That Boat Don't Float!!

[Catherineanne]

Just a simple question: how to you feel towards my sister? Do you hate her or love her?

Love is not about what we feel. It is about who we are.

Who we are is not dependent on you having a sister, or not. And how we love anyone at all is not dependent on how we feel.

 

[AV1611VET]

Noah's ark - that that boat don't float.

It would not have needed to:

Mt 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is the wrong way round. What the law determines is what a particular term denotes in a particular context.
The law may, therefore, determine that in the context of the law, the term 'animal' stands in contradistinction to the term 'human', and may not be interchanged with it.
The reason this distinction is made is in order to promote clarity. So that, for example, an animal charity may not be sued for not helping a child, and a hospital may not be sued for not helping a dog. This has nothing to do with taking a Creationist pov.
This is not at all the same thing as claiming that in law humans are not animals. The law cannot legislate for biological relationships; it would be a waste of everyone's time, and it would be meaningless.

"This has nothing to do with taking a Creationist pov."
...You claim.
Yet you fail to show why a "Naturalist" or a "Scientist" or an "Evolutionist" would support differing laws for humans vs animals.

Absurd? Of course. Because you "believe" humans and animals are not the same and should be treated different. Like any good Creationist would. As you clearly pointed out, the law does indeed separate human law from animal law. The reason is that we have decided humans are to be treated completely differently from any animal laws that are legislated.

It's a strong indicator that no one believes that humans are animals. No matter how many connections the scientific community tries to make.

Any one who believes that humans and animals and plants are all naturally derived from the same source, should hold that all legal barriers should be removed and the laws applied equally to all forms of life. Yet we do not:

(1)"Animal" means a mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian.
(note that humans are legally assumed excluded)
(b) Any person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, wounds or kills an animal shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years or both
(1) "Animal" means any mammal, bird, fish, reptile, amphibian or insect.
Animal means any nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or fish including, but not limited to dog, cat, horse, goat, sheep and chicken and all animals defined in California Penal Code Section 597.
D. "Animal" means all birds, non-human mammals, fowl, fish, and reptiles
(3) "Animal" means any non-human vertebrate with the exclusion of livestock as defined herein.

I could go on for most of the 50 states.

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by ZephyrWiccan
Noah's ark - that that boat don't float.

It would not have needed to:

Mt 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Good Point.

21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, 22 and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left.

Assuming it did...the weather need not be a factor:

35-38 Late that day he said to them, "Let's go across to the other side." They took him in the boat as he was. Other boats came along. A huge storm came up. Waves poured into the boat, threatening to sink it. And Jesus was in the stern, head on a pillow, sleeping! They roused him, saying, "Teacher, is it nothing to you that we're going down?"

39-40Awake now, he told the wind to pipe down and said to the sea, "Quiet! Settle down!" The wind ran out of breath; the sea became smooth as glass. Jesus reprimanded the disciples: "Why are you such cowards? Don't you have any faith at all?"

 

[AV1611VET]

Assuming it did...the weather need not be a factor:

-- exactly!

 

[SkyWriting]

Love is not about what we feel. It is about who we are.

Who we are is not dependent on you having a sister, or not. And how we love anyone at all is not dependent on how we feel.

Not a complete answer.

There are Four kinds of love.
Agapao
Storge
Phileo
Eros

 

[Skaloop]

Yes, all humans are mammals.

Yes, all mammals are animals.

However, the third is not so clear. There are two different semantic constructs for 'animal'.

All humans are animals, only as long as the term animal is used in its broadest sense; denoting all members of the animal kingdom. I imagine the necessary and sufficient conditions could be something like this:

+ Animate
+ Mobile
+ Reproductive

The beauty of semantics is that we can switch to plants by only changing one condition.

+ animate
- mobile
+ reproductive

In the alternative semantic construct in which 'animal' denotes all other creatures in the animal kingdom in contradistinction to humans, as it very often is, then humans are, clearly, not animals.

In which case animal then becomes;

+ Animate
+ Mobile
+ Reproductive
- Human

I hope that helps.

Actually, no, it doesn't. Saying the plants can be considered animals, or that humans can be considered to not be animals, is not semantics. It involves a wholesale redefinition of the word "animal" as it is used in its biological sense.

 

[SkyWriting]

Actually, no, it doesn't. Saying the plants can be considered animals, or that humans can be considered to not be animals, is not semantics. It involves a wholesale redefinition of the word "animal" as it is used in its biological sense.

The Laws created by the people of the US do redefine the word "Animal" just to spite you. I'm not sure if its for wholesale or retail.

"Animal" means any live or dead dog,
cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig,
hamster, rabbit, or any other warmblooded
animal, which is being used, or
is intended for use for research, teaching,
testing, experimentation, or exhibition
purposes, or as a pet. This term
excludes birds, rats of the genus Rattus,
and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use
in research; horses not used for research
purposes; and other farm animals,
such as, but not limited to, livestock
or poultry used or intended for
use as food or fiber, or livestock or
poultry used or intended for use for improving
animal nutrition, breeding,
management, or production efficiency,
or for improving the quality of food or
fiber. With respect to a dog, the term
means all dogs, including those used
for hunting, security, or breeding purposes.
Animal act

animal is defined as every non-human species, both domestic and wild
animal law

 

[JustMeSee]

When you include magical abilities, anything is believable.

 

[Skaloop]

The Laws created by the people of the US do redefine the word "Animal" just to spite you. I'm not sure if its for wholesale or retail.

"Animal" means any live or dead dog,
cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig,
hamster, rabbit, or any other warmblooded
animal, which is being used, or
is intended for use for research, teaching,
testing, experimentation, or exhibition
purposes, or as a pet. This term
excludes birds, rats of the genus Rattus,
and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use
in research; horses not used for research
purposes; and other farm animals,
such as, but not limited to, livestock
or poultry used or intended for
use as food or fiber, or livestock or
poultry used or intended for use for improving
animal nutrition, breeding,
management, or production efficiency,
or for improving the quality of food or
fiber. With respect to a dog, the term
means all dogs, including those used
for hunting, security, or breeding purposes.
Animal act

animal is defined as every non-human species, both domestic and wild
animal law

But we're not talking about laws. We're talking about definitions. And not being a US citizen, I am certainly not talking about US laws.

In the biological use of the word, humans are animals. There is no denying that.

 

[pgp_protector]

"This has nothing to do with taking a Creationist pov."
...You claim.
Yet you fail to show why a "Naturalist" or a "Scientist" or an "Evolutionist" would support differing laws for humans vs animals.

Absurd? Of course. Because you "believe" humans and animals are not the same and should be treated different. Like any good Creationist would. As you clearly pointed out, the law does indeed separate human law from animal law. The reason is that we have decided humans are to be treated completely differently from any animal laws that are legislated.

It's a strong indicator that no one believes that humans are animals. No matter how many connections the scientific community tries to make.

Any one who believes that humans and animals and plants are all naturally derived from the same source, should hold that all legal barriers should be removed and the laws applied equally to all forms of life. Yet we do not:

(1)"Animal" means a mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian.
(note that humans are legally assumed excluded)
(b) Any person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, wounds or kills an animal shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years or both
(1) "Animal" means any mammal, bird, fish, reptile, amphibian or insect.
Animal means any nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or fish including, but not limited to dog, cat, horse, goat, sheep and chicken and all animals defined in California Penal Code Section 597.
D. "Animal" means all birds, non-human mammals, fowl, fish, and reptiles
(3) "Animal" means any non-human vertebrate with the exclusion of livestock as defined herein.

I could go on for most of the 50 states.

Sigh
From the first one, I'd bet the rest are equivalent.

H. For the purposes of this section:

*
(1)"Animal" means a mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian

No you may not understand the English language, but this is informing you that that definition is ONLY for that Section, it's not a true global definition.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sigh
From the first one, I'd bet the rest are equivalent.

H. For the purposes of this section:

*
(1)"Animal" means a mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian

No you may not understand the English language, but this is informing you that that definition is ONLY for that Section, it's not a true global definition.

Well, duhh.

And for the purpose of our discussion, it's relevant that
scientific definitions are inadequate and must be overridden
by LAW. I guess I need to spell it out for those who choose
to ignore the implications or do any work....and you stated
that is your intention....not to look any further.

 

[Skaloop]

scientific definitions are inadequate and must be overridden
by LAW.

Why? First, why are they inadequate, and second, why must they be overridden by law? Especially since scientific definitions are generally more accurate and descriptive than legal definitions. I mean, by law, the maximum speed is 60 mph, but by science, it is much much more than that.

 

[Catherineanne]

Absurd? Of course. Because you "believe" humans and animals are not the same and should be treated different. Like any good Creationist would.

If you can find any evidence anywhere that I am a Creationist, either good or bad, or indeed that I ever have been, then I will send you a cheque for $500.

I am a Theist, and I am an Anglican, but I am not a Creationist. I am not sure of other denominations, but we Anglicans are not required to have a lobotomy at our confirmation, and we can happily reconcile science, which speaks of what and how, and theology which speaks only of why.

Look again at what I said above; there are two separate semantic constructs for 'animal'. In legal terms, it is important for the law to determine which of this is meant, in any given context.

This is nothing to do with creationism.

Yes, all humans are mammals.

Yes, all mammals are animals.

However, the third is not so clear. There are two different semantic constructs for 'animal'.

All humans are animals, only as long as the term animal is used in its broadest sense; denoting all members of the animal kingdom. I imagine the necessary and sufficient conditions could be something like this:

+ Animate
+ Mobile
+ Reproductive

In the alternative semantic construct in which 'animal' denotes all other creatures in the animal kingdom in contradistinction to humans, as it very often is, then humans are, clearly, not animals.

In which case animal then becomes;

+ Animate
+ Mobile
+ Reproductive
- Human

I hope that helps.

 

[Catherineanne]

Not a complete answer.

There are Four kinds of love.
Agapao
Storge
Phileo
Eros

Twaddle. There is only one kind of love; Christ's love.

Anything else is not love.

QED.

 

[Catherineanne]

Actually, no, it doesn't. Saying the plants can be considered animals, or that humans can be considered to not be animals, is not semantics. It involves a wholesale redefinition of the word "animal" as it is used in its biological sense.

So, not familiar with semantics, then?

Never mind.

 

[Catherineanne]

In the biological use of the word, humans are animals. There is no denying that.

This may be so, but the law is not about biology, but about accountability, and about responsibility.

A human may be an animal, but his accountability and responsibility in this world is not the same as that of a goldfish, a budgie or even a dog. Therefore, to say that biology is the benchmark for legal definitions makes no sense whatsoever.

Humans are held to different moral standards from other animals, and it is at this level that humans can be said to stand in contradistinction to the rest of the animal kingdom. Not because we are not part of it, but because we are more accountable, in relation to the rest of creation and to one another.

Otherwise we would have the absurd situation where a dog who fights and kills another dog is prosecuted, tried, convicted by a jury of 12 other dogs, and then sent to a dog pound for 20 years. If humans are animals, and there is no difference, then this is reasonable. If this is not reasonable, then we must be able to say why not.

The 'why not' is that IN LAW humans are treated as having a different level of moral accountability, and that they therefore stand in contradistinction to animals.

As I said above, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with taking a creationist viewpoint.

 

[Catherineanne]

Well, duhh.

And for the purpose of our discussion, it's relevant that
scientific definitions are inadequate and must be overridden
by LAW. I guess I need to spell it out for those who choose
to ignore the implications or do any work....and you stated
that is your intention....not to look any further.

The law is not interested in defining scientific terminology. The law is interested only in defining legal terminology.

Good luck trying to come to terms with that.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am a Theist, and I am an Anglican, but I am not a Creationist. I am not sure of other denominations, but we Anglicans are not required to have a lobotomy at our confirmation, and we can happily reconcile science, which speaks of what and how, and theology which speaks only of why.

Are angels 'animals'? and how did they get here: creation or evolution?

(Notice I'm asking 'what' and 'how' -- so can I expect a scientific answer from you?)

 

[JustMeSee]

Are angels 'animals'? and how did they get here: creation or evolution?

(Notice I'm asking 'what' and 'how' -- so can I expect a scientific answer from you?)

Angels are not of this earth. They are heavenly spirits.