The ultimate poll: Are you worth more than an ape?

The ultimate poll: Are you worth more than an ape?

  • Yes, for I am an image of GOD.

    Votes: 7 20.0%

  • Yes, for I am the climax of evolution.

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Yes, for I have more complex feelings.

    Votes: 3 8.6%

  • Yes, for I can reason (more complexly).

    Votes: 2 5.7%

  • Yes, for my kind is akin to a God of the animal kingdom.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes, for I enjoy ape meat more than they enjoy human meat.

    Votes: 2 5.7%

  • Yes, for I am a member of the CFC OT community. And I see no ape.

    Votes: 2 5.7%

  • Yes, for some reason I'll have to spell out myself.

    Votes: 4 11.4%

  • Yes for I like it to be that way. Simple as that.

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • No, for GOD loves all who feel.

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • No, for I am just another creation of feeling life.

    Votes: 5 14.3%

  • No, for I am just another creation of life.

    Votes: 2 5.7%

  • No for apes are fairly similar to humans.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, for I just really like apes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, for I have a nihilist notion of worth and reject worth as such.

    Votes: 3 8.6%

  • No, for some reason I'll have to spell out myself.

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Radioactive apes are worth more than radioactive humans and radioactive monkeys.

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • Total voters
    35
As for what I want to clarify, I'll give an example. If I find a broken AK-74 rifle, I can call that individual rifle defective but I cannot assume that all AK-74s are defective. A working AK-47 would be more useful than the derelict AK-74, but I cannot assume that AK-47 rifles are better than AK-74 rifles. In short, I want to know if I'm evaluating categories or individuals within the categories.
 
Dachs said:
Geni...i?

There's more than one Ryder?
Click to expand...

genera*

My b - haven't totally learned 3rd declension yet; assumed it was of the 2nd.

(please ignore that my declension would have been wrong even if it was 2nd :please:)
 
SS-18 ICBM said:
As for what I want to clarify, I'll give an example. If I find a broken AK-74 rifle, I can call that individual rifle defective but I cannot assume that all AK-74s are defective. A working AK-47 would be more useful than the derelict AK-74, but I cannot assume that AK-47 rifles are better than AK-74 rifles. In short, I want to know if I'm evaluating categories or individuals within the categories.
Click to expand...
I will have to be blunt:
What the heck are you saying?
Because if you are under the impression that it is somehow obvious - I ensure it is not. And I don't care to engage in superfluous puzzles. There is enough to be solved as it is.

So if you would kindly elaborate and spare me the time to guesstimate.
 
Yeah, I forgot where I was going with that. Never mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom