That Boat Don't Float!!

USincognito · May 18, 2010

SkyWriting said:
The legal community has ruled that humans are not animals.
In most states.

Good thing the legal community doesn't define things for the biological sciences.

Humans are animals.

AV1611VET · May 19, 2010

USincognito said:
Humans are animals.

I don't believe that.

Answers.com said:
A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.

An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.

A person who behaves in a bestial or brutish manner.

A human considered with respect to his or her physical, as opposed to spiritual, nature.

A person having a specified aptitude or set of interests: "that rarest of musical animals, an instrumentalist who is as comfortable on a podium with a stick as he is playing his instrument" (Lon Tuck).

Nathan Poe · May 19, 2010

AV1611VET said:
I don't believe that.

Nobody cares what you believe, AV -- it changes nothing.

Skaloop · May 19, 2010

AV1611VET said:
I don't believe that.

You highlighted the second definition. The first says otherwise. As do the third, fourth, and fifth.

But again, that's a dictionary definition, not the biological one.

AV1611VET · May 19, 2010

Nathan Poe said:
Nobody cares what you believe, AV -- it changes nothing.

That works both ways, sir.

And I happened to post a dictionary entry supporting my contention.

But then, you know me -- the dictionary can take a hike.

I prefer to use the example of Moses, who refused to be considered a viable entry in Egypt's genealogical records.

You remember Egypt, don't you?

The "Iron Furnace" -- in typology: the world?

AV1611VET · May 19, 2010

Skaloop said:
You highlighted the second definition. The first says otherwise. As do the third, fourth, and fifth.

Ya -- I noticed that.

That's why I highlighted my preference.

Skaloop said:
But again, that's a dictionary definition, not the biological one.

I don't care whose definition it is.

I don't feel I have to accept everything this "Iron Furnace" teaches; and if denying it causes me to lose respect among my peers, so be it.

I'll stand alone on this issue if I have to, but I'll stand.

Nathan Poe · May 19, 2010

AV1611VET said:
That works both ways, sir.

I'm well aware of that -- you care as much about reality as it does about you.

And I happened to post a dictionary entry supporting my contention.

Posted one; ignored the other four.

But then, you know me -- the dictionary can take a hike.

As can anything else which stubbornly refuses to glorify you.

I prefer to use the example of Moses, who refused to be considered a viable entry in Egypt's genealogical records.

You prefer to use a great many things to promote yourself -- a pity nobody cares.

You remember Egypt, don't you?

The "Iron Furnace" -- in typology: the world?

What about Egypt? How are you going to fake relevance in the name of self-promotion this time?

On second thought, never mind -- it can only be as tedious as your other incessant attempts.

AV1611VET · May 19, 2010

Nathan Poe said:
... self-promotion ...

You know, Nathan, that's some doosey of an accusation -- especially coming from someone who has a tag line like yours.

I don't know what your [et. al.] problem is with me specifically, but I sure don't lose any sleep over it, either.

You guys seem to have a natural disgust for God's people.

Nathan Poe · May 19, 2010

AV1611VET said:
You know, Nathan, that's some doosey of an accusation -- especially coming from someone who has a tag line like yours.

Give it time; you'll prove it true.

Actually, it didn't take that long at all, did it?

I don't know what your [et. al.] problem is with me specifically, but I sure don't lose any sleep over it, either.

You guys seem to have a natural disgust for God's people.

Introduce me to one of "God's People," -- I can't have disgust for figments of someone else's imaginaion.

AV1611VET · May 19, 2010

Nathan Poe said:
Introduce me to one of "God's People," -- I can't have disgust for figments of someone else's imaginaion.

I guess this part of your profile says it all, doesn't it?

Loved by few. Hated by many. Respected by all.

Nathan Poe · May 19, 2010

AV1611VET said:
I guess this part of your profile says it all, doesn't it?

It would appear that the CF servers have suffered a minor hiccup -- I'm sure there was a point to your post, but it must've gotten lost in cyberspace.

Care to try again, or was it one of your counting threads which crashed the works?

BananaSlug · May 19, 2010

AV, I've been wondering something. Do you accept that humans are mammals?

AV1611VET · May 19, 2010

BananaSlug said:
AV, I've been wondering something. Do you accept that humans are mammals?

Let me put it this way: we're mammalian.

Nabobalis · May 19, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Let me put it this way: we're mammalian.

That's a yes?

AV1611VET · May 19, 2010

Nabobalis said:
That's a yes?

I'll go with YES and see where it leads.

Feel free to change my mind.

We are mammals.

Skaloop · May 19, 2010

AV1611VET said:
I'll go with YES and see where it leads.

Feel free to change my mind.

We are mammals.

Well, then, since you enjoy definitions so much:

mammal
n.
Any of various warm-blooded vertebrate animals of the class Mammalia, including humans, characterized by a covering of hair on the skin and, in the female, milk-producing mammary glands for nourishing the young.

There you have it.

All humans are mammals.
All mammals are animals.
Therefore, all humans are animals.

BananaSlug · May 19, 2010

AV1611VET said:
I'll go with YES and see where it leads.

Feel free to change my mind.

We are mammals.

Then go ahead and change your mind because mammals are a "kind" of animal. If we are not animals then we certainly cannot be mammals. So what are we?

Catherineanne · May 23, 2010

Skaloop said:
Well, then, since you enjoy definitions so much:

mammal
n.
Any of various warm-blooded vertebrate animals of the class Mammalia, including humans, characterized by a covering of hair on the skin and, in the female, milk-producing mammary glands for nourishing the young.

There you have it.

All humans are mammals.
All mammals are animals.
Therefore, all humans are animals.

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.

Catherineanne · May 23, 2010

BananaSlug said:
A "feral" human still has human behavioral traits, they are just "wild".

This is not quite true. A lot of what you call 'human behavioural traits' are learned from other humans. A feral human is fully human genetically, but very far from human behaviourally. He will not use a bathroom, or eat with implements, or be able to speak; all of these are learned from those around us.

Without appropriate social interaction with other humans at the appropriate developmental stage, it is very difficult to teach these behaviours to feral humans later on. They will learn something, but there will be much they cannot learn. In relation to language, if the window of language acquisition is missed, ferals will always remain at a significant disadvantage.

Catherineanne · May 23, 2010

SkyWriting said:
The legal community has ruled that humans are not animals.
In most states.

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.

That Boat Don't Float!!

a post by Alan Smithee

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Life is an experiment, experience it!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Nabobalis

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Life is an experiment, experience it!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency