Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 No- you assert, unevidenced, that there's no categoric distinction between animals and humans. But there is. No amount of your shouting in bold** can change the distinction to your liking; that liking is what makes no sense. ** (nor in your tendentious footer!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 No- you assert, unevidenced, that there's no categoric distinction between animals and humans. Humans are animals. Fundamentally true. How can we be superior to what we are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Humans are animals. Fundamentally true. How can we be superior to what we are? Alternative: Humans are not animals. Fundamentally true. Humans are not 'better'- but are superior- to what animals are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 No- you assert, unevidenced, that there's no categoric distinction between animals and humans. But there is. No amount of your shouting in bold** can change the distinction to your liking; that liking is what makes no sense. ** (nor in your tendentious footer!) We have created the category "animals" and the sub category "mammals". We placed ourselves in those categories. By definition we are animals. No amount of wishing otherwise will change that. You are claiming we are not mammals are you (you ignored this earlier)? ps the use of bold is for emphasis THIS IS SHOUTING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 We have created the category "animals" and the sub category "mammals". We placed ourselves in those categories. By definition we are animals. No amount of wishing otherwise will change that. No, 'we' haven't. Some scientists have, to substantiate their personal views of equivalence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Alternative: Humans are not animals. That's wrong already, so let's dismiss that - eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 That's wrong already, so let's dismiss that - eh? 'Wrong' on the grounds that you disagree? Let's dismiss that first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 No, 'we' haven't. Some scientists have, to substantiate their personal views of equivalence. so we aren't mammals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 'Wrong' on the grounds that you disagree? Wrong on the grounds that we are animals. Unless you can prove my biology A-Level was grossly incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 If that is ones belief then it's self evidently enough justification. What I'm getting at is that a) this is practically only down to belief b) the ability to understand a sense of superiority is perhaps a justification enough for claiming it.[/Quote] So by this statement we can assume that you would be in favour of someone experimenting on other humans that they considered beneath them simply on the basis of their percieved superiority? If not please explain why, because that answer does nothing to show how you wouldn't justify the 'strong' dominating the 'weak' amongst humans simply on the basis of their assumed superiority. I asked what makes that sense bizarre or unjustified just becuase you happen no to agree? [/Quote] It's bizarre and unjustified to hold a sense of superiority based on some ancient texts that say we were created superior to animals and the philosophies that developed from those texts. It is even more astounding that those that claim to be scientists ignore the scientific evidence of our intelligence merely being a physiological advancement and instead side with unproven philosophical leanings. It has nothing to do with me not agreeing (no one has even asked me if I agree or not, my argument has nothing to do with the tests themselves, merely the arrogance of those claiming human superiority). There are lots of things I find bizarre (a lot of them on here) yet I don't seek to prevent other people carrying them out (with the exception of NHS funding for homeopathy). There are also lots of things which I might not be able to justify yet others seem able to justify it. It's just a case of cultural values and beliefs. So you do seek to prevent others from carrying them out when it suits you, which makes you different how? I however, have never tried to stop anyone carrying out anything, if I disagree, I say I disagree, nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.