If You Believe In Bigfoot, Do You Believe He Is Closer To Humans Or Animals

[southernyahoo]

I read BuzzardEater's post, and sadly was shaking my head a bit.

I apologize if it sounds "snarky", but i just simply cannot fathom why/or more importantly how, people attribute all this "great knowledge" to them..? What's its based on ? A theory? Actual observation/experiences ?

Art, I would base my opinion on the fact that no bipedal gorilla would have dodged science for this long, therefore it is one dog-gone smart hairy hominid. The described physical form, the tracks, and many vocalizations mirror mankind as in "the genus homo".

This is boiling down to how we define "human". Think about this, and I agree with Bob Z all the way. Biological form is king here, ....A human infant is still a human, but hasn't made the first tool, used fire or spoken it's first word. There are humans that can barely use a fork, but are still human. There are people who can't speak, but are human. There are humans that can't walk upright but are still human.

Strip naked, live in the woods, never make a tool or use fire and you're still a human, not a bright one by most peoples standards, but still a human.

Bottom line, cultural activities and behaviors we associate with humans, doesn't actually define us biologically. Once you learn to seperate the two, then you can see what bigfoot is.

So my opinion , closer to man but with animal adaptations. Admittedly, this is just as hard to fathom as the bipedal gorilla, but I think it fits the evidence better.

[Guest]

Bonehead, no clue what they'd do with it, but it could have lots of uses. It was hecka sharp, too.

As far as superiority, Us'ns or Them'ns, I believe we are different but neither perhaps superior. I see lots of people feel that big strong furry folks might be superior to us little nekkid skinny people. And in their setting, you gotta give them respect, they are masters of the wilds.

True, most of us live comfy lives and don't need to call upon our survival talents less'n we get audited or divorced. But this is a classic cause and effect/chicken or the egg question, the kind I see misconstrued daily by the masses. Are we little and skinny, so had to develop technology to compensate for our lack of muscle and mass, or did we have technology so muscle and mass became less selected-for? Are we techologists because we lack physical attributes or did our technology obviate the need for the physical attributes?

[Guest Twilight Fan]

The discussion here seems to be that humans are different to other animals as humans are more intelligent, or humans are problem solvers, or humans are more concerned with morality - yet other animals dont seem to be destroying their source of existance, dont create problems that need bandaid resolutions and live in natural morality.

That's just it, though. Animals don't live moral lives. They are lawless creatures, who live by "survival of the fittest" motto. A weak animal is a dead animal in nature. Unless you count rare exceptions to the rule (like a mother lioness who raises a baby gazelle after her cubs have been killed out of that motherly instinct), animals typically don't display what we call morality to one another. Some species group together for protection and the benefits a family offers, but outside of that safety blanket, most animals don't care about what happens to other animals. A chimpanzee doesn't stop to think, "boy. I feel really sorry about hunting this tiny, innocent monkey for dinner tonight. I bet he had a family of his own."

That's one of the main things (again aside from intellect and imagination) that separates "man from beast." We may technically be apes, and primates. But we ARE superior to animals, because no animals can match what we are, how we think, or what we can do to the world. How we affect others on a grand scale, and our compassion. We invented laws because we feel the "laws of nature" are cruel and unjust. Sure, many humans are corrupt but animals don't even know what corruption means. THAT is what separates us. They never have and never will have the level of comprehension or compassion that humans have. Perhaps if aliens are real (as depicted in the movies)...they feel superior to us, if they are vastly more intelligent.

I love animals as much as the next person, but I know they are not humans. I will never respect an animal as much as a human, or care for one as much. We are just different. A human can love you back, as much as you love them. (If even man's best friend, the dog, finds a new owner and home...excluding those rare exceptions, 9 times out of 10 he's going to soon forget his old master and to the dog, it will be as though he never existed. The dog will probably not mourn, or dwell on the loss of his past owner. As soon as the kibble hits the bowl, his mind is focused on the present. Food equals friendship in the animal world, it's amazing how easy it is to win over almost ANY animal once you start feeding them)...

[Guest]

That's just it, though. Animals don't live moral lives. They are lawless creatures, who live by "survival of the fittest" motto. A weak animal is a dead animal in nature. Unless you count rare exceptions to the rule...That's one of the main things (again aside from intellect and imagination) that separates "man from beast." We may technically be apes, and primates. But we ARE superior to animals, because no animals can match what we are, how we think, or what we can do to the world. How we affect others on a grand scale, and our compassion. We invented laws because we feel the "laws of nature" are cruel and unjust. Sure, many humans are corrupt but animals don't even know what corruption means. THAT is what separates us. They never have and never will have the level of comprehension or compassion that humans have. ...I will never respect an animal as much as a human, or care for one as much. We are just different. A human can love you back, as much as you love them. (If even man's best friend, the dog, finds a new owner and home...excluding those rare exceptions, 9 times out of 10 he's going to soon forget his old master and to the dog, it will be as though he never existed. The dog will probably not mourn, or dwell on the loss of his past owner. As soon as the kibble hits the bowl, his mind is focused on the present. Food equals friendship in the animal world, it's amazing how easy it is to win over almost ANY animal once you start feeding them)...

Twilight Fan, I think that just because western civilised humans can no longer understand the vast interrelationships and compassion by other creatures in nature - this doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Basically what you believe about the world you will see reflected about you. If you believe that nature is "survival of the fittest" (and this is a perspective of life not an actual fact) then everywhere you look you will see examples of this. The few examples outside of this (such as the lion trying to keep what should have been its prey alive etc) are seen when people start to open to other compassionate possibilities in nature(they then see reflections of compassion in nature).

When people were absolutely certain that the world was flat everything followed that belief and made sense to them, they would at best laugh at or at worst burn someone at the stake who believed otherwise. When white people believed people with black skins were pretty much sub human or non human there was little a black person could do that wasnt interpereted as "monkey see monkey do" no matter how masterful or talented it was (and Im not just talking about the prejudice against blacks in the USA in the past - Australia had this full bore). Now people "know" the world is not flat and know that black people are humans with black skin and past concepts seem absurd. The concept of "survival of the fittest" may well seem absurd to those humans who live closely with the earth such as indigenous people did in the USA, Canada, Australia and even Britain (druids celts etc). To such people nature is a vast cooperation and compassion is all about. You say that other creatures have no laws so they have no morality - there are natural laws and such laws are not survival of the fittest but harmonisation with all life while expressing individual creaturehood in infinite ways. For those very close to the wisdom of the earth basically nature is seen as a great symphony where all the lines of harmony are individual beings expressing in unique ways. Instead you see survival of the fittest because you are not seeing the communication and the natural wisdom of balance which is innate to all beings.

As for thinking a dog forgets those its human companions, its unfortunate you have not experienced how immense a dogs' love is, or how so many animals will actually protect you when you are in dire straights. Im sure there are a number of people on the forum who dont care for a word I say about harmony in nature but absolutely know their dog can love them as greatly as any human

Edited January 24, 2012 by Encounter

[Guest Twilight Fan]

Twilight Fan, I think that just because western civilised humans can no longer understand the vast interrelationships and compassion by other creatures in nature - this doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

It may exist in some areas, such as a mother animal caring for her offspring. But this is also largely instinctual. Even if animals feel compassion in similar ways to humans, which is up for debate, I think it's safe to say human emotions and compassion are magnified x 100,000,000,000,000,000.

Basically what you believe about the world you will see reflected about you. If you believe that nature is "survival of the fittest" (and this is a perspective of life not an actual fact) then everywhere you look you will see examples of this. The few examples outside of this (such as the lion trying to keep what should have been its prey alive etc) are seen when people start to open to other compassionate possibilities in nature(they then see reflections of compassion in nature).

I'm not saying nature is always cold and robotic. Animals DO feel things, but nowhere near the degree of what humans feel. At least if they do, they don't show it. Animals have very short attention spans in comparison to humans, again unless food is involved. Food/hunting can turn even a very fidgety animal into a focused one. (Which shows how instinctual they are)...Whether we like to see animals as they are or not, the fact remains: Nature IS survival of the fittest. Anyone who's ever watched Discovery channel knows that the sickest and weakest animals in a herd are usually picked off first. If your health goes downhill and you're a zebra, no other zebra are going to carry you to a doctor, give you medicine, or look after you when a hungry predator stops by for dinner. When the chase is on in the African savannah, it's every herbivore for itself! And that is the harsh reality of nature. (I hate that part so much!)

The concept of "survival of the fittest" may well seem absurd to those humans who live closely with the earth such as indigenous people did in the USA, Canada, Australia and even Britain (druids celts etc). To such people nature is a vast cooperation and compassion is all about. You say that other creatures have no laws so they have no morality - there are natural laws and such laws are not survival of the fittest but harmonisation with all life while expressing individual creaturehood in infinite ways. For those very close to the wisdom of the earth basically nature is seen as a great symphony where all the lines of harmony are individual beings expressing in unique ways. Instead you see survival of the fittest because you are not seeing the communication and the natural wisdom of balance which is innate to all beings.

Um, okay. Please don't take offense, but after reading that entire paragraph, I'm not sure what you're trying to say exactly. Sounds like it was quoted from a spiritual book of some sort. As I said earlier, whether we humans like it or not, nature IS nature. And as hard as we try to see the compassion in it, if a bleeding baby bird falls from a nest and a hungry jackal happens upon that baby bird...you know he's going to kill it for food! There is no "but" or "maybe" about it. To me, that is not compassion. That is animal law - which is lawless-ness.

As for thinking a dog forgets those its human companions, its unfortunate you have not experienced how immense a dogs' love is, or how so many animals will actually protect you when you are in dire straights. Im sure there are a number of people on the forum who dont care for a word I say about harmony in nature but absolutely know their dog can love them as greatly as any human

I have experienced the love of a dog. I had my dog for 8 years before he passed away. I loved him very much. And I know many dogs are trained to guard and to protect. This, you must remember, is a trait that was either trained or bred into the breed, if not both. To prove this statement, a golden retriever is (never that I've heard of) trained to guard a home or attack intruders. They were also not bred for that purpose. Thus, if an armed man carrying a gun walks into his owner's yard, intending to do harm, the golden will probably walk up to the man, tail wagging and wanting to play. Goldens are naturally happy-go-lucky, whereas breeds like pit bulls were bred to fight. And, true to their traits, that's what they often do best. I'm not saying dogs only do what they're expected to do - but it can be that way a lot of times.

[Guest]

...Whether we like to see animals as they are or not, the fact remains: Nature IS survival of the fittest. Anyone who's ever watched Discovery channel knows that the sickest and weakest animals in a herd are usually picked off first...

Do you recognise that the documentaries made on animals in nature are made from a certain angle? There are masses of movies with violence and news taken up almost completely with violence (in sport too) because that grabs human attention - this doesnt mean it is a representation of every day life for humans. Nature documentaries work in themes. Just as many who are not into living one with nature are people who believe life to be survival of the fittest, documentary makers believe such things too. In fact a documentary is a great example of a picture of the world taken in reflection of the picture takers beliefs.

Perhaps you could tell me as you are younger and your history lessons should be fresher, how many people died in the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima - were they all soldiers fighting a war or were their any women breast feeding their babies as the bombs hit? Were their any atrocities carried out in Iraq in the past ten years by anyone human, any atrocities in various African countries, Asian countries, Western countries? Could you explain how these were more moral than the attitude of apes in the jungle? Why, for all the morality and money in Western nations are there people left out in the cold at night, every night and people passing them by? For all the modern cons why is there an epidemic of young people commiting suicide in various countries throughout the world? When you speak of moral humanity, you do include every human in every country dont you? Without getting too close to political discussion Ill just ask - how many people in the world died of starvation yesterday ? Why? There is enough surplus food to feed the world of humans three times over - and Ill give you a hint, its not because there was a lack of transport to get the food to people or a lack of means. Why have humans torchered other humans throughout history and at times over long periods, years. Is this the moral high ground humans have over other animals?

As to my mention of animals protecting others in need - you would be aware of the many cases of dolphins saving humans at sea. Im guessing you think this is just a trait they must have to you and nothing compassionate. Where is the line? I mentioned that in not long ago history whites decided blacks were sub human and did whatever they wanted to them - whenever a black person would do something that really couldnt be ignored in how talented and amazing it was, whites would just call it "monkey see monkey do". If a white person did the same it would be extraordinary and they would be given accelades. This way of thinking you are expressing, where you very clearly state humans are superior, have way more compassion, and act in superior morality - this is the same way of thinking as the times when whites said the same about blacks. Cant you see this? Cant people learn from this?

Edited January 24, 2012 by Encounter

[Guest Twilight Fan]

Do you recognise that the documentaries made on animals in nature are made from a certain angle? There are masses of movies with violence and news taken up almost completely with violence (in sport too) because that grabs human attention - this doesnt mean it is a representation of every day life for humans. Nature documentaries work in themes. Just as many who are not into living one with nature are people who believe life to be survival of the fittest, documentary makers believe such things too. In fact a documentary is a great example of a picture of the world taken in reflection of the picture takers beliefs.

Nope, I didn't realize animal documentaries are made from a "certain angle." I'll have to disagree there. I think the filmmakers are just filming everyday animal life: animals being animals. If there was any sort of "angle," then one has to look no further than with their own two eyes. Just go on a safari or even to the zoo. Animals constantly think of food there as well. Even after feeding time in the lion den, a lioness watched my (then tiny) sister running around with the hungriest, most predatory eyes I'd ever seen. She began stalking from inside her cage, and cheetahs often stalked me when I was young. (Point being, predators are always predators. Nature shows don't fabricate this or show certain angles of it...it is just in their nature to want to hunt).

Perhaps you could tell me as you are younger and your history lessons should be fresher, how many people died in the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima - were they all soldiers fighting a war or were their any women breast feeding their babies as the bombs hit? Were their any atrocities carried out in Iraq in the past ten years by anyone human, any atrocities in various African countries, Asian countries, Western countries? Could you explain how these were more moral than the attitude of apes in the jungle?

Murder is never moral. We all fight for different reasons, both humans and animals. But humans have the capacity to rise above those violent instincts, to turn the other way. (Sometimes fighting is justified, to protect someone or something)...The difference between us and them is that when WE commit heinous acts of violence, murder and cruelty...our human code of ethics, our laws - will punish us with fines and/or prison time. We are held accountable for our crimes, and we know this. Animals have no concept of "right" and "wrong", therefore they just don't care who (or what) they kill.

Ill just ask - how many people in the world died of starvation yesterday ? Why? There is enough surplus food to feed the world of humans three times over - and Ill give you a hint, its not because there was a lack of transport to get the food to people or a lack of means. Why have humans torchered other humans throughout history and at times over long periods, years. Is this the moral high ground humans have over other animals?

Again, I am not claiming that all people are saints. Far from it. We give in to selfish impulses which hurt other people all too often. But we don't have to. Many humans do good, many do bad. We are all a mixture of both. The point again is that we each have the CHOICE to think and decide for ourselves - if we will do good or bad things to eachother. Animals don't think in these terms to my knowledge. (Hey, I could be wrong...just going by what I observe though). I repeat, if we make bad/hurtful choices to harm others, we are held accountable. Animals have no laws, they do as they please. If a baby lion cub is brutally clawed to death in the pride, the mother will not leave the new king. She mates with her cubs' murderer, has more cubs with him. Forgets her old ones. And no other lions persecute the male lion for murdering an innocent child. That's because animals don't think this way. They just do whatever comes naturally to them. No punishments exist for their wrongs. So how can they know what is wrong?

As to my mention of animals protecting others in need - you would be aware of the many cases of dolphins saving humans at sea. Im guessing you think this is just a trait they must have to you and nothing compassionate. Where is the line?

Yes, I have seen what you mentioned on a television show before. Why the dolphins saved humans? I don't know. It certainly SEEMS an act of compassion. Things like these are rare occurences though, i.e. not the norm. Which is why they're very interesting to look into. (Dolphins may be more capable of compassion than other creatures, since they are some of the smartest species). Then again, you have stories on the opposite side of the spectrum where dolphins kill innocent swimmers and think nothing of it. Animals are very unpredictable sometimes. Why would an orca whale try to drown his trainer one day? After years of being with that trainer. Why would a chimpanzee tear the face of his beloved owner after she too, raised him since he was a baby? Animals don't reason like we do. They just DO, like impulsive teenagers (only much less intelligent) who act without thinking of the consequences.

I mentioned that in not long ago history whites decided blacks were sub human and did whatever they wanted to them - whenever a black person would do something that really couldnt be ignored in how talented and amazing it was, whites would just call it "monkey see monkey do". If a white person did the same it would be extraordinary and they would be given accelades. This way of thinking you are expressing, where you very clearly state humans are superior, have way more compassion, and act in superior morality - this is the same way of thinking as the times when whites said the same about blacks. Cant you see this? Cant people learn from this?

Comparing the intelligence/abilities of black men to white men is nothing similar to comparing the intelligence/abilities of humans to animals. (Can't you see this?) I think that sentence should speak for itself, I shouldn't have to explain it further. When I say we are superior, that is simply a fact. Speaking in terms of brain power, we are the dominant species on this planet. We could wipe out every species if we so desired. What other animal (not insect plague, but animal) could do that? Animals cannot begin to imagine how complex a human is. And THAT is what I mean when I say we are superior. Intellectually and in most other ways aside from physical, YES. Humans are superior. I think many people would agree with me.

[Guest]

Nope, I didn't realize animal documentaries are made from a "certain angle." I'll have to disagree there. I think the filmmakers are just filming everyday animal life: animals being animals. If there was any sort of "angle," then one has to look no further than with their own two eyes. Just go on a safari or even to the zoo. Animals constantly think of food there as well ...

... But humans have the capacity to rise above those violent instincts, to turn the other way. (Sometimes fighting is justified, to protect someone or something)...The difference between us and them is that when WE commit heinous acts of violence, murder and cruelty...our human code of ethics, our laws - will punish us with fines and/or prison time. We are held accountable for our crimes, and we know this. Animals have no concept of "right" and "wrong", therefore they just don't care who (or what) they kill.

Actually my mistake, I thought that as you are still young you might benefit with some points brought up outside of the cosy survival of the fittest, human superiority argument. As you are not aware that documentary makers definately take an angle (this is a fact ) and you somehow think that as we might fine someone who has killed a couple of million people we have the moral ground, I am aware now trying to show you another way of seeing for you right now is perhaps silly of me. You study animals caged, unable to live their own valuable and rich existance and think that the caged being represents the free being. You say people will see your concept of nature if they go on a safari - have you gone on one? A safari is not being with nature holistically. Experience might change your understanding. You need to go deeper I think, but as you say not many will agree as is always the way. You are also right I think that the majority of outspoken people on the forum would agree with the general way of your thought and you will be supported in your beliefs here for the most part. You will be able to keep ignoring how humans in their belief of superiority have been destroying nature and mass murdering others. You will be backed up by a black and white scenario too where those trying to show that humans arent superior are seen as saying they are corrupt as beings (and I am not saying that ).Please remember though, this doesnt make that way of seeing fact. People see the world they believe is there and dont see what doesnt fit into their world view.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Encounter

[Guest Twilight Fan]

You have your own way of viewing things, that's cool. I may not agree with it, but you have the right to your POV as I do So, I guess we'll agree to disagree. But let me ask you one more question before ending this one-on-one: Do YOU (personally) see animals as EQUALS to humans in all ways? Would you sooner save a human life or animal life if given the choice?

Edited January 24, 2012 by Twilight Fan

[Guest MikeG]

I and ..... others who understand to even a slight extent the wisdom of the earth,

Hmmm..........Does this actually mean anything? The earth cannot have wisdom. It is an inanimate object. This sounds like the sort of nonsense you hear from people who talk about the power of crystals.

Actually, thinking about it again, I'll declare that I am one of those individuals who fully understands the wisdom the of the earth...........

......I fully understand that it doesn't have any.

It is actually I think when we realise we are not superior nor inferior to any other life, that our life has meaning with no comparisons required and that all life is vital to our being -

All good so far.......

that we will have the key to truly vast knowlege.

............but that's where it all goes wrong. Knowledge is not dependant on any sort of understanding of hierarchy. Knowledge is simply knowledge: stuff we know. We don't know any more or less because of some philosophical concept. We know more when scientists do their thing.

Mike

Edited January 24, 2012 by MikeG

[Guest]

They look like us, use some tools, erect structures, and talk. Why is this even a question?

When they develop a society, have laws and a written language, please get back to me.

[Guest]

Do you recognise that the documentaries made on animals in nature are made from a certain angle? There are masses of movies with violence and news taken up almost completely with violence (in sport too) because that grabs human attention - this doesnt mean it is a representation of every day life for humans. Nature documentaries work in themes. Just as many who are not into living one with nature are people who believe life to be survival of the fittest, documentary makers believe such things too. In fact a documentary is a great example of a picture of the world taken in reflection of the picture takers beliefs.

Perhaps you could tell me as you are younger and your history lessons should be fresher, how many people died in the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima - were they all soldiers fighting a war or were their any women breast feeding their babies as the bombs hit? Were their any atrocities carried out in Iraq in the past ten years by anyone human, any atrocities in various African countries, Asian countries, Western countries? Could you explain how these were more moral than the attitude of apes in the jungle? Why, for all the morality and money in Western nations are there people left out in the cold at night, every night and people passing them by? For all the modern cons why is there an epidemic of young people commiting suicide in various countries throughout the world? When you speak of moral humanity, you do include every human in every country dont you? Without getting too close to political discussion Ill just ask - how many people in the world died of starvation yesterday ? Why? There is enough surplus food to feed the world of humans three times over - and Ill give you a hint, its not because there was a lack of transport to get the food to people or a lack of means. Why have humans torchered other humans throughout history and at times over long periods, years. Is this the moral high ground humans have over other animals?

As to my mention of animals protecting others in need - you would be aware of the many cases of dolphins saving humans at sea. Im guessing you think this is just a trait they must have to you and nothing compassionate. Where is the line? I mentioned that in not long ago history whites decided blacks were sub human and did whatever they wanted to them - whenever a black person would do something that really couldnt be ignored in how talented and amazing it was, whites would just call it "monkey see monkey do". If a white person did the same it would be extraordinary and they would be given accelades. This way of thinking you are expressing, where you very clearly state humans are superior, have way more compassion, and act in superior morality - this is the same way of thinking as the times when whites said the same about blacks. Cant you see this? Cant people learn from this?

Thankfully humanity in civilized educated countries have learned from past mistakes, and advanced. That is our gift and ability over time to be able to see our mistakes, learn from them, and change them for the betterment for all involved.

[Guest MikeG]

When they develop a society, have laws and a written language, please get back to me.

Careful Susi..........for most of human history we haven't possessed 2 of those three items, and the other one (society) is possessed by all social animals.

Mike

[Guest]

Careful Susi..........for most of human history we haven't possessed 2 of those three items, and the other one (society) is possessed by all social animals.

Mike

Mike, What I saw never crossed my mind nor my thoughts as being human.It was a 2 legged totally black hair covered huge creature standing on it's 2 legs, 3 or 4 times the size of my 6'3" inch 220 pound hubby.

However, I saw nothing human about it.

They may be intelligent from what I have read, but the one I saw was an animal.

I don't believe that they have a society, they may have family units, and I'm sure that they are smart, but I did not see a human, not even a huge hairy human, I saw a creature.

Edited January 24, 2012 by SweetSusiq

[Guest MikeG]

Mike, What I saw never crossed my mind nor my thoughts as being human.......They may be intelligent from what I have read, but the one I saw was an animal.

Oh I know Susi, I read your report. I'm not making any comment or guesses about the status of our hairy friend (as I said, I hope we'll know soon enough, so guessing is pointless). All I was saying is that you should know that humans haven't been like we are now for very long, and that we didn't possess writing or laws until very recently indeed. Oh, and that hyaenas and chimps and dolphins and elephants and cows and all sorts of other creatures have extremely well ordered societies.

Mike

PS Spotted Hyaenas..........incredibly interesting society. For instance, every single female, even the youngest pup, is of higher status than any male, even the oldest and most powerful. So, the biggest males have to display subservience to little female pups only a few weeks old.

Edited January 24, 2012 by MikeG