Proof that humans are not animals

[Gordy327]

It's been more than documented that sexual coercion exists in the animal kingdom:

And it happens in homo sapiens, regardless of "morality." You just defeated your own "argument."

 

[Rambozo]

Moral objections or not has nothing to do with the biological classification of animal.

People are able to come up with rational moral objections to behaviors such as rape.

Even if you want to argue that some animals are capable of limited amounts of reason, that reasoning ability is something which typically distinguishes humans from animals, just as an example.

 

[Gordy327]

People are able to come up with rational moral objections to behaviors such as rape.

Even if you want to argue that some animals are capable of limited amounts of reason, that reasoning ability is something which typically distinguishes humans from animals, just as an example.

Still has ZERO to do with scientific classification and nomenclature. Your desperation is obvious.

 

[bomberfox]

People are able to come up with rational moral objections to behaviors such as rape.

Even if you want to argue that some animals are capable of limited amounts of reason, that reasoning ability is something which typically distinguishes humans from animals, just as an example.

Its irrelevant to the definition of animal. You are the one with backwards beliefs. People used to balk at the suggestion we are animals

 

[Rambozo]

And it happens in homo sapiens, regardless of "morality." You just defeated your own "argument."

No, it's simple. Humans are capable of coming up with objections to it.

So, unless you're suggesting that animals are also capable of some type of proto-morality, presumably animals can't object to it, but merely engage in it during the course of natural selection.

 

[BirdinHand]

Whatever capabilities animals have are quite limited in comparison to human capabilities.

Are they?

Whales can communicate with one another - and DO communicate with one another - across HUNDREDS of miles.

No animal could produce the works of Michelangelo, for example.

No human could lift hundreds of times its body weight. Other animals do.

If we watched out of eggs, we’d lay there and die. Whereas, Sea turtles find their way to the ocean and swim thousands of miles following predictable paths - even though they just hatched from an egg and never saw their parent.

What you're doing is simply finding similarities between humans and animals, and putting them into the same category based on similarities, while negating the differences.

You’re demonstrating an absolute ignorance as to the rest of the animal kingdom and pretending that every other species doesn’t demonstrate many of the same exact traits humans do.

Including consciousness.

 

[BirdinHand]

No, it's simple. Humans are capable of coming up with objections to it.

So, unless you're suggesting that animals are also capable of some type of proto-morality, presumably animals can't object to it, but merely engage in it during the course of natural selection.

I guess you’ve never watched a mother correct their offspring in ANY animal species.

Have you ever interacted with animals?

 

[Rambozo]

Its irrelevant to the definition of animal. You are the one with backwards beliefs. People used to balk at the suggestion we are animals

You're equation of backwardness with chronology is erroneous.

Trying to equate people with animals is objectionable, and typically attempts to reduce human behavior to physiological behaviors such as survival and reproduction, when all of the evidence indicates that these behaviors are at the bottom of humans' hierarchy of needs.

 

[Rambozo]

I guess you’ve never watched a mother correct their offspring in ANY animal species.

Have you ever interacted with animals?

Again, you can suggest that animals are more like humans, if you want to. But you're not going to reduce humans to the level of animals.

I'm arguing that humans are distinct enough from animals, in non-biological ways, that they merit a unique category. And I haven't heard any one of you explain why you insist on putting humans and animals into the same category.

 

[Gordy327]

No, it's simple. Humans are capable of coming up with objections to it.

So, unless you're suggesting that animals are also capable of some type of proto-morality, presumably animals can't object to it, but merely engage in it during the course of natural selection.

It still occurs regardless of "objections." So ypur point, whatever that is, falls flat!

 

[Gordy327]

Again, you can suggest that animals are more like humans, if you want to. But you're not going to reduce humans to the level of animals.

I'm arguing that humans are distinct enough from animals, in non-biological ways, that they merit a unique category. And I haven't heard any one of you explain why you insist on putting humans and animals into the same category.

Humans are biological organisms,
Just like every other organism on the planet. Humans are already classified in taxonomic nomenclature.

 

[Michael Cole]

Whatever capabilities animals have are quite limited in comparison to human capabilities.

Such bullshit. Selectively responding is disingenuous. If you're not going to address points as I bring them up, don't think I'm going to respond to this.

Read #235 and try again.

 

[BirdinHand]

Again, you can suggest that animals are more like humans, if you want to. But you're not going to reduce humans to the level of animals.

I'm arguing that humans are distinct enough from animals, in non-biological ways, that they merit a unique category. And I haven't heard any one of you explain why you insist on putting humans and animals into the same category.

You’ve yet to point to any way that humans are materially “different” or “special”.

We are simply the highest level animal species - the apex.

And that can quickly change

One good virus that humans are susceptible to and not other animal species?

Bye bye most humans - and most of the societal advancements (good and bad) that have come with humans.

We are a member of the animal kingdom. Living organisms. And we can be wiped out and go extinct just as easily as any other species has.

 

[Rambozo]

And that can quickly change

No, it can't. In all of history, it hasn't, and there are reasons for that. Unless, perhaps, you're talking about a more advanced alien species, or something of that nature.

 

[Rambozo]

Humans are biological organisms,
Just like every other organism on the planet. Humans are already classified in taxonomic nomenclature.

No, humans are not biological organism. A human body may be a biological organism, but that is arguably one of the least defining parts of what it means to be human to begin with. Human consciousness, is arguably a far more significant defining feature.

That's why your taxonomy doesn't work, since it is only classifying humans by their physical traits and behaviors, rather than by their psychological characteristics. (And, I've already demonstrated that people aren't their physical bodies, for example).

It's akin to defining a car based on its chassis. When, in reality, its engine is arguably much more of a defining feature than its chassis.

 

[bomberfox]

You're equation of backwardness with chronology is erroneous.

Trying to equate people with animals is objectionable, and typically attempts to reduce human behavior to physiological behaviors such as survival and reproduction, when all of the evidence indicates that these behaviors are at the bottom of humans' hierarchy of needs.

I made no such attempt. I said morality is irrelevant to the definition of animal. People drew darwin as an ape because they were disgusted by the suggestion that we are primates.

 

[bomberfox]

No, humans are not biological organism. A human body may be a biological organism, but that is arguably one of the least defining parts of what it means to be human to begin with. Human consciousness, is arguably a far more significant defining feature.

Lol!

 

[Rambozo]

I made no such attempt. I said morality is irrelevant to the definition of animal. People drew darwin as an ape because they were disgusted by the suggestion that we are primates.

Again, you can elect to categorize people that way if you want to. But it doesn't change the myriad of characteristics which make people who they are. And the psychological characteristics are arguably far more interesting than the biological ones.

 

[bomberfox]

Again, you can suggest that animals are more like humans, if you want to. But you're not going to reduce humans to the level of animals.

I'm arguing that humans are distinct enough from animals, in non-biological ways, that they merit a unique category. And I haven't heard any one of you explain why you insist on putting humans and animals into the same category.

There is no reduction going on we are just the animal most capable of reasoning lol.

 

[bomberfox]

Again, you can elect to categorize people that way if you want to. But it doesn't change the myriad of characteristics which make people who they are. And the psychological characteristics are arguably far more interesting than the biological ones.

In a taxonomic sense of animals that is irrelevant. There is no reducing to anything. Humans are just the most capable animals of doing certain things.

 

[Rambozo]

There is no reduction going on we are just the animal most capable of reasoning lol.

Some people claim the purpose of life is survival and reproduction (which is what people presume the needs of animals are).

This is simply untrue, as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs demonstrates.

So unless you can demonstrate that animals have the same needs in Maslow's Hierarchy that humans do, I would say that that is a striking difference.

 

[bomberfox]

Some people claim the purpose of life is survival and reproduction (which is what people presume the needs of animals are).

This is simply untrue, as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs demonstrates.

So unless you can demonstrate that animals have the same needs in Maslow's Hierarchy that humans do, I would say that that is a striking difference.

ummm no…. Bacteria need to reproduce and survive, protists and plants need to reproduce and survive that doesnt make them animals. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is irrelevant to the definition of animal. Humans are animals with different needs.

 

[BirdinHand]

No, it can't. In all of history, it hasn't, and there are reasons for that. Unless, perhaps, you're talking about a more advanced alien species, or something of that nature.

Humans haven’t gone extinct in all of human history?

Gosh…you don’t say

 

[Gordy327]

No, humans are not biological organism. A human body may be a biological organism, but that is arguably one of the least defining parts of what it means to be human to begin with. Human consciousness, is arguably a far more significant defining feature.

That's why your taxonomy doesn't work, since it is only classifying humans by their physical traits and behaviors, rather than by their psychological characteristics. (And, I've already demonstrated that people aren't their physical bodies, for example).

It's akin to defining a car based on its chassis. When, in reality, its engine is arguably much more of a defining feature than its chassis.

Its all biological, down to the last cell. All you've demonstrated us that you have no idea what you're talking about. Which is why your BS here is so laughable and to be ignored and forgotten.

 

[BirdinHand]

No, humans are not biological organism.

Yes, we most definitely are.

A human body may be a biological organism, but that is arguably one of the least defining parts of what it means to be human to begin with.

You identify some new human that IS NOT a biological organism?

Human consciousness, is arguably a far more significant defining feature

I mean…my dogs have consciousness. They have personalities. In fact, their individual personalities is why I love them. They each have very unique habits, traits, quirks, skills…and challenges. They each have learned differently - some mastering certain skills faster or slower than others.

My one dog can spell. . You not only can’t say “walk”, but you can’t SPELL the word either unless you plan on taking him for one.


My son is working in trying to teach the bird to speak. And the bird again…unique personality as well as interacting uniquely to different members of our household. Smart. Learns tricks. Interacts with everyone AND the other animals in the house.




Many animals have a personality - and all have consciousness.


I’ll ask again, have you never been around an animal?