Yes, I meant conceive in the fullest sense, as enabled only by language. As I said I think animals do value things and they live accordingly. Of course we don't really know, since we cannot inhabit the consciousnesses of animals; which means we are left to extrapolating from their behavior.

I think there are at least two issues to parse there:

1. Is it normal for most people to feel guilty about engaging in cannibalistic acts.

2. Is it normal for most people to gravitate toward eating the meat of humans. — 3017amen

I think most humans are instinctively repulsed by the thought of eating human flesh. But any of us might do it in circumstances of dire hunger. Eating the flesh of those who have already died in some disaster scenario is one thing, killing others to feed ourselves is another. Can any of us reliably know what we would do in dire circumstances, sitting pretty with food aplenty as we are at present?

Any justification seems to have unacceptable ethical consequences. — hypericin

Valuable has many different meanings, and does not necessarily equates to morally right. For instance, financially valuable things and actions are not always right. There are different social valuable things and actions, and there are also personal ones.

"Depending on what aspects something is more valuable", must be added in the question to get the answers.

Imagine a mom who has a terminally ill child and poodle, with money to treat only one. She treats the poodle. Who wouldn't be disgusted by this choice? — hypericin

Maybe it costed $50 to treat the poodle in the local vet? Whereas the terminally ill child has been told there is no cure (that is what terminally ill means?) by the doctors?

Oh, animals are mostly rather boring and plants are even worse. Nature is quite overrated.Humans are pretty interesting, you never know what they will come up with. Though cats are good too. So I would rather save a person than a fly or a dandelion. Though not Hitler or Stalin. Not maybe a very interesting question.

Value is an attached worth. For some pople, animals provide comfort, comfort or healing from hurts inflicted by humans. They have a value higher than human beings because of the perceived worth. Then some people take other peoples values out of the personal experience and cement it as theirs, for numerous reasons (worth?)
A human being is more valuable to me because I am a human being. That is the worth I assign, any attempt to standardise it comes up against the fact that Value is not a static rock wall.

That which makes us different does not make us separate; nor does it make us better. If we think the way we think makes us separate, it makes us mistaken. If we think the way we think makes us better, it makes us mistaken.

Just as the blind person may receive a boost in other sense(s), so too, our differences have given us a boost here and there. But we are still animals. Thinking that our thinking makes us separate, or better, not only makes us mistaken, it makes us more desperate. And that is the reason we are the way we are.

All this reminds me of a poem I wrote some 25 years ago, for child who had just be born, named Colter:

When you get older you will discover a flaw
You are sorely lacking in tooth and claw
You will also find you are pink and bare
Sorely lacking in fur and hair

But wobbling atop that tiny frame
You will also find a great big brain
If properly used it will suffice
To makes some cloths and a great big knife

So you might trek cross Colter's Hell
And return to us with stories to tell
You'll also return with wisdom learned
From those who live there on Her terms

Well given how we are burning the planet to a crisp. I don't think we deserve much moral praise on the whole. Not that some people or indeed all of us at some time have done good things. And bad things too. But destroying all living species just to buy more stuff, is lunacy.

Poor creatures.

But destroying all living species just to buy more stuff, is lunacy. — Manuel

It is. That is the desperation I referred to, manifesting itself. Sometimes the life of quiet desperation (H.D. Thoreau) is not so quiet.

Jose Ortega yGasset:

"In the preoccupation with doing things as they should be done - which is morality - there is a line past which we begin to think that what is purely our whim or mania is necessary. We fall, therefore, into a new immorality, into the worst of all, which is a matter of not not knowing those very conditions without which things cannot be. This is mans supreme and devastating pride, which tends not to accept limits on his desires and supposes that reality lacks any structure of it's own which may be opposed to his will. This sin is the worst of all, so much so that the question of whether the content of that will is good or bad completely loses importance in the face of it. If you believe you can do whatever you like - even, for example, the supreme good, then you are, irretrievably a villain. The preoccupation with what should be is estimable only when respect for what is has been exhausted." [[i]Emphasis added[/i]]

Fantastic quote. And nature is replying.

But we're still not listening enough.

I have to ask, do we ever know enough to know that what is has been exhausted? There's an awful lot to know about what is, it seems to me.

I think you have to individually price each item, not give them a blanket value. A good start is law suits of the tort kind. Many people cash in on the loss of life (of a loved one) or of a limb. Take a survey of the court decisions, and create a potentially reliable average of a randomized plot design*.

Then go and figure out how much a cow is worth, a deer, a dog, a dingleberry, etc. The prices of these can be obtained at point of sale prices.

This way you get a much more reliable metric for your valuation scheme than trying to decide whether a poodle is worth more than a kid, or an intelligent carrot should be priced higher than donald trump.

* randomized plot design == a mathematical arrangement and processing of measurements used in Statistical analysis.

. . . do we ever know enough to know that what is has been exhausted? — Manuel

I think we will know when we miss it, when we hunger for it, when we die because of it's absence.

I think yGasset can be tricky and has to be read in context. In a book on hunting, one of my favorite quotes has to do with man's need to divert himself from life. Out of context, and with our modern, "sporting" view, I at first thought he might be talking of hunting as the diversion. But what he's really saying is that hunting is life; hunting is "what is", and our other pursuits are the diversion. Likewise, in the quote you are talking about, his use of the words "should be" is referencing our subjective, mistaken, desperate desire as what we think we want, and not an empirical, objective "should." The empirical, objective should is, of course, the "what is" that he refers to. Our dissatisfaction with what is is manifest in our desperate acts.

"What is" is all around us and, rather than trying to "know" all about it through some cognitive, analytical, critical, scientific dissection of it, it can better be known by living it, by being it. A first step in the journey is to not perceive of ourselves as separate, but merely different, and then observing, and entering into a relationship with what is. In his example, that relationship is the hunt.

But we're still not listening enough. — Manuel

:100:

"What is" is all around us and, rather than trying to "know" all about it through some cognitive, analytical, critical, scientific dissection of it, it can better be known by living it, by being it. A first step in the journey is to not perceive of ourselves as separate, but merely different, and then observing, and entering into a relationship with what is. In his example, that relationship is the hunt. — James Riley

That makes sense. Diversions should be taken into the proper context I think, not necessarily ignored altogether, they are part of the experience of hunting, I would think, though not the main point.

While I say this and agree with you, on the other hand, so many people are hurting. If you can't put food on the table - the fact that the planet is burning and will lead to unimaginable horror, sooner rather than later - the rest can't be that important to you cause' you're starving.

So many problems. I do think we have some rather unique capacities compared to other animals, especially when it comes to imagination, creativity and being able to think and analyze our thoughts. But we also capable of such evil that no other animal could possible hope to match in a million years.

So yes, I'm torn. :joke:

Take a survey of the court decisions, and create a potentially reliable average of a randomized plot design*. — god must be atheist

You may not need to dig through a bunch of case law. When I practiced, I remember the State Worker's Compensation outfit actually had a formal, written, publicly available (but of course, not widely advertised) valuation module for pretty much everything, from a little toe to a big toe to an arm, a leg, an eye, a life, etc. In my exceeding naivety, I was shocked to find out such a thing existed. But, I was young, and dumber than I am now.

Anyway, if one wants to use our subjective, mercenary metric of value, money is there. I don't agree with it, but it's there.

It's like a price list for a Ford Mustang or such. Many things must also be evaluated, not just the inherent worth: the present value of future earnings, the accumulated interest on backward averaging the depreciation on equipment, the accelerated or decelerated forward averaging of year-to-date income saturation points, and the boiling point of the justice presiding over the case.

Yep. An old man who costs more than he contributes, or a baby that has potential, but it's speculative, a wage earner, etc. Crazy shit. By that metric alone, I could hunt a person down, kill them, gut them, skin them, quarter them, have them mounted on my wall and enjoy the trophy while dining over a plate of them. If anyone had a problem with it, I'd just pay them $X.XX and we'd all be good. Oh boy, man may not be separate, but he sure is different.

Oh, the planet will go on for billions of years until it's destroyed by the Sun. We are desperately dependent on our enviroment staying clean and stable, the other way round not so much. We cannot stop life on Earth, only our own life. The industrial age has lasted bit under 3 centuries, an absurdly meaningless blink of an eye in the geological and biological history of the planet. And the nature manages mass extinctions fine by itself, thank you. It's just stuff that happens - unless stuff that happens is given meanings from the outside. So, not to worry, life will totally carry on happily without the humanity. Maybe it takes like a really "long" time like half a million years after us, but life will bloom again. Mindless, red in the tooth and claw, mercilessly and mindlessly continuing onwards..

Let's PARTY!

And so, in reference to the OP, you haven't been able to make the correlation between human value systems and other primates. — 3017amen
I did exactly that. You misattributed to me an argument about cannibalism that I did not make. I tried to show you that animals alone are no more prone to cannibalism that we are. Thus, we are back to being alike. — James Riley

Not sure where the disconnect is, but that's ok. This seems to keep rearing its head, but it's precisely on point. And that is, you haven't made the distinction as to why we don't naturally, and consistently, default to, or gravitate toward killing other people for food. Did I miss your argument there?

Animals, like people, are not prone to it. So you see, when you said: — James Riley

True and false. True in the sense that people don't; false in the sense that not all animals don't. Obviously not all animals are carnivorous.

Humans kill each other for food. Or do you deny this? Literally, wars have been fought over it. And it falls four-square within the Darwin's theory. — James Riley

We're not talking about wars, people fighting over food resources, etc..

I hope that's clear enough for you. In short, we are animals. — James Riley

Thanks James. Unfortunately it's not clear. You haven't proven how that squares with human value systems. Did you?

You seem to be back to arguing 'hey we are simply all animals and our human value systems are no different'. Then when I ask you for examples, you can't support the argument, only by saying, we act like all of them and are just like them for some unknown Darwinian reason. And that's false of course.

Honestly, am I missing your point?

Well, I would absolutely want a massive public-private investment and action plan to counter global warming and other environmental dangers - quarter by quarter reacting "invisible hand" capitalism will not do the job. I think humanity is totally worth saving, we are some of the best people here - and some of the worst, admittedly, but the place would be much poorer and less interesting with just plants and spiders and fish and viruses and what you have.

I think there are at least two issues to parse there:

1. Is it normal for most people to feel guilty about engaging in cannibalistic acts.

2. Is it normal for most people to gravitate toward eating the meat of humans. — 3017amen
I think most humans are instinctively repulsed by the thought of eating human flesh. But any of us might do it in circumstances of dire hunger. Eating the flesh of those who have already died in some disaster scenario is one thing, killing others to feed ourselves is another. Can any of us reliably know what we would do in dire circumstances, sitting pretty with food aplenty as we are at present? — Janus

Sure. we don't typically gravitate to such behavior. And of course, those types of barbaric acts in most cases depend upon the individual's value system. And that's whether or not they're starving. It just depends on the person.

you haven't made the distinction as to why we don't naturally, and consistently, default to, or gravitate toward killing other people for food. — 3017amen

I guess we are back to the cannibalism thing. Okay, we don't naturally, and consistently, default to, or gravitate toward killing other people *to eat* for the same reason that animals generally don't. Regardless of what that reason is, that makes us more like animals, not less. Which was the entire point of my response to the OP and you. But, if we want to digress and speculate as to the reason why (which is irrelevant) I suppose it's because evolution decided that humans eating humans resulted in things like spongiform encephalopathy, or a compounding of toxins, or extinction due to eating each other until there is only one left and no one to breed with.

True and false. True in the sense that people don't; false in the sense that not all animals don't. Obviously not all animals are carnivorous. — 3017amen

No, not "true and false." I said prone. There are animals, some fish for example, that eat their own as a matter of course. Others will when starving (as will people). But I have specifically and pointedly been talking in generalities in the hopes that you would not parse that hair. Woe is me.

We're not talking about wars, people fighting over food resources, etc.. — 3017amen

Uh, yes, we were. That is the lesson I tried to teach you about the difference between "killing other people for food" (which is what you said) and "killing other people to eat them" (which is apparently what you meant). We kill each other for food all the time. Wars have been fought over it.

Unfortunately it's not clear. You haven't proven how that squares with human value systems. Did you? — 3017amen

I did. But apparently it's over your head.

You seem to be back to arguing 'hey we are simply all animals and our human value systems are no different'. Then when I ask you for examples, you can't support the argument, only by saying, we act like all of them and are just like them for some unknown Darwinian reason. And that's false of course.

Honestly, am I missing your point? — 3017amen

I'm not sure if you are, or if you're just trolling me. I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt,

1. We are animals. Do you dispute that?
2. The OP was about value, not difference. We have two legs, not four. We are different. Doh! The question is, do our differences make us more or less valuable. I said no. If you have a problem with that, then argue it. Don't line out a false dichotomy based on cannibalism.
3. I gave you examples of how we are animals.
4. I argued why we are no more valuable than animals.
5. You have failed to demonstrate how animal value systems differ among species. They don't. Even if they did, that would not make us more valuable than them.

Nature is amoral. There is nothing immoral a lion, a bat, a bee could do. Obviously the worst behaving species is us humans, as we are the only species that can behave immorally. It's a certain distinction, I would say.

you haven't made the distinction as to why we don't naturally, and consistently, default to, or gravitate toward killing other people for food. — 3017amen
I guess we are back to the cannibalism thing. Okay, we don't naturally, and consistently, default to, or gravitate toward killing other people *to eat* for the same reason that animals generally don't. Regardless of what that reason is, that makes us more like animals, not less. Which was the entire point of my response to the OP and you. But, if we want to digress and speculate as to the reason why (which is irrelevant) I suppose it's because evolution decided that humans eating humans resulted in things like spongiform encephalopathy, or a compounding of toxins, or extinction due to eating each other until there is only one left and no one to breed with. — James Riley

James!

That's exactly what I'm arguing. You are thinking it's a digression. It's not. It should be an integral part of your theory. Right?

As such, you are now "speculating" that evolution decided that we should not eat other humans. How does that work(?). Please describe how random mutations and genetic accidents (Darwinism) provides for such a value system(s) as we've been briefly discussing.

We kill each other for food all the time. Wars have been fought over it. — James Riley

And so are you suggesting then we should rightfully kill the poodle as posited in the OP?

I'm not sure if you are, or if you're just trolling me. I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt,

1. We are animals. Do you dispute that?
2. The OP was about value, not difference. We have two legs, not four. We are different. Doh! The question is, do our differences make us more or less valuable. I said no. If you have a problem with that, then argue it. Don't line out a false dichotomy based on cannibalism.
3. I gave you examples of how we are animals.
4. I argued why we are no more valuable than animals.
5. You have failed to demonstrate how animal value systems differ among species. They don't. Even if they did, that would not make us more valuable than them. — James Riley

...far from it, I'm making you think through your theory, and poking holes in it accordingly. Hence my answers:

1. Based upon your theory, yes.
2. Agreed, and you haven't argued for value. You only said we are like lower life forms and kill each other for resources (wars). I get that part.
3. They are not germane to value systems from higher consciousness/humans
4. You did, but it fell short. It didn't incorporate value systems, other than acts of violence and other barbaric behavior.
5. I simply asked why, in your theory of evolution, we are still not eating each other for food like some other animals do. If we are no different, as you claim, then you should be able to tell me why, how and by what method did that evolve.

That's exactly what I'm arguing. — 3017amen

Then I guess you should have said " . . . kill to eat each other . . ." instead of " . . . kill each other for food. . . ." But I'm glad we're past that.

You are thinking it's a digression. — 3017amen

It was, because it's irrelevant.

It's not. — 3017amen

It is.

It should be an integral part of your theory. Right? — 3017amen

Wrong. It's irrelevant to the valuation of humans vice non-humans.

As such, you are now "speculating" that evolution decided that we should not eat other humans. How does that work(?). Please describe how random mutations and genetic accidents (Darwinism) provides for such a value system(s) as we've been briefly discussing. — 3017amen

The only reason I was speculating was to humor your irrelevant digression. If you don't know how evolution works, get a book. If you want to attach "value", or call them "value systems" then that which is found "valuable" is a random mutation or genetic accident that survived. But this is all irrelevant to the question of whether animals or humans have more value.

And so are you suggesting then we should rightfully kill the poodle as posited in the OP? — 3017amen

"Rightfully" has nothing to do with it. If you're hungry, you're going to do what evolution geared you to do. The poodle will do the same.

1. Based upon your theory, yes. — 3017amen

Then support your argument.

2. Agreed, and you haven't argued for value. — 3017amen

Yes, I have. I've argued that one is no more valuable than the other. Pay attention.

3. They are not germane to value systems from higher consciousness/humans — 3017amen

Yes, they are. They demonstrate the lack of value distinction.

4. You did, but it fell short. It didn't incorporate value systems, other than acts of violence and other barbaric behavior. — 3017amen

It did not fall short. It didn't incorporate value systemS (plural) because one is no more valuable than the other.

5. I simply asked why, in your theory of evolution, we are still not eating each other for food like some other animals do. — 3017amen

This is the first time you've asked that, but now that you seem to get the difference between killing for food and killing to eat, I will humor you: You make a false distinction when you say "like some other animals do" as if no other animals don't, as if we are unique in the animal kingdom. We are not. On the one hand, we will eat each other if it comes down to it and, on the other hand, there are omnivores and carnivores that don't. Human reticence to eat other humans is not unique in the animal kingdom. In fact, it's the norm. While many predators kill other predators, just like we kill other humans, they don't consume them unless, like us, they are starving. Cats don't eat cats. Wolves don't eat wolves. The list goes on. But the point here is, your search for evidence that one animal is more valuable than another will fail, save some subjective analysis that is not intra or interspecific.

So, if you want to distinguish between animals that are cannibals as a matter of course, then you need not compare them to humans. You can compare them to other animals that don't cannibalize as a matter of course. The latter is the norm and thus any alleged distinction between value systems or value is irrelevant. Hell, in honor of the OP, substitute poodle with some fish that cannibalizes all the time. So what? One is not more valuable than the other. They are what they are.

If we are no different, as you claim, then you should be able to tell me why, how and by what method did that evolve. — 3017amen

We are no different, as I claim. The why, how and method are the same how, why and method of other animals. Evolution. Darwin. I'm not a biologist. We're talking about value.

I wonder if in a morally perfect world male lions would not kill the existing cubs of female lions in order to get them into heat? Or if there would not be rapes among animals? What would a perfectly moral person prefer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_coercion_among_animals

In many ways it seems that the only immoral - and thus at least slightly moral - species in the world are us humans. This doesn't directly answer the OP, but it seems that in some senses our species really is unique, for better and for worse. I don't see much inherent value in this teeming life here, though obviously this evolutionary anarchy seems better than lifelessness, but there seems to be so much unfair and utterly cruel things in the nature. Would it maybe be moral to interfere with them?

You make a false distinction when you say "like some other animals do" as if no other animals don't, as if we are unique in the animal kingdom. We are not. On the one hand, we will eat each other if it comes down to it and, on the other hand, there are omnivores and carnivores that don't.

Then, how did we stop this practice through evolution?

If you don't know how evolution works, get a book. If you want to attach "value", or call them "value systems" then that which is found "valuable" is a random mutation or genetic accident that survived. But this is all irrelevant to the question of whether animals or humans have more value. — James Riley

I don't know what that means. Please describe how random mutations and genetic accidents (Darwinism) provides for such a value system(s) as we've been briefly discussing. Thank you.

Cats don't eat cats. Wolves don't eat wolves. — James Riley

But other species do. Hence my original question to you in support of your evolutionarily argument.

So, if you want to distinguish between animals that are cannibals as a matter of course, then you need not compare them to humans — James Riley

That's your job. You made the claim, I didn't. Didn't you posit evolution as your justification?

They are what they are. — James Riley

What does that mean?

We are no different, as I claim. The why, how and method are the same how, why and method of other animals. Evolution. Darwin. I'm not a biologist. We're talking about value. — James Riley

We might be getting somewhere. How does human's value systems arise from evolution?
If we're no different, we should not care about killing the OP poodle under any circumstance, right?

I know this may seem frustrating, but you can't say something is so without justifying your position.

Then, how did we stop this practice through evolution? — 3017amen

Who said it ever started?

I don't know what that means. Please describe how random mutations and genetic accidents (Darwinism) provides for such a value system(s) as we've been briefly discussing. Thank you. — 3017amen

If you don't know what it means, then don't use the words and phrases. They are yours. I was trying to humor you. You brought up "random mutations and genetic accidents." That's evolution and, normally, unrelated to values or value systems. But, since you brought them up in this thread about values, I tried to stretch for you and figure that random mutations and genetic accidents" are valuable and thus might transmogrify (in your mind) into some kind of value judgement. But yeah, that's on you.

But other species do. Hence my original question to you in support of your evolutionarily argument. — 3017amen

So compare those other species to cats and wolves. You see how humans are not unique on the cannibalism front?

That's your job. You made the claim, I didn't. Didn't you posit evolution as your justification? — 3017amen

No, it's not my job. It's your job. You brought up evolution, you tried to tie value to evolution, you seem to be trying to get me to say one (human or non-human) is more valuable than the other. This is what happens to you when you can't keep your eye on the ball, can't express yourself clearly, and engage in digression.

What does that mean? — 3017amen

It's self evident. We evolved to what we are now, as did everything else.

We might be getting somewhere. How does human's value systems arise from evolution? — 3017amen

Lead with that next time. The same way animal value systems arise from evolution. See above.

If we're no different, we should not care about killing the OP poodle under any circumstance, right? — 3017amen

Wrong. Circumstances can control. If we are hungry and want to eat the poodle, we will kill it. If we perceive the poodle to be competing for resources with us, we will kill it. If it's annoying us, we will kill it. This analysis applies to the wolf - poodle relationship to.

I know this may seem frustrating, but you can't say something is so without justifying your position. — 3017amen

It's frustrating because I have justified my position, repeatedly. So much so that I will, from here on out, simply say the record speaks for itself. Unless and until you broach a new issue, you must seek any further answers to your question by going back and re-reading the thread. In fact, as your new teacher, I hereby give you this assignment: Go back, re-read the thread, and make my argument for me. At that point I will be able to discern the sincerity of your curiosity.

I think that values are subjective and thus relative to an individual and that whatever particular socio-cultural structures around them largely influence what they value. I do not think values are necessarily based on reason, though we seem to derive at least some values from reason. I think that non-human animals have sufficient moral worth to not breed them into an existence exploitation or slaughter them for food. Though, this is only my opinion. I cannot and rightfully should not be able to dictate the value judgments of others. I can perhaps introduce others to facts they may not have otherwise known and from there maybe reason from their values to reveal absurdities or contradictions entailed by the logic of their position. Similarly, it seems, have you discovered this feature of moral reasoning between human and non-human animals as well.

If humans are more valuable, why? How do you justify this assertion? Any justification seems to have unacceptable ethical consequences. For instance, is it due to their (relative lack of) intelligence? Then, human value must also be gradated on the basis of intelligence, and from there we arrive at eugenics. — hypericin

This is similar to the tactic used by the argument from marginal cases by Peter Singer, and the name the trait argument from Isaac Brown, insofar as it provides a demonstration of the cognitive dissonance an individual may suffer from when taking the position that humans have sufficient moral worth that we won't kill them for food but that non-human animals, however, do not. The dissonance comes in whenever we try to identify the key traits (or sets of predicates) true of non-human animals that if true of humans would justify the same treatment an because there is no reasonable set of criteria for moral worth that completely divorces humans from non-human animals, we are left with either an absurdity or a logical contradiction.

There is a practical way around this problem I believe. If we predicate moral worth upon the property of sentience, and try and to extend basic rights to all conscious beings capable of having a subjective experience, then most of the absurdities are avoided. I like to define veganism as:

A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

I think my view is consistent and tenable insofar as it would entail only mild, if any, reductio ad absurdum. Do you think otherwise?

Who said it ever started? — James Riley

Good question.

That's evolution and, normally, unrelated to values or value systems — James Riley

Yep. And that's what you failed to include in your theory. Sorry.

So compare those other species to cats and wolves. You see how humans are not unique on the cannibalism front? — James Riley

Not at all. As I said, you failed to include the distinction.

Circumstances can control. If we are hungry and want to eat the poodle, we will kill it. If we perceive the poodle to be competing for resources with us, we will kill it. If it's annoying us, we will kill it. This analysis applies to the wolf - poodle relationship to. — James Riley

What do 'circumstances' mean? Is that a value judgement?

And if it is, why should we be discouraged from eating dogs? Did evolution tell us to? How so?

It's frustrating because I have justified my position, repeatedly. So much so that I will, from here on out, simply say the record speaks for itself. Unless and until you broach a new issue, you must seek any further answers to your question by going back and re-reading the thread. In fact, as your new teacher, I hereby give you this assignment: Go back, re-read the thread, and make my argument for me. At that point I will be able to discern the sincerity of your curiosity. — James Riley

I did. But your theory of evolution still lacks the justification necessary for the complexities of human behavior. Sorry.

I'm sorry you did not complete your assignment. Sigh. I can lead you to knowledge but I can't make you think. Sorry.