So what are you trying to say anyways? Flies dodge my swats, too.
When I asked what was in the monkey’s heads I was asking about their propositions that apparently they deduce from, but the article couldn’t say and those monkey’s can’t either. When monkey’s visualize an object and they incline towards it, ok and?
From what I know, dogs either always growl if someone tries to get their food, or will always allow a human to take its food. There is no rational decision making. This would simply be instinct. It is the same with all animals, as far as I know. You may be able to train an animal to always have the same response to some stimulus, but they never make a conscious decision.
I must have missed it. Try again or quote yourself, because I did not see it.
Yes, all rational creatures can deduce. Not all creatures that can deduce are rational. So what is your point?
They are not opinions. They are facts that you just seem to choose to ignore.
Look, I really do not think these people get offended. I have been around them a couple of times. I have to assume none of you have.
However, I think most of society does consider calling someone a retard as being rude. I also myself do not really like to use the term. However, when I was a kid, it was used pretty freely and no one cared. Then the whole politically correct thing came about, and it became a rude term.
My point was that by the other guys criteria, animals are at about equal cognition capacity because they can consent/not consent. I’m not so familiar with insects in the field of ethology and animal psychology stuff, but I am familiar with dogs and higher primates.
To your question of the study,
What they’re saying is that the monkeys can deduce the existence of one thing on the basis of another action (putting “two and two together”). Since deduction is basically the platform of reason, one would say a creature capable of deduction is a rational entity. Taking that into account, since higher primates appear to possess the ability of deduction, they must also be said to possess the quality of being a rational creature - like homo sapiens.
I don’t think you could be more wrong. I’m 34, the oldest of three. My mentally disabled sister was born when I was three. My mentally disabled brother was born when I was eight. I was off to college when I was 17. My brother moved into a group home for mentally disabled adults when he was 20. My sister still lives at home, though my parents are actively trying to find her a group home, as well. In my brother’s house, there are four men with various mental disabilities, and a rotating 24x7 staff to assist them in day to day activities. He and the other men in his house enjoy listening to music, shooting baskets and watching TV. They go to dances, concerts and sporting events. My sister enjoys shopping, swinging (on a swingset), listening to music and dancing. She loves jewelry. She also goes to dances and concerts.
I visit my parents and sister regularly, and also my brother’s place. My siblings especially enjoy going for rides in my convertible in the warmer months. I’ve attended many Special Olympics in which my brother was a participant. I’ve volunteered at a few Special Olympics track and field meets. I’ve attended dozens of parties where the majoity of the guests were special ed classmates of my siblings. I think it’s fair to say that my experience with “these people” dwarfs your being “around them a couple of times” in the same way that blow torch dwarfs a Bic that’s almost out of fluid. And because of that, I can say without hesitation, you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.
Throughout the years, I’m sure I’ve come in contact with over a thousand mentally retarded people. Their disabilities range from the having the mentality of a toddler, barely able to feed themselves, to just being a little slow. Though my brother has the mental capacity of the average 4 year old, and the vocabulary of maybe a 3 or 4 year old, he has a job stocking coolers in a local deli, and also cleans tables in a community college. One of his former roommates bags groceries, and it would be hard to tell from a brief conversation with him that he is disabled.
Kids can be cruel. I’ll never forget a little girl (maybe 10 years old) at a Special Olympics reduced to tears, crying on her mother’s shoulder, because some asshole “normal” kids called her a “stupid retard.” The kids obviously had no clue that their words would hurt her so much. Most likely they assumed, as you do, that she would not understand. A few thought it was funny that they “made the retard cry,” while one of them looked like he felt guilty. It didn’t make the scene any less heart breaking, though. I’ve also seen the look on my siblings’ faces when they overhear “normal” people whispering about them. I understand that they can make people uncomfortable, I and I don’t blame anyone, but it still sucks.
As I said, I have no patience for political correctness. I’m not that interested in associating with the easily offended. My goal in this post was not to stop you from using “retard”, especially in a forum such as this. It’s just to get you to realize that “mentally retarded” covers a very large range of mental disabilities, and the many people with mental disabilities will be hurt by such comments. They have enough to deal with; they don’t need that, too.
Well said.
I agree that calling someone a retard is insulting. I disagree with much of the substance of Wilderness’ posts in this thread, but I don’t think he was using the term in that manner when he posted the definition. Reread his post and then consider this: Words often have multiple meanings. Fag in the UK is a perfectly acceptable term for a cigarette. In addition to being a pejorative noun, retard is also a verb. It means “to slow”. It’s something one might do to the timing of an older engine. Mentally retardation is still, as far as I know, an acceptable term to describe a wide range of mental disabilities. Litterally, the mental process is slowed. There is world of differnce between calling someone with a mental disability mentally retarded as opposed to a retard, much like there is a difference between calling someone hispanic and calling someone a spic.
EDIT: That should read, “mental retardation,” not, “mentally.”
I don’t see how not sending him to jail is in any way defending him. I don’t think loud obnoxious people should be sent to jail either, but I won’t defend their bahviour. This jerk mutilated his property. He’s an asshole. There’s no defense. What’s that got to do with jail?
What do you think about this Jack ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxODBppps18
For the most part, the opening typeing scene said it all. I did laugh out loud at the note, though. Either way, it illustrates my ealier point, perfectly, though. This lead actor is obviously competent enough to understand an insult such as retard. I’m sure his feelings would be hurt, or he would simply ignore it, or shrug it off, or some combination of the above.
This is a crackpot study. The guy seems to know what the monkey is asking itself. Telepathy?
Again, this Flombaum, says monkey’s deduct, but what are those propositions, those statements of the monkey?
deduction |di’d?k sh ?n| noun the inference of particular instances by reference to a general law or principle
proposition |?präp?'zi sh ?n|noun1 a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion : the proposition that all men are created equal.• Logic a statement that expresses a concept that can be true or false.• Mathematics a formal statement of a theorem or problem, typically including the demonstration.
What are these general laws, principles, and propositions that the monkey has let us know about? Not what Flombaum thinks, what the monkey thinks. Of course a monkey or a dog can put two and two together, but they are not intellectualizing. And I have no way of knowing if the monkey made a choice. Of course a deer will walk by a corn plant and leaves and will pick the corn plant over the leaves, but all animals have appetitive experiences in which they’ll desire one thing over another.
I thank you for understanding the way I was using the term. But what “substance” do you disagree with in this thread?
I think this was sufficient.
Nice strawman. I never said anything about calling someone a “stupid retard”.
I am talking about people that have down syndrome. If you jokingly tell one “you are retarded”, most likely he or she will just call you “retarded” in return. They are very light-hearted good people. So no, just calling one a retard is not necessarily offensive. It depends on the context it is used in…
And as to my comment that they do not get offended, I will just retract the statement. Yes, they can be offended.
As if I am saying any different.
My comment wasn’t directed at you.
Eh, after thinking about it, I probably was saying something different.
Agreed. Context is extremely important.
We’re totally on the same page then. Cheers.
What I would like the Rothbardians to defend is the need to give this post 436 replies, while substantial questions about economics, more times than not, go unanswered. Is Mises.org about sharing knowledge of Austrian Econ, or arguing to feel superior? I seriously wonder if many of you know much more than that you are right.
The Rev
You’ll forgive me if I simply disagree with that it is at all a crack pot study simply because you don’t like the result.
And it’s not about telepathy, it’s about a trait that we possess, deduction of external phenomena.
Did you read the article? It shows how these monkeys are able to get their food with the understanding that the human beings are either looking at the food or not looking at the food, and when not looking at the food the monkeys are able to deduce that they can take the food because the humans won’t notice.
People guard their food when they’re interested in it; when they’re not interested in it - which they show through body language - they stop guarding their food, leaving it up for the possibility of a successful capture.
Logical deduction occurs in the head… thus this study has telepathy supposedly.
I even helped you by giving you the definition of propositions.
Again I ask, not what Flombaum thinks, what the monkey thinks? Let this monkey tell us these general laws. Why is Flombaum doing the study and not the monkey?
give it a rest…