FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-03-2002, 12:24 PM   #151
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 1,844
Question

Dear Mr. You Betcha:

Are deaf mutes, by your definition, considered human?

Thanks,

hyzer
hyzer is offline  
Old 01-03-2002, 12:27 PM   #152
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The milky way galaxy
Posts: 159
Exclamation

You betcha, are you or aren't you going to address the contradictions in your theory?

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Imhotehp ]</p>
Imhotehp is offline  
Old 01-03-2002, 12:27 PM   #153
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Post

So, You Betcha, do you consider foxes of dog kind?
Mageth is offline  
Old 01-03-2002, 12:30 PM   #154
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 57
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by QueenofSwords:
<strong>Originally posted by You Betcha:
[qb]

I do not have my information with me now, but there is a part of the anatomy which allows humans, people, mankind to speak differently than animals.</strong>

Only one part? Out of the entire human anatomy?

And what exactly is the way in which animals speak? You imply that there is such a way when you use the phrase "speak differently than animals".

When do you plan on having "your information"?[/QB]
It was the anatomy of the laryngeal which is consistent with speech that is not inferior to modern man's.

Maybe you have noticed that humans speak differently than animals.
You Betcha is offline  
Old 01-03-2002, 12:34 PM   #155
Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada. Finally.
Posts: 10,155
Post

Originally posted by You Betcha:
<strong>It was the anatomy of the laryngeal which is consistent with speech that is not inferior to modern man's.</strong>

References, please? Also, I know of the larynx. What exactly is the laryngeal?

<strong>Maybe you have noticed that humans speak differently than animals.</strong>

I had not noticed that animals spoke at all. Your statement implies that animals do speak. Can you back that up?
Queen of Swords is offline  
Old 01-03-2002, 12:37 PM   #156
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Post

Hey, QoS, it sez so in the bah-ble (oops, that ass was talkin' just as good as a human. Must been a YEC.)
Mageth is offline  
Old 01-03-2002, 12:49 PM   #157
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 57
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Mageth:
<strong>So, You Betcha, do you consider foxes of dog kind?</strong>
Yes.
You Betcha is offline  
Old 01-03-2002, 12:53 PM   #158
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Post

OK, are Pandas of bear kind or ring-tailed cat kind?
Mageth is offline  
Old 01-03-2002, 12:56 PM   #159
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 57
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by QueenofSwords:
<strong>Originally posted by You Betcha:
[qb]It was the anatomy of the laryngeal which is consistent with speech that is not inferior to modern man's.</strong>

References, please? Also, I know of the larynx. What exactly is the laryngeal?

<strong>Maybe you have noticed that humans speak differently than animals.</strong>

I had not noticed that animals spoke at all. Your statement implies that animals do speak. Can you back that up?[/QB]
The laryngeal anatomy consists of all the structures that helps produce sound.
<a href="http://www.voice-center.com/larynx.html" target="_blank">http://www.voice-center.com/larynx.html</a>

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: You Betcha ]</p>
You Betcha is offline  
Old 01-03-2002, 12:57 PM   #160
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Deployed to Kosovo
Posts: 4,314
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by You Betcha:
<strong>

What was your score when you first looked? There are two sides of the issue and it is hotly debated. Similarity does not mean relatedness.</strong>
When it becomes clear that a pattern of similiarity exists, then it becomes clear that there is a relationship.

You're still avoiding the issue. I don't have to look and try to tell the score, because I'm not the one who claims that they should be easily distinguishable, being clearly different.
Daggah is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:57 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.