belong to the Hominidae family of the Primate order.
Monkeys belong to the Cercopithecidae family of the Primate order.
We definitely had a common ancestor, but that ancestor was not a monkey or a human.
You might as well claim that since we share a common ancestor with squid, we're squid.


If that's what you believe you should watch the video.

More importantly we shouldn't have this discussion here since it's not really relevant to THIS video anymore, so it should either be moved to our profiles or onto the comments page for the other video.

>> ^Lowen:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
I don't even know where to start with how wrong that is.

Well, why don't you watch the linked video and then if you still think it's wrong, say why on that videos discussion page.


There's no need to watch the video.

Chimpanzees are not monkeys. Humans are not monkeys.
Chimpanzees and Humans belong to the Hominidae family of the Primate order.

Monkeys belong to the Cercopithecidae family of the Primate order.

We definitely had a common ancestor, but that ancestor was not a monkey or a human.

You might as well claim that since we share a common ancestor with squid, we're squid.

>> ^ReverendTed:

I think your "line in the sand" is a perfectly rational approach. I disagree personally, but I can appreciate that you're taking a reasoned approach and I would be willing to accept it as a basis for legislation on the matter.
It gets problematic when we attempt to define "a definitively human quality". On one extreme, a human fetus is and will be a human fetus. On the other extreme, even newborns only look human, and exhibit few, if any, behaviors that distinguish them from primates. (Primate rights, or animal rights in general being another hot potato, tying in to the "only care about killing humans" sentiment.)

What, to you, would constitute a "definitively human quality"? Limbs? Beginning of neural development?
(This directly ties into what I think is that "most important question", so if you'd like to reply in the original thread, that's great.)


I look at this from two different perspectives:

What do I think is right?
This is a sliding scale, not black and white. I've got zero problem with the morning after pill and probably no issue even with a first trimester abortion. At the other end of the spectrum, I think a third trimester abortion is pushing it a little.

These have to be judged on a case by case basis, though. [Warning: I'm about to be absurd for the sake of illustration.] If a woman is on her 9th abortion, all due to accidental pregnancy, I'm not going to think particularly highly of her (or the father for that matter). Though still, my problem with her wouldn't be that nine children have been "murdered", it would be that she's an irresponsible, immature fuckup (and again, him too). But I also wouldn't want such people raising children, so it's probably better that way.

If you're having a third trimester abortion for an accidental pregnancy, I might wonder why you waited so long. If you're having it because you may not survive the birth, by all means, do so.

There are all sorts of other factors that could potentially change my opinion in either case. Most importantly, while I may have an opinion on these cases or any others, I realize I have no say in any of these cases unless I'm the father (and even then, barely). This brings me to the second perspective.

What makes for a good law?
I don't like grey in laws, they should be as black and white as possible, and abortion is simply not condusive to that sort of law. This is why I think the "line in the sand" needs to be drawn at birth and the choice needs to be made by the would-be mother, hopefully with input from the would-be father, if he's in the picture.

Generally speaking, I think it's perfectly acceptable for things which may be considered wrong to also be legal. Women who have abortions already face tremendous ostracization in society; there's nothing to be gained by locking them up as well.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Why is a heartbeat so important? Deer have heartbeats and yet, every fall, the forests are filled with armed Republicans.
Since we clearly only care about killing humans, if a line is to be drawn in the sand, then I say it needs to be on the basis of the development of a definitively human quality in the fetus.
I must have missed your comment earlier and wanted to reply, but the latest three replies in that thread were already mine, and the last one is, to me, the most important, so I figured I'd reply here.



I put the heartbeat comment in parentheses because it wasn't the point in itself, but illustrative of how quickly the fetus develops. After seeing my own developing children on an ultrasound, I can understand the reasoning behind the "mandatory pre-operative ultrasound" legislation a few states have instituted. I was very surprised by how quickly things go from "dark blob" to "vaguely humanoid" to "little person" and I suspect a non-trivial proportion of people seeking abortion may be as uninformed about it as I was. I was not at all expecting to hear their heartbeats when we did, which is why the heartbeat illustration carries weight with me.

I think your "line in the sand" is a perfectly rational approach. I disagree personally, but I can appreciate that you're taking a reasoned approach and I would be willing to accept it as a basis for legislation on the matter.
It gets problematic when we attempt to define "a definitively human quality". On one extreme, a human fetus is and will be a human fetus. On the other extreme, even newborns only look human, and exhibit few, if any, behaviors that distinguish them from primates. (Primate rights, or animal rights in general being another hot potato, tying in to the "only care about killing humans" sentiment.)

What, to you, would constitute a "definitively human quality"? Limbs? Beginning of neural development?
(This directly ties into what I think is that "most important question", so if you'd like to reply in the original thread, that's great.)

>> ^meggymoo:

Here's a fun fact. The slow loris is the worlds only venomous primate. They also stink.


That's debatable since they secrete the toxin from their elbows. "Venomous" implies that the toxin is injected directly with a bite, sting, spur, etc.

Here's a fun fact. The slow loris is the worlds only venomous primate. They also stink.

>> ^legacy0100:

He gives several different examples, one including about the chimpanzees in tight confined space. I find his claims very hard to believe. Chimps get very frustrated and show abnormal, anti-social behavior when they are in a tight confined space for a long period of time. Their hairs fall out, they bite their own knuckles or even each other. They show aggression to inexperienced moms and to their babies. It could be that Dr. de Waal may be omitting some factors in here. The chimps he is referring to may be from a zoo where they are put in small confined space when it's time to goto sleep, but then are let out to a bigger enclosure where they can run and play. This may be a bad example, but we don't really know because he doesn't reveal the source of his data. Perhaps his research did confine the chimps to a tight space all throughout the experiment. If so, then the duration of dwelling in tight enclosure is a big factor, but he didn't cite anything about that either.
Dude, the guy is a primatologist. He studies primates for a living. I think he knows more about primates than you do.


Also, he's talking about "crowded spaces", not solitary confinement.

What are you going to do with the rest of the melted gold? Thatt was a really odd tangent, about the medals, and the gold. I don't really get it. The chimp makes more sense.
>> ^Lolthien:

>> ^budzos:
Honestly.. the wide-spread perception of this video is an illustration of why it's impossible to reason with some people. Almost all people are seriously prone to attach non-existent narrative to completely neutral events when it suits their agenda.

Good thing you're here to show us the error of our ways. After all, our complete unfamiliarity with primate behavior is no excuse to believe what the title of the video, and the people in the video suggest. We should all take up a collection, and purchase a medal. Then melt down that metal and each of us should drop a single drip of molten gold into our pitiful eyesockets and hope that the gold reaches our brains and somehow fuses with our neurons and makes us as perceptive as you. The only other possibility is death, and that is much preferable to remaining as stupid as well all are.
Thank you sir, thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

Dunno about eradicating the sex instinct...
Sex, pleasure, drugs, entertainment - base pleasures are addictive and distracting.
When people are miserable and downtrodden a base primate instinct to punish unfairness is triggered.

The best form of enforcing social conformity is to encourage people to enslave themselves.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

What about people up the autism scale - unable to experience empathy? If so - it's the end of Gorillaman.>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^bmacs27:
I say we kill all the old people first. Anyone with dementia, or forget it, let's just save on social security. Once you can't work, you can fertilize the fields. I mean, really, old people, or human primate hybrids (man-gorillas if you will) they're all subhuman.
Like you said, wounded animals... the lot of them. I mean hell, if I couldn't get it up anymore, it would be common decency for you to put me out of my misery.
Then we should move on to the puppies. I mean, they're subhuman too right?

Yes, anyone with (advanced) dementia and yes, puppies. Pet ownership is a cause of colossal environmental damage and human poverty.
This all seems obvious to me; is recognising the unique quality of intelligence as being essential to our conception of personhood really such an obscure revelation?
Any creature without human intelligence is literally not a human being.

>> ^bmacs27:
I say we kill all the old people first. Anyone with dementia, or forget it, let's just save on social security. Once you can't work, you can fertilize the fields. I mean, really, old people, or human primate hybrids (man-gorillas if you will) they're all subhuman.
Like you said, wounded animals... the lot of them. I mean hell, if I couldn't get it up anymore, it would be common decency for you to put me out of my misery.
Then we should move on to the puppies. I mean, they're subhuman too right?


Yes, anyone with (advanced) dementia and yes, puppies. Pet ownership is a cause of colossal environmental damage and human poverty.

This all seems obvious to me; is recognising the unique quality of intelligence as being essential to our conception of personhood really such an obscure revelation?

Any creature without human intelligence is literally not a human being.

>> ^gorillaman:

@KnivesOut
You couldn't be more wrong. We are poor and overpopulated, and we desperately need to correct that. Now is not the time to be keeping luxuries like pet underpeople.


I say we kill all the old people first. Anyone with dementia, or forget it, let's just save on social security. Once you can't work, you can fertilize the fields. I mean, really, old people, or human primate hybrids (man-gorillas if you will) they're all subhuman.

Like you said, wounded animals... the lot of them. I mean hell, if I couldn't get it up anymore, it would be common decency for you to put me out of my misery.

Then we should move on to the puppies. I mean, they're subhuman too right?

then they proceeded to pull the ladies breasts off and gouge out her eyes in search of more of this nectar. (im scared of being close to primates... esp humans)