682
Conservatives are freaking out because they learned that some animals are gay
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
682 points (95.5% liked)
politics
19090 readers
6207 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Peacock: "Actually you do, here are some gay animals"
Fucking hilarious.
Imagine if animals had a sense of ethics lmao
Well they certainly have compassion, cooperation, a sense of fairness, social norms, etc. Whether that makes ethics is a matter of semantics, I think.
well if we're going by the traditionally defined ethics as we humans use it. No, because they don't speak english.
Do they have some form of ethical system? Probably, i believe we've even seen as much in some species already.
Lots of people in the world who don't speak English.
correct me if im wrong here, but do any animals, ever, at all, speak any human language at all?
I just used english as a force of habit. A stand in statement if you will.
Perhaps maybe even the fact that we're speaking in fucking english right now, will lead you to the reason as to why i stated english.
Of course people don't fucking speak english, what a stupid fucking comment.
Varmaa siksi koska mä veikkaan et puhu mitään muuta kieltä, joten jos mä rupeen kirjottaa jollai muul kielel, ni sun pitää vaivautua itse kääntämään se (mikä ei tosin nykyään vaadi kun sen kaks klikkaust, sillonku mnää olin piän ni sullei ois ollu mitää tsänssiä).
Monolinguistic people rarely realise just how overtly ethnocentric they're being. Guess it's hard to see when you don't have any other languages to think in.
How hard would it have been to just refrain from the word English in that sentence? Why did you feel the need to add it? Does "animals don't speak" somehow not convey the meaning of that? (Genuine questions, not sarcasm.)
If you think that's stupid, wait until you hear about the guy who said the same thing of animals.
There are lots of parrots who can clearly utter recognisable English, so yes, there are animals who speak English. On what level can they understand the language they use, that's another question entirely. Which more or less was my point in replying to you. :)
Anyway, for those actually interested in what the current research says about how much animals can use language, NativLang on YT has an awesome series on animal speech/grammar that goes into depth on the subject. Here's the first video.
You're repeating the age-old myth of "parrots just parrot, they don't actually understand anything they parrot".
This is decidedly untrue, and there's heaps of science behind that. A lot of which I have shown you. So that assertion is proved untrue, ie "wrong".
This is also just plain wrong. It's a Greek word that comes to English from Latin. So not an English word, actually. (See my first point about monolinguistic speakers often being a bit ethnocentric. Not your fault, one language is limiting in more ways than one.)
Parrots can indeed speak, but to what extent do they actually understand the language, or have grammar? That's the video I linked in my very first reply.
This:
Can animals grammar? – introduction to my animated series which goes deep in just what the capabilities are, because there is a lot of debate in the science world.
Thoguht you might be interested, but guess you're more interested in "winning" a conversation than actually having one.
and it also probably helps when you're classifying humans separately to animals for the purpose of a semantical argument, where classifying humans as animals would only cause further problems.
Along with the fact that it's arguably hate speech to some degree to refer to certain groups of people as animals separately from others, but this isn't relevant.
are you actually genuinely mad at me for this? And yes, "animals don't speak" doesn't convey it properly, because animals literally do speak, they just don't speak the same kind of interpreted languages that humans often do, though we have taught monke sign language a couple of times, so there's that, which might count i guess. (though it's not particularly fluent, or communicative)
But generally, for all intents and purposes, for this semantic argument, no, they don't speak spoken languages, with semantic meanings, and rooted histories. The same way that humans do "english" for example.
This is like being mad at someone for talking about transportation, and using cars as an example, because they like cars, or drive one all the time. It's just the basic bias of existing as a human being, where being impartial to literally everything that ever exists, at any point in time, is quite literally impossible.
yes technically parrots can recognize, and recreate sounds, it's not that they understand english, or words, or language. It's that they're capable of recreating vocal anomalies of human speech, pretty well. Likewise, i can also mimic someone else speaking in another language, or just individual words, but that doesn't mean that i'm speaking the language. In order for me to speak that language, i need to be able to communicate in some commonly understood and defined dialect, that other people can understand, such that i'm capable of understanding them as well. Parrots cannot do this.
regardless, my point was that animals have their own code of ethics, independent from the human concept of ethics, as defined in languages like english, which i used as the example, because i don't know if you know, ethics, is an english word. It comes from the english language. I'm just using the system relevant to the words i'm speaking about. It'd be a little weird if i was using fucking C the programming language, as an example of language, wouldn't it?
Nice try but the implication of animals being distinct was quite clear. The point is that there was absolutely no need to add the extra "English" to the end of "animals don't speak [English]", and actually omitting it would've made the sentence more inclusive and less prescriptively wrong. Even less wrong would've been to say "animals don't have language", although we're actually not a 100% on that, given that there are definite communications. We're having a hard time defining what level we're on ourself and where we came from to be able to understand a similar evolution happening on an entirely different branch of evolution.
Is it? Is it really? Because I don't think it is in any way, unless it's explicitly hate speech that you're doing in the context, and then anything in that context is hate speech. So you think no-one should ever refer to "Finnish people" for instance, because they would be doing a hate-speech on me, eh? Or that you can't talk about the differences between European and American cultures, as you can't refer to people separately without it being hate speech?
But see, they do. They do speak the same way, but language isn't just about speech. Speech is only a part of language. You seem to be having trouble seeing those two concepts as different from each other. Animals can speak, ie remember and use words.
See, this is sort of my core point that came out very strongly from just you having had to use "English" in your sentence. You're ignorant, but you don't like to think of yourself as ignorant. You're intellectually lazy, but you don't like thinking about yourself that way. So you pretend you're not.
First off, I already gave you way more information on the subject, which clearly you didn't even open let alone peruse although it's a very in-depth dive to what properties of languages we've observed animals using and how much do we understand about how they understand their own understanding. And that sort of thing. Anyway, with just 30 secs in Google you'd find the most famous parrots on the matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)
You were saying that " i need to be able to communicate in some commonly understood and defined dialect, that other people can understand, such that i’m capable of understanding them as well. Parrots cannot do this."?
This must be a deepfake then
I've more than likely been using English for longer than you have, and I'm sorry to say you got it wrong again.
"Ethics" as word with the very same meaning it has today was spoken aloud long before English was a thing. It actually comes from Greek, through Latin.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/ethic
You make bold assumptions which I don't see have much scientific basis in them. Like yes, animals have their "own" ethics and one could make the argument that all ethics are subjective and no such thing exists as objective ethics. However, saying they're "wholly independent" might be a reach, since we know that we share some of our most fundamental concepts of what is "unfair" with some of our close cousins.
My point is that you should look question yourself a bit more and be open to other people actually knowing what your'e speaking about, and adding to it, instead of thinking everyone is always arguing against you.
ok cool so we're just shitposting now
You're repeating the age-old myth of "parrots just parrot, they don't actually understand anything they parrot".
This is decidedly untrue, and there's heaps of science behind that. A lot of which I have shown you. So that assertion is proved untrue, ie "wrong".
This is also just plain wrong. It's a Greek word that comes to English from Latin. So not an English word, actually. (See my first point about monolinguistic speakers often being a bit ethnocentric. Not your fault, one language is limiting in more ways than one.)
Parrots can indeed speak, but to what extent do they actually understand the language, or have grammar? That's the video I linked in my very first reply.
This:
Can animals grammar? – introduction to my animated series which goes deep in just what the capabilities are, because there is a lot of debate in the science world.
Thoguht you might be interested, but guess you're more interested in "winning" a conversation than actually having one.
Edit lol replied to myself accidentally. Meant to put this at the bottom end of the thread.
show me someone conversing with a parrot in a legible manner and i will believe you. I also handed you a much better example to use anyway.
most prominent languages are based on latin, and latin is literally dead. Also technically if we're being pedantic here, like you are, it's not from latin, because latin isn't the premiere progenitor of all language. Latin itself is actually a massive hodge podge of other various lingual devices, as are most languages.
But judging by your level of intellectual prowess, english isn't a real language, because it steals words and grammar from other languages, often in non sensical mannerisms, that are inconsistent with it's own grammatical constructions. Which is ironically, a fair statement, because english is a fucking mess.
Maybe bilingual people just don't have a very multinational view of the world when it comes to history, and how it tends to play out, i don't know though, because i follow history from time to time.
again this is like me getting into an older american car, to go somewhere, because it's a car that i like and i drive it, because it's reliable, only for you to inform me that i'm actually pretentious for using an american car because "there are other countries that manufacture cars" you keep acting like the one fucking statement that i made in passing is the arbiter of truth, solely defining every logical facet of the world. It's not that deep, i'm just expressing my thoughts in a rather terse manner to get my point across without typing three fucking pages of text on the etymological history of every fucking word i'm using for fear that someone thinks i only understand english, and don't understand the totality of all history ever, because otherwise "i would look like a dumbass"
this is also literally what i re-iterated. I didn't watch the video or click on any links, because unless you're going to present it to me in a genuine manner that isn't just trying to patronize me, i don't really give a fuck to be honest. Maybe if you had read what i had written, you would understand this.
you know it's funny that you mention this, because in the very first post that i made, i'm pretty sure i literally said "animals have methods of communication, it's just not the same way that we do, I.E. english" or something along those lines. And i'm pretty fucking sure i reiterated that multiple times.
it's kind of interesting, and i'd like to discuss it, but it's also hard to discuss something when literally everything you say is disputed for the purposes of "uhm nah actually ur wrong, because here's a technicality where it's actually kind of sort of wrong, and you should feel bad because i'm better than you" but maybe you don't intend it that way, in which case, that's how it fucking reads.
Am i brazen? Yes, i feel i'm being equally as brazen as you are though.
officially a shitpost now lmao
Conservatives tomorrow: not eating your young is unnatural! Anyone who doesn't eat at least one baby must be punished!
Getting "The Purge" vibes from your comment...
I love that you specifically sad Peacock. It reminds me both of the rainbow-colored peacock logo of NBC in the 90s, as well as their PSA bumper "The more you know".
Well the second argument is true, it's just that being gay isn't unethical. But talk to them about veganism and all of a sudden we can eat insane amounts of dead animals cause lions eat other animals too?