The thing is, if there is a natural category such as “monkey” it has to include apes and humans. Simple cladistics. Sure, you can arbitrarily exclude some lineages from your definition, but those exclusions are purely arbitrary. It would be like declaring that while lynxes and cheetahs and jaguars and cougars and servals are cats, lions and tigers aren’t. Sure, you can define the category of “cat” and exclude lions and tigers, but it wouldn’t make any sense.
Similarly, any definition of “monkey” that includes both baboons and howler monkeys has to also include chimps and humans or it doesn’t make any sense, because a baboon is more closely related to a human than it is to any new world monkey.
The “apes aren’t monkeys” meme is wrongheaded. Apes are a particular kind of monkey, just like humans are a particular kind of ape. Humans are apes, apes are monkeys, monkeys are primates.
Maybe he meant humans don’t naturally do it doggie style? Any time I’ve done it doggie style it’s fallen out at least once before going in all the way. And sometimes I get freaked out it’ll go in the wrong hole…how are these dogs just managing to get it into the right hole just like that? With a lack of opposable thumbs no less, and a person struggling?
Re. the nomenclature debate about monkeys: even if anatomically, genetically and cladistically there is no such thing as a single group that can exclusively be labelled “monkeys”, I have no trouble with it’s colloquial use to mean “a comparatively small, quadrapedal, arboreal primate”. Heck, I have no quarrel with the term “pachyderm” to mean big hairless African mammals like elephants, rhinos and hippos, even though they are unrelated below the subclass Placentia*.
*or whatever the heck the clade equivalent is these days.
The link given includes references from 8 dictionaries, all but one of them explicitly exclude apes, and the one that does starts with “In the most general sense…”.
So…you scrolled through that page, trying to find a favorable definition, and when you eventually found one, you throw it out there like you’re correcting me. Rather disingenuous.
First of all, the tone of your whole post seems to me quite defensive. I was not suggesting that you were a liar or otherwise, just that I had difficulty believing the details of the article that you linked. Not that you’d done anything wrong.
Dogs do that humping action on legs or whatever else; perhaps they weren’t actually having sex? Actually, this isn’t a road I’d really like to explore.
As for this thing called the internet, I won’t even dignify that with a rolleyes.
In fact, I was going to respond to all 5 points but we’re going far enough off-topic as it is. My current opinion is simple: the concept of animal rape at the moment seems a legend based on hearsay. I don’t want to search for “Venda Sexy”. If you find a compelling link, let me know.
I do remember reading a novel set in roman era once (was it I, Claudius?) that mentioned in passing women being raped by “specially trained jaguars” as a public spectacle.
The women in question were either the wives/daughters of traitors to the throne, or were involved in a conspiracy themselves, or were the wives/daughters of an opposing country, or some such.
Heh. This is so vague that it is much like no cite whatsoever.
Oh man, why did I read this thread? I had finally managed to stop thinking about that horrible video I was stupid enough to watch of the guy and his stallion (the guy died a few hours later, in case you are unfamiliar with the case).
But as long as I’m here, the Romans and most ancient cultures were pretty messed up and there doesn’t seem to be much they weren’t willing to give a go to, just for the entertainment value. As for “unwilling”, that’s easy enough…restrain a woman just so and it’s a piece of cake for just about anyone to do just about anything, pencil dick or no.
There is overwhelming evidence out there proving it happened but you choose to ignore it? Oh, well. There are plenty of perpetrators and victims alive and there are many groups who want to see the perpetrators brought to justice. There are documentaries where the victims are interviewed. In this PDF document in Spanish a woman by the name Luz Nieves Ayress tells how she was tortured. She has been public and outspoken over the years in retelling the horrors to which she was subjected. She has appeared on camera. Among the unspeakable brutalities which left scars all over her body she tells that she was tortured in front of her family as was her family in front of her and they used a trained dog to rape her and they also introduced rats in her vagina. They raped her in front of her family and they tried to have her male relatives to have sex with her.
The names of the victims and perpetrators are out there for everybody to know. Many of the perpetrators retired to private lives but others became prominent politicians. There is no question that these things happened. (BTW, “Venda Sexy” was the name of a closed-down discotheque which the secret police used as prison and torture place. It was one of the best known torture locations together with “Villa Grimaldi”. Many people suffered torture at these two locations.)
The evidence is overwhelming in that it happened and I would consider denying the attrocities committed in Chile and Argentina during the dictatorships akin to denying the holocaust. The evidence is just overwhelming. This proves that many humans who are in a position to inflict pain and torture will do so willingly and enjoy it and they will almost always use sex and they will use animals if they get the chance. Sex in torture is the utmost humiliation as Abu Ghraib showed once more and using animals takes it one step further.
Just saying “I refuse to believe humans could be so depraved and I refuse to see the evidence which proves otherwise” is not a very solid position. The Romans accepted publicly what today we would not but human nature has not changed.
Whether the Roman trained apes or not I cannot say as I have no direct evidence but the evidence regarding human nature shows that if it could be done they would have probably have done it.
The only problem with this, is that that is not how words work. You can categorise on any basis you want. Consider my earlier analogy: the sun has more in common with Jupiter than Mercury does, but that doesn’t mean we suddenly have to consider the sun to be a planet.
Similarly, if a country in Asia has a culture and climate more typical of a European country, does that suddenly mean we can’t use those terms any more, or that they should both now mean Eurasia?
Most dictionary definitions explicitly excludes apes from the term monkeys. And the one counter-example shown thus far implied it was giving the casual, informal definition of the term.
I haven’t seen such evidence.
And the best you could apparently find is a single victim’s statement, in Spanish.
I don’t speak Spanish, but I’ll accept that the pdf describes what you’ve summarised. Nonetheless, one statement is not yet “overwhelming”.
Sailor, there is a reason why hearsay statements are not allowed in court or that statements usually need corroberation, especially those made by the complainant.
Evidence can condemn a person, not allegations. Remember the bit about Iraqi soldiers and incubators?
But you say you do not want to read or search and anything not in Engish you dismiss beforehand.
Any human rights organization can tell you what went on in South America during that time.
Read the list of footnotes, references and bibliography on that page. There is no question whatsoever that these things happened. None. They have been widely reported and only a person who is willfully ignorant could deny it.
Survivors of torture gathered in 1998
There was a guard, Ingrid Olderock, who trained dogs to rape women. Her favorite was a dobberman named Volodia. <<Named after communist Volodia Teitelboim >>
The place, the perpetrators, the units they belonged to, the victims are all named and it all fits into the whole picture of what was going on in Chile at the time. The repression and torture that took place are well known to any educated person. It was huge. It spanned several countries and was a very concerted effort coordinated by the CIA. How anyone can deny this is beyond me.
What freaking hearsay? How many Americans witnessed the holocaust or the collapse of the WTC with their own eyes?
The events in South America have been widely reported in the news, there are victims seeking justice, there have been lawsuits, it is still contentious in those countries, there were thousands who disappeared and their relatives are still asking for justice, babies were stolen and either tortured and killed or given to other families, there were many thousands of refugees from those regimes who came to Europe, I have seen victims interviewed and describe the torture, the CIA papers prove it happened.
If you are claiming all this is a conspiracy and a setup you need to provide some very substantial proof of that.
I just cannot believe that a board which would go nuts against a holocaust denier would let this kind of lie live for one single second.
The point of contention is whether animals can/have raped human females (actually the OP was about apes specifically, but nevermind).
So all these links about torture in Chile…are completely besides the point.
No one is denying, or accepting, or even cares for the purposes of this thread about whether atrosities happened under Pinochet’s rule.
So far, I’ve only seen one line in one of the links you’ve posted that mentions animal rape (if there are others, please point them out; I don’t want to read through all these articles), and it’s just a matter-of-fact “…who trained dogs to rape women”. The kind of phrasing that makes me suspect it’s based on hearsay rather than any direct accounts. It contains a link for further information, but the link is broken.
I guess there is no one so blind as those who do not want to see. I think the evidence is clear. I have provided first hand accounts of a victim (Ayress), I have personally seen her on video relating the same things, I have provided statements from other torture victims who say it happened, I have provided the name of a torturer who did it with plenty of details about her. If this is not enough then I can safely deny the holocaust ever happened because all I have seen is “hearsay”.
Sailor, one can doubt that the Nazis really made lampshades out of human skin without necessarily being a Holocaust denier. In fact, if I were to hysterically fling Holocaust denial accusations at anyone who doubted any facet of stories surrounding a necessarily chaotic and ill-document period of history, I’d be distracting attention from the Nazis inarguable crimes and giving ammunition to those who really are Holocaust deniers.
IOW, chill, dude, and if you must, you can start your own thread about this particular hobby horse of yours.