Guest nvzbl Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 [Expand] Support Wikipedia: a non-profit project Donate Now » [Expand] Support Wikipedia: a non-profit project — Donate Now Homo From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Look up homo, homo- in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.Homo may refer to: In science: Homo (genus), the genus of humans (Homo sapiens) and closely related species such as Neanderthals HOMO/LUMO, Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital In dairy: An abbreviation for homogenized milk, sometimes used on product packaging In slang: Pejorative slang term for homosexual, directed at homosexual persons or non-homosexual persons for comedic or pejorative effect.
Guest nvzbl Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 pejorative Definition from Wiktionary, a free dictionary Jump to: navigation, search Wikipedia has an article on: Pejorative Contents [hide] 1 English 1.1 Etymology 1.2 Pronunciation 1.3 Noun 1.3.1 Translations 1.3.2 Synonyms 1.3.3 Antonyms 1.4 Adjective 1.4.1 Translations 1.4.2 Synonyms 1.4.3 Antonyms 1.5 References [edit] English [edit] Etymology French 1882 péjorative "depreciative, disparaging" < Late Latin peioratus, past participle of peiorare "make worse" < Latin peior "worse" related: English 1644 pejorate "to worsen" < Late Latin peioratus, past participle of peiorare "make worse" < Latin peior "worse". [edit] Pronunciation (RP) IPA: /pɪˈdʒɒrətɪv/, SAMPA: /pI"dZQr@tIv/ (GenAm) IPA: /pɪˈdʒɔːɹətɪv/, SAMPA: /pI"dZO:r@tIv/ [edit] Noun Singular pejorative Plural pejoratives pejorative (plural pejoratives) A disparaging, belittling, or derogatory word or expression.
Justin86 Posted December 4, 2008 Posted December 4, 2008 [quote name='nvzbl' post='1717442' date='Dec 4 2008, 03:26 AM']In dairy: An abbreviation for homogenized milk, sometimes used on product packaging[/quote] Oh, so that's why people who drink milk become gay. I always wondered how that happened.
Hilde Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 Does that go for sour cream too? Because I eat a lot of it.
tinytherese Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 [quote name='rkwright' post='1713036' date='Nov 28 2008, 07:36 PM']lol I seriously thought you meant homosexuals by the topic title...[/quote] So did I. I thought, "what a horrible thread!"
Socrates Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 So what homo's been bumping up all these old polls?
Aloysius Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 Was the heart of the idea ever addressed? Killing animals is permissible, killing humans is not... it seems the heart of the poll question is: "when throughout their evolution did human beings become truly human beings rather than animals?" I would propose that killing even proto-humans that had not yet crossed the threshold of true humanity, because out of their bodies is the true potential for the evolution of a true human. and to the inevitable question of other primates, I would propose that they do not have the true capacity to evolve into true humans. this is based more on philosophy than science, though, and I think it is prudent to limit killing of the higher primates on the basis of their close resemblance to humanity... like, even though a Virgin Mary appearing on a piece of toast is definitely not the Virgin Mary, if one took that piece of toast and stomped on it it would be disrespect to the Virgin Mary. similarly, the killing of primates, because of their iconic similarity to our own physiology, can be a type of disrespect to human life. CAN be, I say, because there are places in the world in which eating monkeys is a normal food source and I don't think they're doing anything disrespectful to human life. definitively, if we had a time machine and really had the chance to meet a member of a species which would eventually evolve into our own, it would be the mortal sin of murder to kill any of them. when it comes to our closest evolutionary ancestors as they have evolved from that same stock, I do not say it is definitively any type of murder to kill them, though it can be a type of sin, but not murder.
Hassan Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 [quote name='Aloysius' post='1851142' date='Apr 28 2009, 06:20 AM']Was the heart of the idea ever addressed? Killing animals is permissible, killing humans is not... it seems the heart of the poll question is: "when throughout their evolution did human beings become truly human beings rather than animals?" I would propose that killing even proto-humans that had not yet crossed the threshold of true humanity, because out of their bodies is the true potential for the evolution of a true human. and to the inevitable question of other primates, I would propose that they do not have the true capacity to evolve into true humans. this is based more on philosophy than science, though, and I think it is prudent to limit killing of the higher primates on the basis of their close resemblance to humanity... like, even though a Virgin Mary appearing on a piece of toast is definitely not the Virgin Mary, if one took that piece of toast and stomped on it it would be disrespect to the Virgin Mary. similarly, the killing of primates, because of their iconic similarity to our own physiology, can be a type of disrespect to human life. CAN be, I say, because there are places in the world in which eating monkeys is a normal food source and I don't think they're doing anything disrespectful to human life. definitively, if we had a time machine and really had the chance to meet a member of a species which would eventually evolve into our own, it would be the mortal sin of murder to kill any of them. when it comes to our closest evolutionary ancestors as they have evolved from that same stock, I do not say it is definitively any type of murder to kill them, though it can be a type of sin, but not murder.[/quote] Interesting answer. In your oppinion, Do primates with the brain power of say a young human have any rights in their ability to suffer, feel despair etc. Do they have any rights aside from their been a poor reflection of humans?
dairygirl4u2c Posted March 25, 2011 Author Posted March 25, 2011 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1240914000' post='1851142'] Was the heart of the idea ever addressed? Killing animals is permissible, killing humans is not... it seems the heart of the poll question is: "when throughout their evolution did human beings become truly human beings rather than animals?" I would propose that killing even proto-humans that had not yet crossed the threshold of true humanity, because out of their bodies is the true potential for the evolution of a true human. and to the inevitable question of other primates, I would propose that they do not have the true capacity to evolve into true humans. this is based more on philosophy than science, though, and I think it is prudent to limit killing of the higher primates on the basis of their close resemblance to humanity... like, even though a Virgin Mary appearing on a piece of toast is definitely not the Virgin Mary, if one took that piece of toast and stomped on it it would be disrespect to the Virgin Mary. similarly, the killing of primates, because of their iconic similarity to our own physiology, can be a type of disrespect to human life. CAN be, I say, because there are places in the world in which eating monkeys is a normal food source and I don't think they're doing anything disrespectful to human life. definitively, if we had a time machine and really had the chance to meet a member of a species which would eventually evolve into our own, it would be the mortal sin of murder to kill any of them. when it comes to our closest evolutionary ancestors as they have evolved from that same stock, I do not say it is definitively any type of murder to kill them, though it can be a type of sin, but not murder. [/quote] verry well said. and yes, addressing the heart of the issues, heck addressing the issues.
dairygirl4u2c Posted July 11, 2014 Author Posted July 11, 2014 al's response was good in theory, but didnt really draw a firm line. my line would be like the line i drew in the chicken v egg hypothetical..... 'if they are able to at all breed with homo sapiens, it is immoral'. but even if that was the standard.... would it be moral to open hunting season on the ones that can't mate? it is definitely not somehting i would do, if they looked too much like humans, but weren't able to mate.
Nihil Obstat Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 I dont know where Al has been! Egypt, I think. Working on a thesis on Coptic monasticism, or something along those lines. Not sure if he is still there or not.
CrossCuT Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) So not doing anything important, gotcha. :spike: Edited July 11, 2014 by CrossCuT
Nihil Obstat Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) :shock: Heresy! Everything Al does is important for no other reason than that Al does it. Edited July 11, 2014 by Nihil Obstat
dairygirl4u2c Posted July 11, 2014 Author Posted July 11, 2014 im surprised there were people who said anything other than zero and potentially all of them. zero makes sense if you think along the lines of 'you're ither homo sapien or you're not' and all of them makes sense if you think they are too related. but anything in between.... it's like, are you so versed in the science of all this, that you can say which are too related and which aren't?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now