• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Gay People "Abnormal"?

Are gay people "abnormal"?

  • Total voters
    91
mac said:
No, what I am doing is comparing humans to animals. We don't stop at that stage of communicative development, the parrot does. We continue to develop so that our ability to communicate far exceeds any other animals. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Click to expand...

Let us be clear. Can a parrot possess equivalent language capabilities to a toddler aged human?

Or are you going to be intellectually dishonest like Blackdog? My guess is he never even watched the end of the video and he is making a huge fool out of himself by pretending that he has.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
The fact is that they do.
Click to expand...

No they don't.

They can't read.
They can't hold a conversation.
They can't tell you what a moral concept is.
They have no understanding of right and wrong.

No. They don't.

CriticalThought said:
How so? A parrot can look at a novel collection of objects, distinguish what is a block and what is green and only count the things in that collection which possess those qualities.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with human communication. That is problem solving skill which even great apes, monkeys etc also have. Nothing new here.

And it was 1 parrot, and he's dead.

CriticalThought said:
That means that the parrot understood what "green" meant and what "block" meant.
Click to expand...

It meant that he knew they were different. This had nothing at all to do with understanding "color" or "shape" as an abstract concept. Even the video does not say anything like you propose here.

CriticalThought said:
Younger human children, such as two year-olds, would not posses that ability to understand words. You are being willfully ignorant as usual.
Click to expand...

What part of "they will advance to that stage" are you missing? What part of "animals can't advance to that stage" are you missing? Do I have to be clearer?

CriticalThought said:
Because they possess the equivalent communication abilities of human toddlers not human adults. We have already covered this. Now you are just being felicitous because you are butt hurt.
Click to expand...

If you are going to debate, debate but the personal attacks are getting tiresome.

No they don't as I have shown time and time again.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Let us be clear. Can a parrot possess equivalent language capabilities to a toddler aged human?
Click to expand...

Yes they can but this has nothing to do with our argument of the FACT that animals are NOT human and not even close.

CriticalThought said:
Or are you going to be intellectually dishonest like Blackdog? My guess is he never even watched the end of the video and he is making a huge fool out of himself by pretending that he has.
Click to expand...

Here we go again.
 
CriticalThought said:
Let us be clear. Can a parrot possess equivalent language capabilities to a toddler aged human?
Click to expand...

First, this is your conclusion, no-one else's. Second, it doesn't matter if it does or doesn't. The human ability to communicate is not limited to toddler level communication.

Or are you going to be intellectually dishonest like Blackdog? My guess is he never even watched the end of the video and he is making a huge fool out of himself by pretending that he has.
Click to expand...

I believe it's you that's being intellectually dishonest.
 
Blackdog said:
No they don't.

They can't read.
They can't hold a conversation.
They can't tell you what a moral concept is.
They have no understanding of right and wrong.

No. They don't.
Click to expand...

We are talking about communication abilities. Stick to the topic.

It meant that he knew they were different. This had nothing at all to do with understanding "color" or "shape" as an abstract concept. Even the video dopes not say anything like you propose here.
Click to expand...

Three year old children do not understand the concept of "color" or "shape" as an abstract concept. As I said, they are equivalant in communication ability.

What part of "they will advance to that stage" are you missing? What part of "animals can't advance to that stage" are you missing? Do I have to be clearer?
Click to expand...

What part of, "a parrot can possess equivalant communication abilities to a human toddler" are you missing? Do I have to be clearer?
 
CriticalThought said:
We are talking about communication abilities. Stick to the topic.
Click to expand...

Those are all parts of advanced communication.

CriticalThought said:
Three year old children do not understand the concept of "color" or "shape" as an abstract concept. As I said, they are equivalant in communication ability.
Click to expand...

I give up.

CriticalThought said:
What part of, "a parrot can possess equivalant communication abilities to a human toddler" are you missing? Do I have to be clearer?
Click to expand...

Like I said, I give up.
 
mac said:
First, this is your conclusion, no-one else's. Second, it doesn't matter if it does or doesn't. The human ability to communicate is not limited to toddler level communication.
Click to expand...

No, other people have come to the exact same conclusion.

http://www.linguistics.pomona.edu/lcs11fall04/readings/pepperberg.pdf

Second, it does matter because I am arguing that human language capabilities only become unique after the age of 4. As such, language cannot be used as a distinguishing factor between humans and animals, it can only be used as a distinguishing factor between older humans and animals.

I believe it's you that's being intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

Why? By actually having evidence to support my assertions? By challenging logically fallacious arguments with actual reasoning? By challenging your conceptions with observable facts? Exactly what makes me intellectually dishonest? Do you even know what that means?
 
Blackdog said:
Those are all parts of advanced communication.
Click to expand...

You are intellectually dishonest. You know that I am only referring to the communication capablitlies of young humans, and yet you continually bring up abilities of older humans. Why can't you admit that parrots are capable of the same communciation capabilities as young humans? Why is that concept so terrifying to you?
 
CriticalThought said:
No, other people have come to the exact same conclusion.

http://www.linguistics.pomona.edu/lcs11fall04/readings/pepperberg.pdf

Second, it does matter because I am arguing that human language capabilities only become unique after the age of 4. As such, language cannot be used as a distinguishing factor between humans and animals, it can only be used as a distinguishing factor between older humans and animals.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. It's an absolutely senseless criteria only useful in giving you some false victory over Blackdog. Let me ask, how old was Alex?

Why? By actually having evidence to support my assertions? By challenging logically fallacious arguments with actual reasoning? By challenging your conceptions with observable facts? Exactly what makes me intellectually dishonest? Do you even know what that means?
Click to expand...

By making false and senseless assertions.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Too many personal digs in this thread. That will cease immediately.
 
mac said:
That's ridiculous. It's an absolutely senseless criteria only useful in giving you some false victory over Blackdog. Let me ask, how old was Alex?

By making false and senseless assertions.
Click to expand...

My only argument has been that parrots can possess the same communication abilities as younger humans. I have demonstrated such with videos and studies. The reason I did so was because you and Blackdog were implicitly arguing that all humans possessed communication abilities that were inherently superior to animals, when in actuality, only older humans do. You may see that as a senseless distinction but it is an important one.
 
CriticalThought said:
My only argument has been that parrots can possess the same communication abilities as younger humans.
Click to expand...

Which in no way refutes anything in my argument. It does not make them "human" in any way.

CriticalThought said:
I have demonstrated such with videos and studies. The reason I did so was because you and Blackdog were implicitly arguing that all humans possessed communication abilities that were inherently superior to animals, when in actuality, only older humans do.
Click to expand...

And so began the fallacy argument.

CriticalThought said:
You may see that as a senseless distinction but it is an important one.
Click to expand...

Most people see that as senseless. Hence the complete and utter lack of anyone coming to the defense of your argument.
 
Blackdog said:
Which in no way refutes anything in my argument. It does not make them "human" in any way.
Click to expand...

I never argued they were human.

Most people see that as senseless. Hence the complete and utter lack of anyone coming to the defense of your argument.
Click to expand...

Nobody has to come to the defense of the winning argument.
 
CriticalThought said:
My only argument has been that parrots can possess the same communication abilities as younger humans. I have demonstrated such with videos and studies. The reason I did so was because you and Blackdog were implicitly arguing that all humans possessed communication abilities that were inherently superior to animals, when in actuality, only older humans do. You may see that as a senseless distinction but it is an important one.
Click to expand...

No, it's as senseless a distinction as saying you are right because Alex communicates better than a severely mentally disabled human. Abso-friggin-lutely senseless.
 
mac said:
No, it's as senseless a distinction as saying you are right because Alex communicates better than a severely mentally disabled human. Abso-friggin-lutely senseless.
Click to expand...

Meh, that was completely unrelated. Blackdog was arguing that a certain set of traits defined human beings. I was simply following that to its logical conclusion that if human beings for some reason did not possess that set of traits they would not longer be human.

What we are discussing now is the reality that parrots possess equivlant communication capabilities to toddler aged humans.
 
CriticalThought said:
Meh, that was completely unrelated. Blackdog was arguing that a certain set of traits defined human beings. I was simply following that to its logical conclusion that if human beings for some reason did not possess that set of traits they would not longer be human.

What we are discussing now is the reality that parrots possess equivlant communication capabilities to toddler aged humans.
Click to expand...

Unless the toddler or the parrot is going to describe to a stone mason how to build a pyramid.....that means squat.
 
mac said:
Unless the toddler or the parrot is going to describe to a stone mason how to build a pyramid.....that means squat.
Click to expand...

What did you expect it to mean? I wasn't arguing that a parrot or toddler was equivlant to an adult human.
 
This thread has been badly derailed, which is unfortunate.

For now, no one can know exactly what causes some people to be homosexual, but I believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with their behavior as long as no one is being hurt and it's between two consenting adults. The only thing that makes them "abnormal" is the fact that they make up the minority of a population, but homosexuality has always existed in human society and it's here to stay. People need to get over it, and move on-why worry about how other people conduct their lives?
 
Not any more so than red hair is. Something being unusual or minority doesn't make it abnormal.
 
I believe their sexual preference is abnormal, but I'm not sure if that abnormality makes the entire being abnormal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom