Semantics

== UC ==
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/266392d00a109c37# 
UC wrote post.25:
On Jul 11, 5:57 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of all 
> the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense and, as I 
> have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain can be 
> shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu with 
> respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about the 
> holocaust. I will now make the following statements. 
No, I said that the terms 'ape' and 'human' are mutually exclusive. 
This means that you CANNOT assert that 'humans are apes' because it's 
a logical contradiction, in exactly the same way that you cannot say 
that 'my wife is a bachelor'. It is not a matter of 'evidence' but a 
matter of semantics.
=== baboon issue ===
On Jul 12, 8:02 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> UC wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 5:57 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of all
> >> the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense and, as I
> >> have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain can
> >> be shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu with
> >> respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about the
> >> holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
> 
> > No, I said that the terms 'ape' and 'human' are mutually exclusive.
> > This means that you CANNOT assert that 'humans are apes' because it's
> > a logical contradiction, in exactly the same way that you cannot say
> > that 'my wife is a bachelor'. It is not a matter of 'evidence' but a
> > matter of semantics.
> 
> Is your problem with ape alone or ape in any company at all as in great ape.
> The latter phrase seems to be coomonly used no how much you fuss about it.
> Second question: do you have a problem with the grouping of humans, chimps,
> gorillas and orangutans into a family in the evolutionary biological sense?
> Is it term "great ape" that causes you grief or is it the CONCEPT of humans,
> chimps, gorillas and orangutans sharing a common ancestor?
> Finally, your saying something doesn't make it so. The fact that YOU say
> 'ape' and 'human'  are mutually exclusive is not probative in the least and
> of no particular interest to anyone except perhaps your friends and family.
UC is saying the following:
1) When a baboon with floppy ears and a fruitcake look on his face lies besides you in hospital, the doctor designates with the terms ape blood and human blood a concept that your life will depend on. 
2) Ape, monkey, simian, baboon can all be used interchangeably in the *vernacular* sense. The alleged common ancestor between man and ape is an exercise in semantic smoke and mirrors: it was a monkey or flea scratching baboon or if it makes you feel more intellectually sophisticated then you may call it a primate. As long as you understand that this replaces one vernacular for another as John Wilkins explained.
See http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Common_Ancestor and
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Bible_isn't_defined
Category:Common ancestor
Category:Semantics