Are humans animals?

[JMorris]

good question, something worth answering.

well lets see a cow will give birth to it's calf and then that calf will end up being the husband of that same cow that gave birth to him. nothing wrong with that right, we should do the same. we are animals after all, aren't we or are we?



seyorni we are talking about human and animal, please don't tell me you consider yourself equal to a chimp?



not at all.

lol, adorable again!:clap

 

[Gharib]

But the concept of human has far more riders than that of being an animal.

It might be the equivalent of saying that "if all Americans are people, all people are Americans".

no actually it may the equivalent of saying "if all americans came from europe, life didn't form in europe."

 

[rojse]

no actually it may the equivalent of saying "if all americans came from europe, life didn't form in europe."

Referring back to the original conversation:

...animals being humans rather than humans being animals?

But the concept of human has far more riders than that of being an animal.

It might be the equivalent of saying that "if all Americans are people, all people are Americans".

Let's try this again. We can define what an animal is, in comparison to any other object, by discussing the combination of attributes that animals have that no other sort of creature does. Some attributes are that animals have multiple cells, are eukaryotic (cells contain complex structures enclosed within membrane), lack rigid cell walls, and are heterotrophs, in that they digest food in an internal chamber (source: wiki). These combined attributes are common to all animals (although other non-animal organisms have one or two of these characteristics), and humans share these characteristics.

Attributes that we associate with humans that no other animal shares are much more difficult to define than this, and I am not going to attempt to delve into these characteristics in this thread, because it is quite difficult to define these without finding higher-order animals sharing at least several of these characteristics. As you belong to the Islamic faith, it would be reasonable to presume that you believe that humans have "souls", that animals do not, and although I don't like using a concept without empirical support, it will be sufficient for this example. Humans have this factor which separates them from animals.

So, humans are animals, but they have something more than this that other animals do not - whether you call it soul, consciousness, or Factor X, that animals do not have. Animals, though, are not human, because they lack this other factor.

 

[Gharib]

So, humans are animals, but they have something more than this that other animals do not - whether you call it soul, consciousness, or Factor X, that animals do not have. Animals, though, are not human, because they lack this other factor.

exactly what i'm saying, the X factor is the barrier between humans being classified as animals and vise versa.

 

[Gharib]

Referring back to the original conversation:

actually i was meant to say "just because americans came from europe, that doesn't mean that life formed in europe"

Let's try this again. We can define what an animal is, in comparison to any other object, by discussing the combination of attributes that animals have that no other sort of creature does. Some attributes are that animals have multiple cells, are eukaryotic (cells contain complex structures enclosed within membrane), lack rigid cell walls, and are heterotrophs, in that they digest food in an internal chamber (source: wiki). These combined attributes are common to all animals (although other non-animal organisms have one or two of these characteristics), and humans share these characteristics.

none of that is revelant, i certainly do not think so.

the question is can either side he classified as part of the other one?

i don't want to talk about cells or membranes when the simplest answer in saying that we are different is "humans have free will and all other creatures are mindless"

Attributes that we associate with humans that no other animal shares are much more difficult to define than this, and I am not going to attempt to delve into these characteristics in this thread, because it is quite difficult to define these without finding higher-order animals sharing at least several of these characteristics.

not really interested in any of that, we can be talking about behaviour also and just because some creatures resemble us that does not make them human.

As you belong to the Islamic faith, it would be reasonable to presume that you believe that humans have "souls", that animals do not,

animals do have a soul, what they do not have is free will and a brain, they cannot experience thought. they do that wich god has set them to do, and they obey us. thats one of the other reasons that sets us appart from them.

and although I don't like using a concept without empirical support, it will be sufficient for this example. Humans have this factor which separates them from animals.

well if you believe that a soul does not exist or that it does, lets just say both parties are equal in this matter, they either have a soul or they don't.

 

[rojse]

actually i was meant to say "just because americans came from europe, that doesn't mean that life formed in europe"

Certainly.

none of that is revelant, i certainly do not think so.

Those characteristics are what define animals. If we find a new organism, we can run through our checklist and say "well, it's definitely an animal," or "it can't be an animal, it must be something else".

Although the technical nature of the definitions is somewhat daunting, it says, in a more complicated fashion, that animals have multiple cells, they digest food internally, and so forth. What the definitions are is not important, merely that we have them and that they are quantified in some manner.

the question is can either side he classified as part of the other one?

What I am trying to say is that humans are animals, but they are also have other attributes that allow them to claim membership to other groups besides animals. For example, if an animal is warm-blooded, they can be called mammals. Whether this sub-group is better or worse than the group above it is merely a matter of personal opinion. You state later in your post that the factor that separates humans above animals is free will.

i don't want to talk about cells or membranes when the simplest answer in saying that we are different is "humans have free will and all other creatures are mindless"

This is what you think separates humans from animals. Okay. But humans share the attributes of what makes animals animals, and separate them from being, say, plants.

animals do have a soul, what they do not have is free will and a brain, they cannot experience thought. they do that wich god has set them to do, and they obey us. thats one of the other reasons that sets us appart from them.

Okay, but we have come up with a difference between humans and animals, nonetheless.

Basically, we have:

Everything in the Universe
↓
Animals
(anything in the universe with multiple cells, internal digestive system, etc.)
↓
Humans
(anything that is an animal that also has free will)
​

 

[Gharib]

Certainly.

just like we are not animals even though some other creatures that are classified as animals have some kind of characterisitcs that resemble ours.

Those characteristics are what define animals. If we find a new organism, we can run through our checklist and say "well, it's definitely an animal," or "it can't be an animal, it must be something else".

no thats not nowhere near correct.

any living creature that has no free will or does not have an imagination or has no brain, is just just plain dumb is automatically an animal. after that your criteria comes in to determine what type of an animal it actually is.

Although the technical nature of the definitions is somewhat daunting, it says, in a more complicated fashion, that animals have multiple cells, they digest food internally, and so forth. What the definitions are is not important, merely that we have them and that they are quantified in some manner.

why are you talking about cells only?

yeah they do digest food internally every living thing does, some animals eat like pigs then they bring it out again into their mought and digest it properly, like a cow for example that why cows are always eating something, but some anomals do not have that double gut thing, do in no way are they humans.

What I am trying to say is that humans are animals,

i know you are trying to say that, but saying it does not make it true.

but they are also have other attributes that allow them to claim membership to other groups besides animals. For example, if an animal is warm-blooded, they can be called mammals. Whether this sub-group is better or worse than the group above it is merely a matter of personal opinion.

so if we have animals that need food to survive and we have plants that need food to survive, to which group do humans belong?

You state later in your post that the factor that separates humans above animals is free will.

yes a very strong example that separates us from them

This is what you think separates humans from animals. Okay. But humans share the attributes of what makes animals animals, and separate them from being, say, plants.

but just because we eat, drink and poop does not make us the same as animals, this is one of the big points that everyone mentiones and yet it has nothing to do with the issues. where does that leave plants?

Okay, but we have come up with a difference between humans and animals, nonetheless.

so are you agreeing with me by stating this?

Basically, we have:

Everything in the Universe
↓
Animals
(anything in the universe with multiple cells, internal digestive system, etc.)
↓
Humans
(anything that is an animal that also has free will)​

let me guess, a scientist that believes humans are animals came up with that chart right?

 

[McBell]

*pulls out rubber raft*


*discards rubber raft and jumps on pontoon*

 

[Gharib]

*pulls out rubber raft*


*discards rubber raft and jumps on pontoon*

you've done this one already once, don't you have something new?

 

[McBell]

you've done this one already once, don't you have something new?

I would ask you the exact same thing.

Though I do feel the need to upgrade from the chest waders.
You seriously raise the level of BS in this thread with each post.

 

[Valjean]

Eselam you're arguing from a social or cultural perspective. You seem to be saying we're not animals because animals don't conform to our ideas of propriety, they're not clever, and laclk free will.

Most people I know would define animals more biologically than socially or mentally. I think much of the disagreement in this thread arises from the incompatability of the two perspectives. You're arguing at cross purposes. Each side appears obtuse from the other's point of view.

Question: from a purely biological perspective how would you compare humans and animals?

 

[rojse]

just like we are not animals even though some other creatures that are classified as animals have some kind of characterisitcs that resemble ours.



no thats not nowhere near correct.

any living creature that has no free will or does not have an imagination or has no brain, is just just plain dumb is automatically an animal. after that your criteria comes in to determine what type of an animal it actually is.



why are you talking about cells only?

yeah they do digest food internally every living thing does, some animals eat like pigs then they bring it out again into their mought and digest it properly, like a cow for example that why cows are always eating something, but some anomals do not have that double gut thing, do in no way are they humans.



i know you are trying to say that, but saying it does not make it true.



so if we have animals that need food to survive and we have plants that need food to survive, to which group do humans belong?



yes a very strong example that separates us from them



but just because we eat, drink and poop does not make us the same as animals, this is one of the big points that everyone mentiones and yet it has nothing to do with the issues. where does that leave plants?



so are you agreeing with me by stating this?



let me guess, a scientist that believes humans are animals came up with that chart right?

I can't be bothered to continue, Eselam. You want to insist that humans are not animals, you want use your religious views to support that assertation, and you deliberately disregard anything that you don't agree with. Go ahead and do that, because I have far more interesting posts that I could be reading besides this.

Oh, yes, I came up with that chart out of the short conversation I had with you. Apparently, this fact is lost on you.

 

[rojse]

*pulls out rubber raft*


*discards rubber raft and jumps on pontoon*

*jumps on pontoon with Mestemia*

*Mestemia pushes Rojse off the pontoon*

*Rojse is forced to wade in excrement.*

 

[Gharib]

I can't be bothered to continue, Eselam. You want to insist that humans are not animals, you want use your religious views to support that assertation, and you deliberately disregard anything that you don't agree with. Go ahead and do that, because I have far more interesting posts that I could be reading besides this.

Oh, yes, I came up with that chart out of the short conversation I had with you. Apparently, this fact is lost on you.

my views have not been mixed with my religious views yet, if i was to use my religious views you would see different statements comming from me, but since that is not the case and you think that my views on this are due to religion then i don't know what to say to you.

and clearly there are plenty of other reasosns that contradict the notion that humans are animals or vise versa, have you been to your new thread lately?

 

[Gharib]

Eselam you're arguing from a social or cultural perspective. You seem to be saying we're not animals because animals don't conform to our ideas of propriety, they're not clever, and laclk free will.

is there something wrong with that?

those examples you have given are the most simple ones and logical ones that clearly state humans are not animals, just as animals are not humans. you do see that don't you?

Most people I know would define animals more biologically than socially or mentally.

and most of the people that i know define humans socially or mentally. do you see the difference between the two species?

I think much of the disagreement in this thread arises from the incompatability of the two perspectives. You're arguing at cross purposes. Each side appears obtuse from the other's point of view.

yeah i do agree, and thats because you cannot look at animals from a social perspective but rather biological unlike humans.

Question: from a purely biological perspective how would you compare humans and animals?

that is a very broad comparison, with wich particular animals do you want me to do the comparison. a human and a cow are much different biologically compared to a chimp and a human.

and just for the record, there are millions of species that are classified as animals, and only one species classified as human. we have differences to the animals and that is what makes us diferent from them. and i am talking about the non biological examples again like free will.

 

[rojse]

my views have not been mixed with my religious views yet, if i was to use my religious views you would see different statements comming from me, but since that is not the case and you think that my views on this are due to religion then i don't know what to say to you.

and clearly there are plenty of other reasosns that contradict the notion that humans are animals or vise versa, have you been to your new thread lately?

I made that thread, Eselam.

And the thread is not about how humans are not animals at all. It is about what attributes they have that differentiate them from all other animals, a subtle but substantial difference.

 

[Smoke]

and just for the record, there are millions of species that are classified as animals, and only one species classified as human.

Actually, scientists have identified more than a dozen species in the genus Homo; it's just that all of them but our species are extinct.

 

[themadhair]

Actually, scientists have identified more than a dozen species in the genus Homo; it's just that all of them but our species are extinct.