Is Koko a typical gorilla?
Human IQ, by definition, has a 100 mean. Average IQ is 100. If you take one gorilla, who might be a supergenius among her kind, and show that she *might* have an IQ one or two standard deviations below the average toddler, that doesn't argue sapience of gorilla-kind very well to me.
Does it not occur that non-human species may actually think and function in fundamentally different ways from Humans?Sure. That's quite reasonable. And I'd argue, exactly what makes humans superior. We think and function in ways that allow us to advance, both individually and collectively. We develop new models and apply them. We learn from the world around us and apply that knowledge to improve things. We develop concepts of morality.
If group A contains the characteristics of group B and then moves beyond it, while group B never obtains the characteristics of group A, and if those added characteristics are good, then yes, group A is superior. Animals at best operate at the level of very young humans. For the most part, humans operate at that level, and then move beyond it to higher levels of thought - the concrete and then formal operational stages. Animals never do. So in terms of thought process, humans are superior.
EDIT to add: I have been getting my certification as a teacher, and much has been made about the stages of childhood development... but also on setting high expectations. I admit I could be wrong, and as far as I know nobody has ever *tried* to train an animal at the concrete operational stage, let alone the formal one.
You've rather missed the point.
My point is that comparing animal behavior and brain function to that of Humans is a fool's errand.
A lot of these reasons seem less like "reasons to kick someone" and more "things that bug me".
A lot of these reasons seem less like "reasons to kick someone" and more "things that bug me".
The quality of the railing is to blame.
Intelligence is a continuum, BigDTBone. Just because one species has extreme intelligence doesn't mean that they're cut from a different cloth, which is the belief I was referring to ("the Lord made Us in His own image and we are sole Masters of the Earth," etc).
Humans are the only extant species on this planet to:
Ironically, I'm not even clear on what you're trying to say here enough to judge it properly. How inclusive/exclusive is one supposed to be when describing "tribal/pack units?" Are you perhaps talking about cross-cultural communication, whether language-using animals can learn other languages within (or even outside) their species aside from what they grew up speaking? Apparently, crows can.
Develop languages that extend beyond our tribal/pack units.
One problem in interpreting these calls, however, has been the fact that different groups of crows, belonging to the same species but in different geographical areas, may not use or understand all of the same call
Writing? I guess so, but that's not the only way to transmit knowledge from generation to generation, which is something other animals CAN do.
Write stuff down and thereby transmit knowledge from generation to generation.
Animals can mimic the rewarded behaviors of those observed directly. That is hardly transmitting knowledge through generations.
Yes, I am aware of animal tool use which is why I specifically specified artificially create tools. For the purpose of this conversation let us define artificial tool as, "2 or more descrete components found at least 20' apart and assembled in a particular fashion to provide (1) ease or effecency of work beyond the ability of the individual components or (2) a method to complete a task which was previously impossible.How high-tech must tool-making be to be "artificially constructing tools?" What about just chipping a rock to sharpen it into a cutting implement or taking a pliable found object and twisting it into a completely different shape? Animals can totally do that.
Artificially construct tools.
That's a "necessity is the mother of invention" thing. Humans haven't had complex societies for most of the species' history, either - are you claiming that other species don't demonstrate varying talents among individuals? Anybody with a few pets knows better than that.
Develop civilizations that utilize diversity of skills.
No, what I'm saying is that animals don't make use of that diversity as a group. Individual pack members may have varied skills but there is no collective skill use which allows descrete members of a pack to complete separate parts of a multifaceted objective.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
121: Wasting a game session arguing against a ruling.
I bring up again how one player argued loudly that a monster that got a 20, then got one for the crit confirmation must have fumbled the weapon and not hit at all. If there was somewhere else to play, I would have booted him. Instead, I outlawed fumbles.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an attempt to bring this thread back onto the tracks...
108. Showing up for the game session in just your boxers, because we are all friends here, right?
Edited to renumber!
I have a GM who runs games like that.
.... you get used to it.
Nope. You ridicule the dude until he puts some clothes on like a f***ing adult. Two year olds, strippers, and people about to enjoy fun rated R times with a consenting adult run around in their underpants. Adults at a social gathering wear clothes.
Why do so many gamers think basic social conventions are optional? Yeah, I get it. You've got some social awkwardness or whatever, I went through that really bad myself as a teenager - but I still knew how to shower, wear clothes when I have company, not take food without asking, or generally avoid being a dick to my acquaintances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and people about to enjoy fun rated R times with a consenting adult run around in their underpants.
Heck yeah! I love abusing substances, being violent, and dropping f-bombs in my underwear!
... Oh, we're you talk about something else?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is Koko a typical gorilla?
Human IQ, by definition, has a 100 mean. Average IQ is 100. If you take one gorilla, who might be a supergenius among her kind, and show that she *might* have an IQ one or two standard deviations below the average toddler, that doesn't argue sapience of gorilla-kind very well to me.
We have just as much reason to think she's retarded, too.
This whole argument was, quite specifically, never about animal "sapience," but "sentience." Do you understand the difference? You and BigDTBone seem to be insisting on a b&%+%%&& standard: That non-human animals aren't sentient if they can't develop digital watches (to tip my hat to Douglas Adams), and that there's some kind of impenetrable glass ceiling, one that is not just quantitative but qualitative, separating human intelligence from non-human.
So wait! Are you saying that as long as I'm just wearing underwear, I can do whatever I want, like a little portable Las Vegas...
Edit: Smurf it! Ninja'd again!
|
[threadjack]Yeah...a lot of the arguments against animal sapience advanced here are a load of crap.
Humans persisted in a state of technology not all that much above, say, chimpanzees for most of our existence as a species. Technological progress builds on itself, it takes much longer to have technological advancements at low levels of technology than at high ones...so, lacking technology (and all the examples thus far are technology with the exception of language) isn't really good evidence for much of anything.
And that's to say nothing of the fact that dolphins, whales, elephants and similar creatures lack the anatomy to actually develop much in the way of tools or writing, making accusing them of being stupider than us for lacking them rather ridiculous. Indeed...none of the examples BigDTBone lists (except, again, language) are even physically possible for cetaceans.
So let's look at language: Dolphins have demonstrated an understanding of syntax, while whale song is highly complex and various apes have demonstrate the capacity to learn sign language at varying levels. Frankly...I'm not at all sure it's clear that a variety of nonhuman species don't have pretty advanced linguistic abilities. We just don't actually speak their languages as of yet.
Additionally, it's worth noting that saying an animal is sapient does not mean the same thing as saying 'they're as smart as us'.
Say that, for example, gorillas have an average IQ in the 60s or 70s (with Koko being smarter than average)...that's not even close to as smart as us by the standards of sapient species (in Pathfinder, it's probably a -4 Int mod or so). It's two, maybe almost three standard deviations less smart. And makes their lack of tool invention even more understandable given that most of them are pretty dull by human standards and even smarter individuals are only average by our standards. But here's the thing...we don't hand out 'human' rights on the basis of IQ score. Someone with an IQ of 70 may need some special accommodations, but an IQ of 90 is well within the realm of average, and in either case they're a citizen, not property that can be locked up.
I have no idea if the above example is a correct estimate of gorilla intellect, by the way. That's really not the point. The point is that if it is, they're still sapient beings and should have basic rights to the same degree as human beings of equivalent intellect.
Now, I'm not saying all species we think might be sapient are. Some may well not be, but humans aren't magically different from other species. There's a continuum of intellect, from earthworms all the way to us, and some species are way closer to us than to most other species. The question, then, is where to draw the line between sapient and non-sapient. And making that determination on the basis of species rather than psychometric testing of some sort is the height of arrogance and prejudice.[/threadjack]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More importantly, would you boot someone from your table for being an ape?
|
|
I remember when this thread was about something other than people making sure to not be seen as anything less than the most-knowledgeable people on the internet regarding apes.
Eh. My knowledge of the great apes is fairly rudimentary. I know a bit more about sapience and dolphins...but showing off really isn't the point.
The point I'm trying to make is that a sapient being's species isn't relevant to the basic rights it should legally possess, and that there may well be several sapient species on the planet right now. So...yeah, that's a real issue. Not the most important one in the world, probably, but a real one that people should be aware of.
Dismissing that point as mere pedantry or showing off misses what I'm trying to say completely. And I'm pretty sure the other people speaking up on that subject feel similarly.
It is admittedly off-topic, though. Anyone want to start an actual thread on the topic?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More importantly, would you boot someone from your table for being an ape?
Only if they flung their poo. I need all the players I can get.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"It is an important and popular fact that things aren't always what they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much (the wheel, New York, wars, and so on) whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons.”
Nope. You ridicule the dude until he puts some clothes on like a f***ing adult. Two year olds, strippers, and people about to enjoy fun rated R times with a consenting adult run around in their underpants. Adults at a social gathering wear clothes.
So if your GM is a stripper it would be okay?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. You ridicule the dude until he puts some clothes on like a f***ing adult. Two year olds, strippers, and people about to enjoy fun rated R times with a consenting adult run around in their underpants. Adults at a social gathering wear clothes.So if your GM is a stripper it would be okay?
Depending on a couple of other key variables, the answer might be yes.
Wasn't there a porn star who took up Pathfinder and joined the forums some time back? I remember everyone arguing that she wasn't really who she claimed to be and demanding proof it was her... Jenny something?
Wasn't there a porn star who took up Pathfinder and joined the forums some time back? I remember everyone arguing that she wasn't really who she claimed to be and demanding proof it was her... Jenny something?
Jenny Poussin, and the behavior towards her was less than stellar.
Also, removed a few posts—let's keep this on topic, thanks.
More importantly, would you boot someone from your table for being an ape?Only if they flung their poo. I need all the players I can get.
It must be nice to be able to afford such standards.
More importantly, would you boot someone from your table for being an ape?
Ook?!
*throws banana at knightnday*
Wasn't there a porn star who took up Pathfinder and joined the forums some time back? I remember everyone arguing that she wasn't really who she claimed to be and demanding proof it was her... Jenny something?Jenny Poussin, and the behavior towards her was less than stellar.
Also, removed a few posts—let's keep this on topic, thanks.
That's not cricket!
We have people from very diverse occupations here, truly sad it went that way.
Reason to boot a player: chronic tardiness. Had to do it alas, but I wasn't nearly as bad as another dm, who would kill their character (hilariously and ignominiously) if they said they were coming and didn't. Fuzzy npc land didn't exist in his game, lying about coming carried the penalty of character death.
I'd allow the ape, if he had rudimentary roleplaying skills, he knew which dice to roll and took care of his own sheet.
At least he didn't say mon-More importantly, would you boot someone from your table for being an ape?Ook?!
*throws banana at knightnday*
OOK!!?!
*picks up entire sack of bananas and eyeballs Kalindlara*
You may want to run, Kal. Just stay out of the foyer. Its powers increase tenfold in there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't there a porn star who took up Pathfinder and joined the forums some time back? I remember everyone arguing that she wasn't really who she claimed to be and demanding proof it was her... Jenny something?Jenny Poussin, and the behavior towards her was less than stellar.
Also, removed a few posts—let's keep this on topic, thanks.That's not cricket!
We have people from very diverse occupations here, truly sad it went that way.
Reason to boot a player: chronic tardiness. Had to do it alas, but I wasn't nearly as bad as another dm, who would kill their character (hilariously and ignominiously) if they said they were coming and didn't. Fuzzy npc land didn't exist in his game, lying about coming carried the penalty of character death.
I'd allow the ape, if he had rudimentary roleplaying skills, he knew which dice to roll and took care of his own sheet.
122 (I think). Objectification of other players based on occupation... or any other attribute, for that matter.
More importantly, would you boot someone from your table for being an ape?Ook?!
*throws banana at knightnday*
Hey Squirrely, throw me a banana! :)
Something unrealistic like their minds rendering mind affecting spells completely ineffective?
At times the "it is unrealistic" crowd make me very very confused (maybe I failed a will save?).
The build is set up to do that, clearly thought has gone into it. The players has set out to solve a problem, and they have in accordance with the system rules. I don't have much of a problem with that.
Was the dm unhappy or a player?
|
Wasn't there a porn star who took up Pathfinder and joined the forums some time back? I remember everyone arguing that she wasn't really who she claimed to be and demanding proof it was her... Jenny something?Jenny Poussin, and the behavior towards her was less than stellar.
Also, removed a few posts—let's keep this on topic, thanks.
In fairness, I'd wager that anyone claiming to be a pseudo-celebrity would get that kind of treatment, not just a porn star.
It must be nice to be able to afford such standards.More importantly, would you boot someone from your table for being an ape?Only if they flung their poo. I need all the players I can get.
It truly is.
In fairness, I'd wager that anyone claiming to be a pseudo-celebrity would get that kind of treatment, not just a porn star.Wasn't there a porn star who took up Pathfinder and joined the forums some time back? I remember everyone arguing that she wasn't really who she claimed to be and demanding proof it was her... Jenny something?Jenny Poussin, and the behavior towards her was less than stellar.
Also, removed a few posts—let's keep this on topic, thanks.
Maybe, except she provided a lot of proof, at which point people started questioning her motives for joining. "You aren't a real RPG player, you are just trying to exploit people rabble rabble rabble!" And I'd wager there was also a lot of creep factor.
Something unrealistic like their minds rendering mind affecting spells completely ineffective?
At times the "it is unrealistic" crowd make me very very confused (maybe I failed a will save?).
Barb 1, Monk 5, Hasted Jump [paying the Ki point as a swift action] jumping across a 60 foot chasm.
The Monk did have 'Monastic Slippers' masterfully crafted for acrobatics [Masterwork tool for +2 circumstance bonus] but that was all, no magic items [but he did have an extra +12 from Haste. Note of course that he could have sunk the landing without Haste, though it would have been WAY more risky.]
Let's see...6 ranks, class skill (+3), Barb 1 is a +4 racial, Monk 5 is a +4 racial, haste is +12, ki point is another +8, shoes for +2...let's see, carry the one, etc, etc, that's a +39 before DEX, and if we assume something in the 18-22 range we're looking at about a +45 based on the comment that he didn't *need* the slippers. Which means the guy had to have rolled at least a 15 to make it.
The player did everything he reasonably could at 6th level to make this jump, he only had about a 30% chance of succeeding, and yet the wizard player was upset about this? Because it "wasn't realistic"? Bet that wizard didn't even have the decency to give the monk player a DEX buff before the attempt. The selfish bastard, keeping his fly spell all to himself... ;)
Edit: My mistake. He didn't *need* the haste. How high is this guy's DEX at level 6?
Ah, I wasn't looking at high jump, I was looking at the +20 speed bonus mentioned under ki pool. Obviously the point from high jump is better for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There in lies the rub eh?
If you don't submit and subject your research to peer review it isn't Science, it's trained tricks. Independent peer review followed by independent replication of results via the same methods is how you get to make a definitive statement.
Yeah. My Ex was a ASL interpreter, and she watched Koko "talking" to her friends, who then interpreted what Koko "said". My Ex than said their interpretations were extremely generous, Koko never seemed to form a sentence, just said several words. Now, while it's true then that Koko knew some words, it's seems doubtful she could actually form sentences. Her 'friends" were forming the sentences for her.
We would need to see outside peer reviewed testing, which afaik, never happened.
Something unrealistic like their minds rendering mind affecting spells completely ineffective?
At times the "it is unrealistic" crowd make me very very confused (maybe I failed a will save?).
Barb 1, Monk 5, Hasted Jump [paying the Ki point as a swift action] jumping across a 60 foot chasm.
The Monk did have 'Monastic Slippers' masterfully crafted for acrobatics [Masterwork tool for +2 circumstance bonus] but that was all, no magic items [but he did have an extra +12 from Haste. Note of course that he could have sunk the landing without Haste, though it would have been WAY more risky.]
Let's see...6 ranks, class skill (+3), Barb 1 is a +4 racial, Monk 5 is a +4 racial, haste is +12, ki point is another +8, shoes for +2...let's see, carry the one, etc, etc, that's a +39 before DEX, and if we assume something in the 18-22 range we're looking at about a +45 based on the comment that he didn't *need* the slippers. Which means the guy had to have rolled at least a 15 to make it.
The player did everything he reasonably could at 6th level to make this jump, he only had about a 30% chance of succeeding, and yet the wizard player was upset about this? Because it "wasn't realistic"? Bet that wizard didn't even have the decency to give the monk player a DEX buff before the attempt. The selfish bastard, keeping his fly spell all to himself... ;)
Edit: My mistake. He didn't *need* the haste. How high is this guy's DEX at level 6?
What is really pissy about the wizard b%*!$ing is that the monk had both a magical (haste) and a supernatural (ki) aide in the attempt. Martials apparently get held to "realism," EVEN WHEN THEY USE MAGIC!
Damn unrealistic magic!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dolphins commit rape and kill for fun.
A Song of Glaciers and Tuna
The new Flipper reboot is looking intense.
We call it a "reimagining" now, Scythia.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something unrealistic like their minds rendering mind affecting spells completely ineffective?
At times the "it is unrealistic" crowd make me very very confused (maybe I failed a will save?).
No, It's the unrealistic crowd who failed their imagination check.
125. The DM not letting players do things because it would interfere with his plot.