PaliRichard Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 ...of which there's none. ............apart from the absolutely huge amounts of evidence that say we are biologically and behaviourally animals. and where was the evidence supporting your position again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 'Wrong' on the grounds that you disagree? Let's dismiss that first. No, wrong on the grounds that it is scientifically incorrect. Humans are part of the taxonomy that is in the Kingdom Animalia. Ergo they are animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 OK so I'll ask a bunch of cats if they object.. I'm guessing they won't. So either, we are all equal or, some creatures have a greater, perhaps even superior, capacity for understanding. And as an extension of that train of thought, if you believe that humans have a moral imperative to protect creatures which lack that cognative capacity, where does the justificaiton for that imperative arise? I agree that we have a superior capacity of understanding, that is not in doubt nor the topic of debate, maybe you should take that superior brain and re read the thread because you seem to be going down many long wrong avenues. When in my argument did I say we should protect creatures with less cognitive ability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith 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!) I assume you don't think humans fit into this category. A living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 That's wrong already, so let's dismiss that - eh? There are still religious beliefs that insist we are not animals and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 biotechpete, any chance of that contrary philosophical criteria you claim is also religious? I'm particularly looking forward to it as I'm quite partial to a bit of the old religion and have yet to find one of the mainstream religions that claims we're the same as animals. You see I thought science had superceded the outdated notion that religion had created man as a superior being and the evidence pointed towards us being part of the animal kingdom. Maybe it's a case of when it suits the evidence will do but when it doesn't we'll ignore it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 No, wrong on the grounds that it is scientifically incorrect. Humans are part of the taxonomy that is in the Kingdom Animalia. Ergo they are animals. Anything with a soul [animus] is an 'animal'. Ergo so are stones and trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Anything with a soul [animus] is an 'animal'. Ergo so are stones and trees. You are arguing a scientific point from the grounds of philisophy. You've basically lost before your started. Animal in this context is a scientific definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 You are arguing a scientific point from the grounds of philisophy. You've basically lost before your started. In your opinion; others are available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Anything with a soul [animus] is an 'animal'. Ergo so are stones and trees. Without meaning to disparage your religious leanings 'souls' have no evidence to support them whatsoever. Earlier on in this thread you asked me why I brought religion (as part of philosophy) into 'it', yet it now appears you are ignoring all the scientific evidence and basing your entire argument on your religious leanings. By doing so you will no doubt be able to provide countless scientific studies which prove the soul, God and thus your viewpoint I take it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.