Are animals equal or inferior to humans?

[Smileandtheworld]

You're right; but there are small sections of the universe that are quite hospitable....well, as hospitable as the universe can get, I should say.

Hopsitable in what way?

Who says there couldn't be a planet with air temp of 600 degree's celsius and no oxygen that hosts life forms happy with 600 degree who have no need for oxygen,?

 

[AlexBP]

Except for in the context of science and academia; humans are animals, in that sense. And I can't really think of a higher authority on biological organisms other than science.

First of all, I don't believe that in the context of science and academia humans are animals . I think that if you go to a university you'll probably find most people there assume the common sense distinction between humans and animals. The last time I checked, art, literature, history, and so forth were still "humanities", rather than "animalities". Even folks in the biology department.

Second, even if it were true that academics all believed that humans were animals, they are not an authority with the right to overrule common sense and replace it with nonsense. Not in my book.

That sign means "No animals allowed other than humans and humans with assistance animals". Of course humans are animals, even if we humans, don't percieve we are.

It says "No animals allowed", so I interpret it as meaning that no animals are allowed. I see no justification for your claim that it means something different from what it says.

Our perceptions don't matter. In the eye of the universe, we are just another biological organism that fits in the kingdom of animalia.

I was not aware that the universe had eyes.

 

[AlexBP]

Well, you don't know if ants do anything like that, or anything comparable to that. You just assume that they don't.

Actually I do know that ants don't philosophize by the same means that I know that maple trees don't sing the blues. I use common sense.

But just imagine that they did.

One could imagine that in a fairy tale kingdom in which ants could think, it would no longer be true that humans are at a higher level of existence than ants. But this thread was not asking about what's true in such fairy tale kingdoms, but rather what's true in reality

It is only human self-importance that assumes that everyone and everything should be human as well.

I've never met anyone who thinks that "everything should be human". Speaking only for myself, I'm pretty %$#! glad that animals are inferior to humans. If any of that nonsense about humans and apes being equal was actually true, well then:

YouTube - ‪Planet of the Apes (1968) trailer‬‏

 

[AlexBP]

You are still missing the point.

I am not missing the point, but rather disagreeing with the point.

All inventions are made by biological entities possessing an animal's body and an animal's brain. But not all animals are monkeys, cows or walruses.

Some animals are humans.

No, inventions are made by entities possessing a human body and a human brain, which is quite different from an animal's body and brain. To illustrate the point, consider a scenario. If you learn that there's a dead animal body in your back yard, you'll either ignore it or throw it out, or if it's very large perhaps you'll hire someone to dispose of it. If you learn that there's a dead human being in your back yard, you'll instead notify the police and a full-scale investigation into cause of death will begin. Even with life removed, a human's body is not an animal's body. Likewise it would be easy to present a similar example showing that a human's brain isn't an animal's brain.

The basic fundamental fact is that no matter how many times you or anyone else claims that humans are animals, it still will not be true. I've already give several examples in which maintaining basic sanity requires us to be aware that humans are not animals. I could give many more. We live in countries where millions of cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens are raised in cramped and filthy cages a while a (very) few people protest these things no one goes ballistic about it. We would all go ballistic if we found a company raising humans in cramped, filthy conditions and then butchering them and selling their bodies as food. Or for another example, we see folks walking dogs on leashes every day. If we saw folks walking other folks on leashes, outside or certain sex clubs, it would raise a few eyebrows. Or for a third example, we go to zoos and see animals in cages for our edification and amusement. If we saw humans living in cages for anyone's edification or amusement, we'd not take it so well. Or for a fourth example we have a department called Animal Control. As the name implies, it has the authority to deal with animals. But it does not have the authority to trap, tranquilize, or kill humans under the same circumstances.

So the everyday sense of reality of me, you, and everyone in this thread includes the fact that humans are not animals. The difference between me and you is that you're willing to uphold philosophical positions even when they contradict the basic reality that you live with on a daily basis. I, on the other hand, desire a philosophy that matches reality.

 

[Freodin]

I am not missing the point, but rather disagreeing with the point.


No, inventions are made by entities possessing a human body and a human brain, which is quite different from an animal's body and brain. To illustrate the point, consider a scenario. If you learn that there's a dead animal body in your back yard, you'll either ignore it or throw it out, or if it's very large perhaps you'll hire someone to dispose of it. If you learn that there's a dead human being in your back yard, you'll instead notify the police and a full-scale investigation into cause of death will begin. Even with life removed, a human's body is not an animal's body. Likewise it would be easy to present a similar example showing that a human's brain isn't an animal's brain.

The basic fundamental fact is that no matter how many times you or anyone else claims that humans are animals, it still will not be true. I've already give several examples in which maintaining basic sanity requires us to be aware that humans are not animals. I could give many more. We live in countries where millions of cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens are raised in cramped and filthy cages a while a (very) few people protest these things no one goes ballistic about it. We would all go ballistic if we found a company raising humans in cramped, filthy conditions and then butchering them and selling their bodies as food. Or for another example, we see folks walking dogs on leashes every day. If we saw folks walking other folks on leashes, outside or certain sex clubs, it would raise a few eyebrows. Or for a third example, we go to zoos and see animals in cages for our edification and amusement. If we saw humans living in cages for anyone's edification or amusement, we'd not take it so well. Or for a fourth example we have a department called Animal Control. As the name implies, it has the authority to deal with animals. But it does not have the authority to trap, tranquilize, or kill humans under the same circumstances.

So the everyday sense of reality of me, you, and everyone in this thread includes the fact that humans are not animals. The difference between me and you is that you're willing to uphold philosophical positions even when they contradict the basic reality that you live with on a daily basis. I, on the other hand, desire a philosophy that matches reality.

You are indeed missing the point, completely. You go on and on about examples of the differences between "humans" and "animals" - differences that stem from human behaviour, I might add - and imply that my postion would / should get rid of these differences.

But.... I never denied the differences. I never stated that they were "equal" or that we should tread all other animals like humans or humans like all other animals.

It is as I said: "It is only human self-importance that assumes that everyone and everything should be human as well." I didn't mean that in regard of behaviour, but in regard to that standard of "superior" and "inferior" that you refer to.

You show that kind of thinking clearly here:

Speaking only for myself, I'm pretty %$#! glad that animals are inferior to humans. If any of that nonsense about humans and apes being equal was actually true, well then...

If animals were not inferior, they would be humans.


Let's take humans out of the picture. Let's compare other organisms.

Cats are animals. Dogs are animals. Cows are animals. Earthworms are animals. Does that mean they are all equal and that all dogs are cats are cows are earthworms? Are they all the same?

Chihuahuas are animals. St.Bernhards are animals. Are they equal? Are they the same?

No, they aren't. (At least I hope your everyday sense of reality agrees with that.) So which of these are "inferior" and which are "superior"?

There is no standard for "greatness", "inferiority" or "superiority"... other than the (arbitratry) human one.

Humans are animals, just as cats are animals. Humans are not cats, cats are not humans. They are different. But neither of them is "inferior" in an absolute sense.

 

[mpok1519]

Hopsitable in what way?

Who says there couldn't be a planet with air temp of 600 degree's celsius and no oxygen that hosts life forms happy with 600 degree who have no need for oxygen,?

Hey it could happen.

First of all, I don't believe that in the context of science and academia humans are animals.

You don't have to believe something for it to be true.

I think that if you go to a university you'll probably find most people there assume the common sense distinction between humans and animals.

Well of course; all animals are distinct from one another.

The last time I checked, art, literature, history, and so forth were still "humanities", rather than "animalities". Even folks in the biology department.

lol thats an argument?

Second, even if it were true that academics all believed that humans were animals, they are not an authority with the right to overrule common sense and replace it with nonsense. Not in my book.

Well your book is just that; your book. Just for you. In your world. Which is fine; just keep it out of everyone else's world.

It says "No animals allowed", so I interpret it as meaning that no animals are allowed. I see no justification for your claim that it means something different from what it says.

Taxonomy is the classification of life; humans belong in the kingdom of animalia (animals), within the phylum of Chordata, in the order Primates, the family Hominidae, of the genus Homo, and the species Sapien.

Regardless of the sign you see at the Home Depot, they are letting in animals. Infact their business depends on it. They're actually breaking their own policy, because humans belong to the kingdom ANIMALIA! lol

I was not aware that the universe had eyes.

Perhaps you know what a metaphor is?

 

[Mling]

You're right; but there are small sections of the universe that are quite hospitable....well, as hospitable as the universe can get, I should say.

If puddles could think, they would marvel at how perfectly hospitable their hole in the ground is to the shape of their body.

Our universe seems hospitable to us because we evolved in it.

 

[mpok1519]

If puddles could think, they would marvel at how perfectly hospitable their hole in the ground is to the shape of their body.

What would they think about a noon-day sun? =P

Our universe seems hospitable to us because we evolved in it.

That is true.

 

[AlexBP]

Well of course; all animals are distinct from one another.

That irrelevant; the point is that folks as a whole don't think of humans as animals, and that's true for folks inside and outside academia.

lol thats an argument?

Yes, it's an argument. Feel free to address it.

Well your book is just that; your book. Just for you. In your world. Which is fine; just keep it out of everyone else's world.

As I keep pointing out, my viewpoint that humans are not animals is the viewpoint of everyone, including those who claim otherwise. Everyone demonstrates as much by their actions many times each day, and actions speak louder than words.

Taxonomy is the classification of life; humans belong in the kingdom of animalia (animals), within the phylum of Chordata, in the order Primates, the family Hominidae, of the genus Homo, and the species Sapien.

Regardless of the sign you see at the Home Depot, they are letting in animals. Infact their business depends on it. They're actually breaking their own policy, because humans belong to the kingdom ANIMALIA! lol

Taxonomy is one classification of life, the one used by professional biologists but rarely by anyone else. In useful and important contexts, we use other schemes that don't classify humans as animals. Hence for you to repeat over and over that humans are animals in the professional biologist's classification scheme only makes you look obtuse. Obviously anyone who puts a sign on a door saying "No animals allowed" is not using that classification scheme, nor is anyone who walks through a door that has such a sign.

Perhaps you know what a metaphor is?

I do know what a metaphor is. You said "in the eyes of the universe" and now you're apparently saying that you intended this as a metaphor. What's it a metaphor for?

 

[Braunwyn]

That irrelevant; the point is that folks as a whole don't think of humans as animals, and that's true for folks inside and outside academia.

Educated folk do and the educated and uneducated are not the same either.

 

[mpok1519]

That irrelevant; the point is that folks as a whole don't think of humans as animals, and that's true for folks inside and outside academia.

And theres folks inside and outside academia that correctly believe humans are animals. We belong to the kingdom of animalia. That is all that is required to be an animal.

Yes, it's an argument. Feel free to address it.

Its not though. So no I can't address it.

As I keep pointing out, my viewpoint that humans are not animals is the viewpoint of everyone, including those who claim otherwise. Everyone demonstrates as much by their actions many times each day, and actions speak louder than words.

Viewpoint or perception of you or "everyone" (as you put it) does not change the fact that humans belong in the kingdom of animalia. That is all that is required to be an animal.

Taxonomy is one classification of life, the one used by professional biologists but rarely by anyone else.

Taxonomy is the only classification of life from a scientific and objective perspective.

In useful and important contexts, we use other schemes that don't classify humans as animals.

I'm just going by what science says. Feel free to disagree with science all you want. I can't stop you or "everyone".

Hence for you to repeat over and over that humans are animals in the professional biologist's classification scheme only makes you look obtuse. Obviously anyone who puts a sign on a door saying "No animals allowed" is not using that classification scheme, nor is anyone who walks through a door that has such a sign.

Okay, I get it; you base classification and taxonomy of life based on what the front-door says at Home-Depot or McDonalds; however, I do it based on what taxonomy and classification of life says.

I do know what a metaphor is. You said "in the eyes of the universe" and now you're apparently saying that you intended this as a metaphor. What's it a metaphor for?

If I have to explain such a simple concept, I just wont. Me doing that would validate you. And I would never do that.

 

[sandwiches]

The Bible doesn't talk much about animal salvation or really much about animal rights in general.

Also, can being vegetarian be influenced by true Christian values?

Are animals equal or inferior to humans, in what respect? Speed, size, height, strength, intelligence, swimming speed, ability to resist heat, long distance running, flight distance?

Also, what are "true Christian values?"

 

[AlexBP]

Educated folk do

Really? When exactly did all educated persons get together and make this declaration? I'm an educated person and I don't classify humans and animals. But perhaps I'm just a single counter-example. My dictionary (Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition) includes in its first definition of "animal" the words "other than a human being". So was the Websters Dictionary produced by uneducated persons?

 

[AlexBP]

And theres folks inside and outside academia that correctly believe humans are animals. We belong to the kingdom of animalia. That is all that is required to be an animal.
...
Viewpoint or perception of you or "everyone" (as you put it) does not change the fact that humans belong in the kingdom of animalia. That is all that is required to be an animal.

And is repeating a statement in bold all that's required to be correct--no actual reasons required?

Taxonomy is the only classification of life from a scientific and objective perspective.

Actually I'd say it's pretty close to the only classification of life that isn't objective. Showing that taxonomy isn't objective is simple. Anyone who's taken a few classes in biology knows that there isn't one taxonomy scheme, but rather a great many. This webpage summarize a number of different ones as they apply to plants. You have systematic taxonomy, which is classifying organisms with common evolutionary origin together. But you can also use traditional taxonomy that groups together organisms with common physical characteristics. Within each of these two groupings there are an endless number of smaller problems to be resolved. No one taxonomy scheme can be defined as correct. Everyone makes an individual choice about which they prefer. Hence taxonomy is subjective, not objective.

Taxonomy is scientific in the sense that certain scientists use it (and fairly few other folks do), but biologists who treat humans as part of the animal kingdom have no claim to having the "only" scientific approach; how about the much larger field of the social sciences?

Okay, I get it; you base classification and taxonomy of life based on what the front-door says at Home-Depot or McDonalds; however, I do it based on what taxonomy and classification of life says.

I've already given a lengthy list of situations in which we're required to recognize that humans aren't animals in order to get through an ordinary day. For you to say that I base my classification only on what the front-door says at Home-Depot or MocDonalds is nasty and intellectually dishonest. On principle, however, I choose common sense as employed by everyone everyday over a minor professional definition used by a few experts in a few instances a small portion of the time, and indeed why wouldn't I? Consider that we who work in math or physics have definitions of a lot of words that differ from the common definitions; for instance "letter", "group", and "field". If we insisted on using only our definitions and declaring that anyone who used the everyday definitions every day was uneducated and stupid, we'd end up looking rather foolish.

If I have to explain such a simple concept, I just wont. Me doing that would validate you. And I would never do that.

Translated into English: your statement about what's true "in the eyes of the universe" was meaningless and you're angry at me because I pointed this out.

 

[mpok1519]

And is repeating a statement in bold all that's required to be correct--no actual reasons required?

The reasoning was in bold. We are in the kingdom of animalia. That means we're animals. Simple enough right?

Actually I'd say it's pretty close to the only classification of life that isn't objective. Showing that taxonomy isn't objective is simple. Anyone who's taken a few classes in biology knows that there isn't one taxonomy scheme, but rather a great many. This webpage summarize a number of different ones as they apply to plants.

Didn't know we were talking about the plant kingdom now.....

You have systematic taxonomy, which is classifying organisms with common evolutionary origin together. But you can also use traditional taxonomy that groups together organisms with common physical characteristics. Within each of these two groupings there are an endless number of smaller problems to be resolved. No one taxonomy scheme can be defined as correct. Everyone makes an individual choice about which they prefer. Hence taxonomy is subjective, not objective.

The objective part comes from the fact that not one taxonomical hierachy claims humans are anything but animals. All taxonomical classifications identify humans as animals. Objectively, there is no alternative. Humans are animals.

Taxonomy is scientific in the sense that certain scientists use it (and fairly few other folks do),

Because most folks are too stupid to even know what taxonomy is.

but biologists who treat humans as part of the animal kingdom have no claim to having the "only" scientific approach; how about the much larger field of the social sciences?

What social scientists have classified humans as apart of a taxonomical hierachy outside of animalia? And who cares if they do? They're not right.

I've already given a lengthy list of situations in which we're required to recognize that humans aren't animals in order to get through an ordinary day.

Whatev, we get it; you classify life based on what home depot signs tell you. Moving on.

For you to say that I base my classification only on what the front-door says at Home-Depot or MocDonalds is nasty and intellectually dishonest.

You're the one who classifies biological organisms based on what home depot signs say; not me.

On principle, however, I choose common sense as employed by everyone everyday over a minor professional definition used by a few experts in a few instances a small portion of the time,

Just not in the profession of biology, the profession that identifies and classifies biological organisms.

and indeed why wouldn't I?

Who knows.

Consider that we who work in math or physics have definitions of a lot of words that differ from the common definitions; for instance "letter", "group", and "field".

lol, what? How do mathematicians and physics experts have anything to do with the taxonomy of biological organisms?

If we insisted on using only our definitions and declaring that anyone who used the everyday definitions every day was uneducated and stupid, we'd end up looking rather foolish.

Our definitions? You mean the definition? Because those that percieve one as foolish are the fools. Mob mentality is not the way to go, especially in a mob of fools.

Translated into English: your statement about what's true "in the eyes of the universe" was meaningless and you're angry at me because I pointed this out.

lol sorry, no anger here. I just have trouble validating intellectually devoid questions. I simply cannot bring myself to do anything but laugh when asked bad questions.

 

[AlexBP]

Didn't know we were talking about the plant kingdom now.....

The same classification schemes can be used in the animal kingdom as in the plant kingdom. I linked to a page that discussed plants because it was the best discussion I could find online.

You're the one who classifies biological organisms based on what home depot signs say; not me.

I never mentioned Home Depot. You did. Nice attempt to lie and pin your mistake on me, though; too bad for you that I remember what actually happened in the thread.

lol, what? How do mathematicians and physics experts have anything to do with the taxonomy of biological organisms?

Our definitions? You mean the definition? Because those that percieve one as foolish are the fools. Mob mentality is not the way to go, especially in a mob of fools.

So let me get this straight. In your mind, anyone who defines a "field" as a large area where crops are grown in a "fool", because they're not using the scientific definition of the word? Likewise anyone who defines a "letter" as one of the twenty-six symbols making up the alphabet? You may wish to remember Matthew 5:22.

The rest of your post is just similar declarations that you're right because you have "taxonomy" on your side and are "objective" and that anyone who disagrees with you is "stupid". Proof by insult and proof by repetition may be very satisfying to the one making them, but not particularly convincing to anyone else. Before I leave I'll give you one piece of advice. If you want to spend your spare time bragging about how your towering intellect makes you superior to other people, you might want to consider using correct spelling, grammar, capitalization, and punctuation, as well as avoiding "net speak".

Good day.

 

[mpok1519]

The same classification schemes can be used in the animal kingdom as in the plant kingdom. I linked to a page that discussed plants because it was the best discussion I could find online.

And can you find one page that classifies humans as anything but animals? Can you find any taxonomical hierachy where humans don't belong to the kingdom of animalia?

I never mentioned Home Depot. You did. Nice attempt to lie and pin your mistake on me, though; too bad for you that I remember what actually happened in the thread.

Okay, just substitute whatever building with a "no animals allowed" sign for home depot. Not a shred of difference.

So let me get this straight. In your mind, anyone who defines a "field" as a large area where crops are grown in a "fool", because they're not using the scientific definition of the word? Likewise anyone who defines a "letter" as one of the twenty-six symbols making up the alphabet? You may wish to remember Matthew 5:22.

Stay on topic; no amount of scripture will accurately classify humans as anything but organisms belonging to the kingdom of animalia.

The rest of your post is just similar declarations that you're right because you have "taxonomy" on your side and are "objective" and that anyone who disagrees with you is "stupid".

If someone disagreed that 1+1=2, yes, I would call them stupid.

Proof by insult and proof by repetition may be very satisfying to the one making them, but not particularly convincing to anyone else.

I don't need to insult someone for my position to be true; humans belong to the kingdom of animalia. That makes us animals. If people disagree with truth, then I see them as intellectually devoid.

Before I leave I'll give you one piece of advice. If you want to spend your spare time bragging about how your towering intellect makes you superior to other people, you might want to consider using correct spelling, grammar, capitalization, and punctuation, as well as avoiding "net speak".

Yipee; anything else you care to not say that supports your position that humans don't belong to animalia?

Humans belong to the kingdom of animalia. Hence, humans are animals.

If you find me a world round utilized taxonomical classification that says humans ARENT in the kingdom of animalia, then I'll recant.

Until then, humans still, and always will, belong to the kingdom of animalia, thus humans are, and always will be, animals.

Answer this question; if humans aren't animals, does that mean we belong to a kingdom entirely of our own? If we don't belong to the kingdom animalia, then what kingdom to we belong to?

Hope that clears everything up for you.

 

[Braunwyn]

Really? When exactly did all educated persons get together and make this declaration? I'm an educated person and I don't classify humans and animals. But perhaps I'm just a single counter-example. My dictionary (Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition) includes in its first definition of "animal" the words "other than a human being". So was the Websters Dictionary produced by uneducated persons?

When? Geesh, as far back to Plato and Aristotle based on what I'm reading. Classification of homo sapiens as animals is ~1750s. Educated folk also do not rely on dictionaries for in-depth understanding. Humans are primates. Primates are animals. You can disagree all you want, it makes no difference.

 

[Chanya]

They are equally much worth, and this planet will only become civilized when they are given equal rights as us. Chimpanzees and other apes getting some small level of "human rights" in countries like Spain is a small step in the right direction. Hopefully in my lifetime we will see this world step out of the retarded dark ages and respect animals for what they are instead of thinking we are some god-given guardian of all creation.

 

[QuestionAsker]

You guys are right. If forty yards to my left an injured dog is drowning, and fifty yards to my right an injured person is drowning, I'm going in for the dog. After all, the dog is closer, so the chances of me getting there in time are higher. The only logical reason to even consider saving the person would be because you are afraid of possible legal complications regarding neglect.