Chimpanzee vs human fight12/2/2023 ![]() By contrast, humans have a low propensity for reactive aggression compared with chimpanzees, and in this respect humans are more bonobo-like. Compared with many primates, humans have a high propensity for proactive aggression, a trait shared with chimpanzees but not bonobos. The distinction is useful for understanding the nature and evolution of human aggression. By the way, Chuck Norris would beat both the chimp and Bruce Lee….at the same time.Two major types of aggression, proactive and reactive, are associated with contrasting expression, eliciting factors, neural pathways, development, and function. And after I do that I also find myself saying that Jan would be proud! She has beautifully trained us in the art of being rookie rhetors! Use it to your advantage in the next discussion you have in the Globe. ![]() It’s funny that you post this topic actually because I have also found myself trying to infuse these appeals in any way that I possibly can. On the other hand, you certainly could have presented some pretty reasonable facts for Bruce Lee since there have been so many excellent movies about him kicking ass. Although I certainly agree that more logos would have been nice, I think it would be awfully difficult to pull out any legitimate facts about the fighting abilities of a chimp. In addition, the chimp would be faster than Bruce and could get to the higher ground and have air superiority.īut back to the blog post topic. While Bruce Lee is nearly a wild animal, I don’t think that he has the years of experience about being a natural killer like a chimp does. Let’s be real, any wild animal naturally has an advantage over any human being simply because animals will do anything to survive, to get their next meal, to WIN. First off, I would have to take the chimp as well. When I realized what these worries meant, I thought to myself “congratulations, Mustafa, you can use rhetoric.” Followed shortly by “yea this is definitely why Professor Babcock is teaching us rhetoric.” No constructive debate can take place without this critical piece, and this was probably a large factor in why we couldn’t reach an agreement. There were fuzzy ideas, yes, but no real evidence or even consensus on where to proceed from. The Lee supporters touted his physical skills as legendary, but didn’t really offer any concrete proof why he would win, because neither side really had any basis to proceed from. I felt that this argument needed logo appeals, real statistics and scientific data about chimp physiology compared to humans, as well as their behavior and fighting tendencies. The exchange became heated, and yelling ensued, but even before this I recall feeling vaguely confused about the discussion itself, specifically the arguments used by each side. The opposite side, however, argued that Lee was still just a man and not at the fighting level of a wild animal, especially not one as aggressive and as strong as a chimpanzee. The Bruce Lee supporters insisted that because of his superhuman martial arts abilities, speed, and strength, the chimp would be no match. I was in the Globe lounge at night just having a conversation with some peers, and for whatever reason, the conversation turned into a debate about who would win in a fight, Bruce Lee or a chimpanzee (I may or may not have instigated this). Yesterday I had an epiphany about the importance of rhetoric in everyday life.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |