fchan

discussion

The Furverts guide to the internet

Pages:1 41
16Report
at 6 Nov 2008: 18:26

oops, wrong thread. >.<

17Report
at 6 Nov 2008: 21:43

it looks like # 15 has a point.  but i didnt see any contribution.  i think the orginal poster isnt aware of the supposed 99% that #15 was talking about.  i must say i am a bit disapointed.  though i must say that the titles that were orginally listed are indeed valid in their own respect, i guess it would depend on what gets your preverbial rocks off.  prehapps those were their favorites? dunno what kitfox meant. oh well.

I think the orginal intent of this thread is sound just like post #15 said.  but since they didnt add to it the whole point of the thread was lost to critiziem, other than the addition of "tapestries" (source?)

I found the game and it was posted incorrectly its wolf pack
http://www.wolfquest.org/index.php

but its not sexualy explict, though the multiplayer funtion is cool, and with the correct organization and chat program it could be so, the in world chat server has a very strong filter and would be near impossible to yiff over. plus there is no one on one iming.  but a group chat attached to this game would provide some interesting results if your into k-9 furry hardcore.

lets see here what else can I add...

http://www.furry-furry.com/


there 2.

1 better than #15.

also i suggest using
sufrwax.com
the big meta search engine.

18Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 10:27

you mean wolf quest.

19Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 10:27

i agree with #17, #15 ahould put up or shut up.

20Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 10:29

I mean #14 sorry 15.

21Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 10:33

i went to tapestries, and it didnt appear to me to be anything but a head ache.  SL would definatly rank much higher on my list.  tapestries was a disapointment.

22Report
noobie at 7 Nov 2008: 10:47

so is anyone going to add to this or just deconstruct it?
just curious. i'm a newbie and a guide to the internet for furries would be great.  i think the orginal poster was trying to be clever by associating their guide with Hitch Hikers Guide To the Galaxy.  So I think furrs ought to help out. no more drama. the intent is obvious, thank you by the way i am now addicted to SL, and wolf pack.

23Report
Sen at 7 Nov 2008: 11:06

>>22
Eh. The problem with the main poster is that, if he's trying to make a guide, he's also trying to focus it around areas that are open about sexuality.

And honestly that makes us look like perverts. (Yes I understand the irony of typing that sentence on a porn site, but I'm sure you know what I'm trying to truly say. :P)

24Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 11:44

well why not have a guide?
section 1:
Sex
Section 2:
Fun
Section 3:
community
section 4:
Misc

25Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 11:54

indeed is not one of the points of being a furry embracing your animalistic nature? i'm sure many are aware of just how frequently animals have sex.  basically whenever where ever and how ever they can thusly could on not logically assume that they are trying to take it to the next level and make embracing that nature that much easier? thus far those listed so far have a decent balance of sexuality and fun. except tapestries. the majority of the community at large already thinks we're all pervs any way.  and indiviually speaking i dont really care what my neighbor might think of me when i walk my husky while i'm wearing my husky fur suit.  i think its hysterical to see everyone stare.  the kids in my neighborhood get a huge kick out of it. so you see? its something that has the ability to be both things at the same time, fun and sex, though not necessarily both at the same time. as stated in #22, i think the title is consequential, if you dont include sexuality then you are missing a large part of what being a grown fur is all about, though its not all its about. i'll spare the dissertation on my personal views and shorten it to simply this:

a guide is a good thing, there are a few on the net but none are complete and this might be a good place to start one.

26Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 12:01

>>25
:(

27Report
Sen at 7 Nov 2008: 23:07

>>25
"is not one of the points of being a furry embracint your animalistic nature?"

No. It's about enjoying anthropomorphic media. It's a fandom, not a lifestyle. Sex falls into that just like it does every other fandom: it exists, but it should not DEFINE.

28Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 23:47

>>25
Actually, your information on how frequently animals have sex... is almost 100% wrong.

Most animals mate only when in 'heat'. This is affected by the estrous cycle, seasons, and availability of a partner. Generally, most animals goes into heat around specific seasons, and wouldn't mate outside of said seasons.

Humans (and the rest of it's line) are one of the few animals which would mate despite being off-cycle, and despite being impregnated/in pregnancy/caring for a newborn. (though granted, most animals have far shorter periods in which they care for a newborn)

Technically, based on animalistic tendencies, humans would mate often, but that's only because of being an ape. Which is rather short-sighted, and is generally not what people would associate 'furry' with.

29Report
at 8 Nov 2008: 04:15

"#15 ahould put up or shut up."

Put up what? A useless guide of things one could have found with google anyway? Even if I was inclined to waste my time on it, it would be redundant anyway. There are entire websites devoted to listing furry links already. Sorry I have a problem with a supposed "guide" for furverts where half the (very short) list is either not sexual, has nothing to do with furries or is just plain incorrect. It was piss poor at best. I'm sure you're familiar with the saying about polishing turds. I'm not going to call it anything but what it is.

"I mean #14 sorry 15."

Same person. #15 was an accidental post cause I was in the wrong tab.

"i went to tapestries, and it didnt appear to me to be anything but a head ache.  SL would definatly rank much higher on my list.  tapestries was a disapointment."

And figuring out the completely bizarre and unintuitive UI of second life is any less of a headache than learning a few commands? The graphics are ancient, nobody roleplays, everything costs real money and you can't do anything without making an animation for it. Really not my thing. Taps is free, easy to find RP in, nobody types in l33t or IM speak and text based games are superior for RP anyway. It's also specifically focused on furry sexuality while Second Life isn't. It has 300+ simultaneous players every day, so it must be doing something right.

"i'm a newbie and a guide to the internet for furries would be great."

There are already more of them than I can count. Just google for one of them.

http://www.tigerden.com/Sites/furlinks.html

http://www.fur.com/furry/links.html

http://captainpackrat.com/furry/links.htm

There you go. Those are the first three results on a google search for '"furry links"'. It's really pointless creating more since there are hundreds of them already (9680 according to Google, but knowing Google most of them have nothing to do with my search.).

30Report
at 8 Nov 2008: 04:53

"Humans (and the rest of it's line) are one of the few animals which would mate despite being off-cycle,"

That's true. The only exceptions are primates and dolphins. I took the liberty of fetching links to confirm it.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/pleasure.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behavior

31Report
at 8 Nov 2008: 12:18

#28

consult #30.

would not the definition of these behaviors define that animals do indeed "have sex whenever they can"? if they are in heat then indeed they do seek mating.  draw that down to the habits of humans... which can and do mate despite being "off-cycle". now lets take a look at how society defines promiscuity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity
hmm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexual_behavior#Social_norms_and_rules
what else?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_sex#Sexual_desire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-negativity

all of these people belive that it is to give into our "animalistic" nature to coupulate for purposes other than rearing offspring, which in itself is an oxymoron. 
(sigh)
dare i go there?
yes... i do belive i will for the sake of the arguement.
have any of you read the bibles view of sex?
not the new bibles, you have to pick up a version that's at least 50 years old, possibly older, because the text changes through the years to "better define" itself. anywho...

http//www.webmd.com/...

32Report
at 8 Nov 2008: 13:18

>>31
Prenote: perhaps I should have been clearer in definitions. When I say mate, I meant male/female copulation. I do not include same-gender copulations, nor do I include other acts which doesn't involve copulation or genital stimulation. I know it's a short-sighted view, but one should note that the majority of same-gender copulations/genital stimulation, are invariably male-male, and hence not representative of actual animalistic tendencies, and more of male tendencies. (which is of interesting note here, since it may explain the large number of male-male relationships in the furry fandom...)

a) I never disagreed that animals do seek mating when not in heat. However, it's one thing to say that animals seek mating when in heat, and another to say that animals seek mating whenever they can.

b) I don't see any conflict. One can be promiscuous and still be animalistic. It's called a harem, and/or group behaviour.

c) I've mentioned, and the links previously shown mentioned, that humans (and primates) follow a different "animalistic" code from most other animals. It can be noted as animalistic, because other primates are certainly not human, unless you want to argue that point. Not to mention that when we consider the other definition of sex not discussed here, non-mating 'sex' is rather more common. This portion is rather hard to define though, so..

d) My arguement is the view that animals have sex whenever they can, is flawed, since they certainly don't try to mate whenever they can. If you rephrased the view to: "Animals seek pleasure whenever they can", this would be a lot more accurate. It just that when not in heat, mating is apparently not as pleasurable. Taking for instance the dolphin, even though they to mate for pleasure, they also will wait for a female dolphin to be fertile before raping her. Which is vastly different than trying to have sex irregardless of fertility/heat.

33Report
at 8 Nov 2008: 14:09

(pinches top of nose)
if i had a wall chart this would be so much easier...

ok.. to simplfy it all down...

it would depend upon the definition of mating or psonomous term you wished to use and the context in which you were using it. if it is going to come down to symantics than so be it.

mate:
noun, verb, mat⋅ed, mat⋅ing.
–noun 1. husband or wife; spouse.
2. one member of a pair of mated animals.
3. one of a pair: I can't find the mate to this glove. 
4. a counterpart.

v.   tr.

To join closely; pair.

v.   intr.

To become joined in marriage.

To be paired for reproducing; breed.
To copulate. 
source:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mate


sex:
American Heritage Dictionary -
sex    (sěks)   
n.  

The property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions.
Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, of this classification.
Females or males considered as a group.
The condition or character of being female or male; the physiological, functional, and psychological differences that distinguish the female and the male. See Usage Note at gender.
The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior.
Sexual intercourse.
The genitals.
WordNet - sex

noun
1.  activities associated with sexual intercourse; "they had sex in the back seat" [syn: sexual activity] 
2.  either of the two categories (male or female) into which most organisms are divided; "the war between the sexes" 
3.  all of the feelings resulting from the urge to gratify sexual impulses; "he wanted a better sex life"; "the film contained no sex or violence" 
4.  the properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles; "she didn't want to know the sex of the foetus"
verb
1.  stimulate sexually; "This movie usually arouses the male audience" [syn: arouse] 

source:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sex

animalistic:
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This animalistic

adjective
of or pertaining to animalism

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This an·i·mal·ism    (ān'ə-mə-lĭz'əm)  Pronunciation Key 
n.  
Enjoyment of vigorous health and physical drives.
Indifference to all but the physical appetites.
The doctrine that humans are merely animals with no spiritual nature.
an'i·mal·ist n., an'i·mal·is'tic (-lĭs'tĭk) adj.
source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=animalistic

i think that should prove my point.
animals do indeed have sex "when ever they can" which is when they are in heat. though they are not always monogomous, nor are they always piligamous.

to quote a great heathen:
"We are nothing more than what came before us. Our ancestry defines who and what we are.  Thusly all that we think and feel is derrived from what came before." Rhinguld July 4th 2005 when ask what is a human.

One can assume that if we did indeed evolve from animals than we think no more or less different than they do.  our drive initiates out of that instinct and into each male is incsribed the need and want to have sex as often and with as many partners as possible to propigate the species, and to each woman is encoded the need and drive to hold onto one man for shelter and care, and also to put the offspring before anything else thus to continue the species, and also to procreate, not only for pleasure but to pass on the genetic infromation and to create more human life.  the only true difference between animals and humans is that we are more elequent in thought, we have aposible thumbs, a large cerebral cortex and this nasty thing call and Id. the part of us which would in theroy contain the soul, it is the part that keeps our primal brain from completely taking over our evolved brain, and becoming a furry is learning how to tap into your own personal way of being an animal. to trigger the endorphines which get set off ONLY when your animalistic or lower brain is in controll.  why because thats how evolution taught us how to get out of the cave and run from the bear insted of staring at the pretty flower.

34Report
Sen at 9 Nov 2008: 01:35

>>33
Um. that's not Id.

Id is a Freudian theory in the psychological realm that deals with the structure of the psyche.

The Id contains the person's base desires and instinctual drives.

The Ego is what exists that seems to contain rational thought and morality.

The super-ego might be what you're thinking of. It, basically, acts to suppress the desires of the Id to appease the ego, it acts kinda like the conscience.

And as for animals mating "whenever they can," I suppose you're sort of right. But there's a large part of the year where they just won't. When they're not in heat, they won't because their instincts just don't kick in. So technically, they "can" at that point but they just aren't being driven in that way. Thus, sex really can't be considered a major part of their nature, it's something that they just do on occasion for a specific purpose.

Becoming a furry isn't the best way to tap into your own personal way of being an animal because, as it's been said several times on many other forums, BEING A FURRY MEANS DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

And to me? It's a fandom that shouldn't be defined by sex. I'd implore you to please stop trying but apparently sex is incredibly important to you.

35Report (sage)
LLz at 9 Nov 2008: 04:18

>>34
You're confusing "in heat" with "whenever they can" again. Animals that goes in heat, only goes in heat based on season, availability of mate, biological cycal, and other environmental factors. For instance, for grey wolves, being in 'heat' (and mating), occurs between January to April. What about the other months?

Your generialization for animal sexual conduct is just that, a generialization. Not all species have the same instincts of mating, for instance, several species will not mate unless forced by the male. And since this drive is usually only found within the male population of the species, you can hardly say that it's animalistic, last I checked, female animals are still animals.

As I mentioned, being animalistic for humans is technically true, for what you've mentioned, but that's only because humans are primates; this behaviour we deem as animalistic is predominantly found within the primate line, and not in all the other species generally associated with furry.

36Report
Sen at 9 Nov 2008: 06:18

>>35
>>34 here.

Why are you telling me this? I'm agreeing with you. :p

37Report
at 9 Nov 2008: 12:04

Anything Freud came up with is utter nonsense in my mind. That man was a fucking wacko.

38Report
at 9 Nov 2008: 22:58

And he had an unhealthy obsession with his mom too, apparently...

39Report
at 10 Nov 2008: 13:24

(sigh)
yet again, they seem to be circeling around the same point.

in point in fact, it takes 2 to tango. the socital veiw on sex is that its an animal instinct, which indeed it is.  you know perpetuating the species that kind of thing? 

those few species where the female is "fored to mate" i would like to know which ones they really are.

i would say the vast majority of females in different species do indeed have biological clocks which their instincts over ride their inhabitions.

and the drive is not soley found in the male by the way, there are several species of monkeys where the females are just as gun hoe on sex as the males.

fish, a non mamalian group of animals, in the females their drive to propigate the species is often more strong than the males.

snakes, such as the anaconda, actually seek out multiple males during mating season.

i'm affraid your complaint about generalization was indeed that, a generalization.

the fact is be it male or female domination or seeking, it is the primary goal of organisms who propigate by procration, ie physical sex, to do so when it is best for them, season and so forth and for the most healthy to do so as often as possible inorder for good genes to be passed down so that the species survives.

if it is mating seanson, and thats the only time that the female is willing to have sex and/or the males drive is only on during that time, then yes they do have sex when ever they can.

its too broad to say they do it all the time, some do, or rather a very few do, dolphins, swine, monkeys, ect, do so not only for reproduction but for pleasure too.

and its also too broad to say they only do it during mating seasons, some do, or rather few do, deer, k-9s, birds, ect, primarily in these groups it is the male seeking pleasure but some studies have shown that the female does enjoy it to one degree or another.  other wise, if there was no reward from the brain, what would be the point? it would be the end of sex.

and a very slim few are forced matings but you have to look into why.  with a certain species i am aware of it is to ensure that only the strongest males are able to reproduce with the female. 

you are forgetting the primary rules of evolution:
the strong survive
food is scarce
sex/reproduction is essential
only when conditions are right do they thrive


the last being the reason that "heats" evolved in the first place.  think about it... would it be better for a k-9 to be fertile in the winter and give birth in the spring, or all year long and risk the chance of giving birth in winter? 

duh.

because only by evolving into heats do they save the precious calories to survive the winter and build them back up for birthing in the spring.

40Report
at 10 Nov 2008: 20:13

Somehow this conversation has something to do with the furvert's guide to the internet?

41Report
at 11 Nov 2008: 00:54

completely off topic but to point something out in the conversation super-ego is morality and the ego has to appease the ID and super-ego. so they compromise on the best solution. now instead of debating lets find links maybe? 

42Report (sage)
LLz at 11 Nov 2008: 07:00

I never disagreed with heat, but that's certainly not 'all the time' again. Females of some species do get urges to mate, at occasions. Is this any different than a normal human being on a romantic date?

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour heading: Coercive sex.
b) Females of many species have biological clocks yes. Furry don't have anything similar to a clock, or at least a working one which doesn't ring non-stop.
c) As I said, primates are an exception. Furry is usually not associated with primates.
d) Even though they may have the drive to propogate the species, that's all it is. The moment one is pregnant, all drive ceases (though granted there are a few exceptions). And in the case of furry, it is often not the drive to procreate that's at hand. (most instances to not result in procreation. Those which does, most still have sex after.)
e) My arguement is that animalistic behaviour is no where similar to furry sexual behaviour, unless taken in the primate context, which is generally not what furry is associated with.

Questions to answer:
a) Do furry consider seasons/going in heat/procreation, or do they simply mate for pleasure, and procreation being a possible side effect?
b) Do furry realistically perform animal courtship rituals, or do they simply take a bastardized form of human/primate courtship (if any?).

Until these two questions can be answered positively, my conclusion is that Furry simply tag 'animalistic' to their behaviour without really understanding what it means. If anything, a more accurate term would be instinctual or primal, based on human behaviour. Or in essence, the sexual behaviour is purely from the human side of the equation, not animal.

43Report
at 11 Nov 2008: 13:52

well you have to think that it is actually from both sides.  humans are not all that special.  the only diffence is that we can talk and have what are known as socital norms.  were it not for those norms where would humanity be?

A- it is a combination of the two if you break it down :
Two examples of systems in primates are promiscuous mating chimpanzees and bonobos. These species live in social groups consisting of several males and several females. Each male copulates with many females, and vice versa. In bonobos, the amount of promiscuity is particularly striking because bonobos use sex to alleviate social conflict as well as to reproduce.

Many animal species have specific mating (or breeding) seasons. These are often associated with changes to herd or group structure, and behavioural changes, including territorialism amongst individuals. These may be annual (eg wolves), biannual (eg dogs) or more frequently (eg horses). During these periods, females of most species are more mentally and physically receptive to sexual advances, a period often described as being "in season" or "in heat", but outside them animals still engage in sexual behaviours,[25] and such acts as do occur are not necessarily harmful.[26]

It is a common myth that animals do not (as a rule) have sex for pleasure, or alternatively that humans (and perhaps cats, dolphins and one or two species of primate) are the only species which do. This is sometimes formulated "animals mate only for reproduction".

Science cannot say at present conclusively what animals do or do not find "pleasurable", a question considered in more depth under Emotion in animals.

source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality


B- it would depend on the fursona and the mun using the fursona.  you have to keep in mind that you are talking about a broad spectrum of possibilities here with mythical and real animals.  so the answer to the question is sometimes yes, sometimes no. I for exaple do use the courship rituals of my fursona that i have studied in person, online, and in text. though i can not say that it was a flawless exicution, simply because i myself do not have the nasal capacities that my fursona would.  It boils down to choice really.

and one has to keep in mind that a fursona is an IDEA, and if the user of that fursona belives that the way to be is the way their fursona acts in the "wild" as it were or as it would act in their opinion in a given situation, then you cant really discount it as invalid, because a fursona is an IDEA.  You would have a better chance discounting someone's belief in god.

44Report
at 11 Nov 2008: 17:44

humans are not all that special


Which is why we dominate the entire world with our intelligence, tools, ability to pass down knowledge, communication, feelings, ability to empathize, sympathize, etc etc etc. I could go on all day long.

Sure, some animals have some of those traits but humans are clearly the superior lifeform on the planet.

45Report
Sen at 11 Nov 2008: 23:25

>>43
What you've done is effectively shown doubt in the fact that animals don't have sex for pleasure. I agree with that, we just don't know.

But the other problem is that there is doubt in the other side of the argument; there is doubt that having sex is an "animal-like trait" based on what you've also shown. We just don't know.

My problem with this entire argument is that the "animal-like trait" of sex is being presented as if it were fact, and not opinion. When we break it down, all of this is an opinion, because furry means different things to different people, thus furry isn't an absolute truth. That's where this all starts to break down: when somebody asked a question about what being a furry is.

So the problem arises. We don't have a definite answer. We need to stop acting like we do.

46Report
LLz at 12 Nov 2008: 12:48

>>44
a) Define intelligence without naming communication.
b) Define tool without naming complexity.
c) Define ability to pass down knowledge without naming intelligence..
d) Define communication without words.
e) Define empathy without naming consiousness.
f) Define sympthy without naming empathy.

A) The problem with defining intelligence is that we do not know how animals think. Certainly we can't talk about communication since every species has their own vocabulary. Nor can we talk about pattern regocnition since other species have different senses. For instance, when you consider a traditional intelligence test, a blind person would fail automatically because he can't read the questions and answers.
B) Humans aren't the only ones which uses tools. Most animals dont' even need them, they've perfectly capable body structures to perform necessary tasks, and other creatures certainly employ tools, even if most are non-conventional.
C) Again, humans certainly aren't the only species which can pass down knowledge, and we don't even know what sort of knowledge other animals have, so we can't measure whether they do pass down knowledge in most instances.
D) I don't see how you can argue communication as a factor which humans are superior in. Certainly most animals communicate. Certainly many of them communicate in forms which we can't even begin to understand. (examples: scent markings, songs/calls, body language)
E, F) Sympathy and empathy greatly involves consiousness, something which can't even be proven. Not to mention that these two factors doesn't necessarily make one better: Sympathy can lead to weakness when strength is needed, empathy can lead to worry when none is justified.

If you want to talk about the superior lifeform, I'll easily say that insects are far superior. Considering they outnumber us by such a large factor it isn't funny, they outsurvive us in almost all habitats (the sole exception being in space), their societal structures are highly defined, and etc.

47Report
at 12 Nov 2008: 13:23

>>45

The problem is that there is no unifying defintion. it is a personal definition. only each furry for themselves can have a definate answer, each is just as vaild as the next because its and idea about a culture based around a creative mindset.

48Report
at 12 Nov 2008: 16:03

>>46
some problems with your theory...

a blind man would not fail an intelegence test simply because he or she cannot read.  they would be given a verbal test, to test the intelegence of a human vs an intelegence test on an animal is like comparing star trek to star wars.

Most animals dont need tools because of their sturcture true, but because  of that their evolution is in it of itself stalled.  their furtherment of survival doesnt need them to adapt to use tools or a verbal vocabulary. so they can not progess.

indeed communication needs further research but in the
playground of interactivity its humans THUMBS up.


emotions is key to interpersonal relationships and the ability to quest beyond the self, or rather the ability to rise beyond just survial.  that is why man is evolved and insects just survive.

49Report
LLz at 14 Nov 2008: 06:33

>>48
a) Try giving a test to a blind, mute person. I daresay there hasn't been an intelligence test invented for such a person.

b) I think you are confused on how evolution works. The usage of tools is more likely to halt evolution than the usage of biological structures. The evolution of humans is essentially stopped because the factors of "survival of the fittest" no longer applies. You would be better off asking whether survival of the fittest or usage of tools is better.

c) In terms of communication you can't prove it. There's a lot of forms of communication that we cannot comprehend. To give an example, communicating to an unborn.

d) None of your statements has any relationship with one another.
- Emotions is key to interpersonal relationships, since when? it's only key to a very specific type of interpersonal relationship, and one that's not necessarily best. I don't recall emotions being a factor in commercialization, for example.
- Ironically, many forms of self-realization emphasizes seperation of emotion from being. The most obvious example I can give here is Buddhism, where emotions are but an illusion.
- Can you prove that we've risen beyond our base instincts? aren't everything we do based on pleasure or continuation of our species? (both that has been mentioned here, in forms of breeding and sexual pleasure..)
- Most insects has far more complex social structures than we can comprehend. taking ants for example, they've a caste system, which each section of the cast having very specific jobs. The worker ants are able to source for resources significant distances away (compared to their relative mass), communicate said resources to the rest of the colony,  improvise methods of gathering said resources, work together without conflict in said cases, and etc.

50Report
Sen at 14 Nov 2008: 07:41

>>49
You haven't heard of Helen Keller, have you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller

I'm sure she could pass just about any test you could've thrown at her.

51Report
LLz at 14 Nov 2008: 08:35

>>50
Which is the point. Intelligence test fails at measuring intelligence, sinply because there's no test which exists which can properly test intelligence for everyone. If you can't prove that Helen Keller is intelligent, how can you prove that an y other creature is?

52Report
Sen at 14 Nov 2008: 09:44

>>51
Um, judging by her merits and achievements, I'd say Helen Keller was pretty damn intelligent.

53Report
LLz at 14 Nov 2008: 10:01

>>52
I know. But do you know of any intelligence tests which caters for both a blind and mute person?

54Report
Sen at 14 Nov 2008: 10:15

>>53
I know there are intelligence tests written in braille.

55Report
LLz at 14 Nov 2008: 10:22

Ok, point accepted, but I still say that intelligence tests can't cater for everyone. (though I'd be going to hypothetical situations)

Most notably, it's hard to make intelligence tests for beings which doesn't share the same language or equal sense of stimulli. (or even same thought patterns)

56Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage