Eating a Dog

[Sheldon]

Humans are animals

Put differently

Human = Animal (X=Y)
Hence
Animal = Human (Y=X)

Well, hence I don't say
"Humans are animals"

Humans are animals, whether you deny this fact or not.

Animal
noun

1. a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Nor me, I had lamb chops and burgers in mind tbh. Weather's crap here though, so BBQ is out, I will be having leftover Indian food from last night. tandoori chicken biryani, keema naan bread and some chips (that's fries for anyone not from the UK).

That's cool. I try to eat things raw when possible (not raw meat, I'm talking things like veggies), I like food with a crunch. But I'll occasionally pig out on things like a Horse Shoe, which over here, is a name for two burgers with toast and fries, drenched in probably half a bottle of cheese sauce.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We often named stuff even if we planned to eventually eat it. I can remember one rooster that the the kids named and he ended up spurring a kid so I immediately butchered him. Some of the kids were upset, some just found it interesting to identify the various parts of a dead chicken.

When I was growing up on the farm, the animals we named didn't end up on the menu unless something like your rooster story happened and we considered it warranted.

I suppose it doesn't really matter, just something I am not used to. Of course, there was the photo that added to the effect that Greasy Clyde was a pet. That put him in a different perspective. Perhaps it was details like that that helped me fix my perceptions.

 

[Sheldon]

I have no misunderstanding
I call it "different understanding)

Anyway
I rather phrase it correctly
NOT: Humans are (=) Animals

See quote below to explain
(No need to debate nor to belittle)

Maybe if you didn't doggedly re-post this demonstrably erroneous claim, trying to prop it up with a straw man fallacy. Humans are animals, but not all animals are humans, it's that simple. This: "NOT: Humans are (=) Animals" is nonsense, since it is firstly not what anyone has claimed, and secondly not remotely the same as the claim that humans are animals. You are adding a straw man claim with the =, and trying to pretend your straw man somehow negates the fact that humans are animals.

Again a cursory read of the word definition is enough to demonstrate you are wrong here. Animals are defined as a living organism that feed on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli. All of which apply to humans.

 

[Bathos Logos]

"No higher order species evolve"....Creationists expect instantaneous results of evolution, if it exists at all. But if it was an instantaneous process, we'd be inundated with new species. Evolution is a very slow process.

The fact that we have to deal with mutations of the flu and covid, shows that evolution is real and happens within our lifetime.

Often creationists argue that mutations are not the same as speciation, but they are (over time, when animals adapt to new environments or new niches within the same environment).

Maybe try reading a little harder in the future. I believe the phrase you interpreted/misread as "No higher order species evolve" from my post was this:

"No actual, higher-order "animals" involved."

Note, neither of the words "species" or "evolve" appear. I guess you interpreted "animals" as "species" and "involved" as "evolve". Basically - your reply does not apply to my post in the slightest.

 

[Bathos Logos]

I have no misunderstanding
I call it "different understanding)

But you do have misunderstanding. Your post indicates that you believe a set and its subset to be equal, and that such an equivocation then must work in both directions. It is completely incorrect thinking on the subject. This is regardless whether you think humans are animals.

Anyway
I rather phrase it correctly
NOT: Humans are (=) Animals

Categorically, humans belong to the set of "animals" (per definitions of the words involved):

animal - any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli

Note that human beings fit this definition simply and easily.

However, we can see the difference in what you are saying is correct (that is, that humans are not animals) in the non-scientific definition of "animal":

animal - any such living thing other than a human being.

This is more of a colloquial usage, to refer to creatures other than human beings. But again, humans meet the more scientific definition of the word and that would be recognized in any unbiased discourse on the topic, or by anyone who doesn't have emotional or knee-jerk reactions to things like being called an "animal" when, by definitions, that entirely applies.

See quote below to explain
(No need to debate nor to belittle)

Do you honestly believe my original reply was belittling? Is pointing out someone's misunderstanding always belittling then? Is that how it works in your estimation?

 

[stvdv]

But you do have misunderstanding

I have no misunderstanding. You claiming to know me, where you have no clue about me, that's arrogance. At least have the decency to phrase it as your opininion if you talk about me or others. Otherwise I won't reply

Here it is explained also
Eating a Dog

 

[Bathos Logos]

I have no misunderstanding. You claiming to know me, where you have no clue about me, that's arrogance. At least have the decency to phrase it as your opininion if you talk about me or others. Otherwise I won't reply

This is very, very strange. I am not claiming to "know you". Not at all. I know nothing about you. I was claiming that your thinking was incorrect on the matter of the equalities you set forth. If trying to correct someone's mistake is "arrogant" then so be it... I am fine with being called "arrogant" under those pretenses. I don't know why you seem to think that calling me "arrogant" is going to dissuade me from my course of correcting you. It won't.

Here it is explained also
Eating a Dog

Yes, this is someone else explaining exactly what I was trying to explain to you in order to demonstrate that your thinking was wrong. I wholeheartedly agree with the assessment that sets and subsets are not necessarily equal, and in the case of the equation you made, are definitely not equal. Exactly what I told you in the first place.

 

[KWED]

I strongly disagree.
Getting enough iron is crucial to your overall health, since it's involved in oxygen transport, energy production and more. And if you're looking for dietary sources of iron, meat is a good start. Not only are many meats great sources of this mineral, but they tend to contain a form of iron easily absorbed by your body.
Meat That Contains High Iron (sfgate.com)

Hemochromatosis, or iron overload, is a condition in which your body stores too much iron. It’s often genetic. It can cause serious damage to your body, including to your heart, liver and pancreas. You can’t prevent the disease, but early diagnosis and treatment can avoid, slow or reverse organ damage.
Hemochromatosis (Iron Overload): Causes, Symptoms, Treatment, Diet & More (clevelandclinic.org)

You may disagree, but doctors and health advice bodies concur. There is no need for hemochromatosis suffers to stop eating meat. The link you provided says nothing about avoiding meat. The advice is to reduce red meat intake and replace with chicken or turkey.

Anywho, this is a completely pointless cul de sac. You can stop your daughter eating all types of meat if you want, but you don't have to. That is all.

 

[KWED]

Nope, that's not how it works.
To impose something upon someone is to force this other person to accept it. Am I pointing a gun to you? Am I blackmailing you? Am I threatening you? If not, how am I forcing anything upon you?

You are using a very narrow definition. Simply asserting an opinion can be imposing your views.

You have made check back on what I have posted and... Nope. I didn't say that extra martial affairs are immoral. What I have said is that cheating is immoral.

Ah, a game of semantic hide and seek, is it?
"Extra marital affair" and "cheating" (in the context of marriage) are synonymous. You are going nowhere with this.

Does 'having a romantic or sexual affair without your spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend's consent' sound any better?

This is the 21st century. A woman does not need her husband/boyfriend's consent to have a sexual encounter with someone else.

 

[KWED]

Nor me, I had lamb chops and burgers in mind tbh. Weather's crap here though, so BBQ is out, I will be having leftover Indian food from last night. tandoori chicken biryani, keema naan bread and some chips (that's fries for anyone not from the UK).

Barbie in the garage.
That Indian sounds a bit carb heavy. I predict a bit of a nap after.

 

[Koldo]

You are using a very narrow definition. Simply asserting an opinion can be imposing your views.

How so?
By your rationale, merely claiming what you just did would be imposing your views upon me.
How is this a sensible approach to the term?

Ah, a game of semantic hide and seek, is it?
"Extra marital affair" and "cheating" (in the context of marriage) are synonymous. You are going nowhere with this.

But they are not synonymous. In an open relationship you can have an extra marital affair without cheating.

This is the 21st century. A woman does not need her husband/boyfriend's consent to have a sexual encounter with someone else.

If she (or he, no idea why you have mentioned women specifically) wants to behave morally she ought to ask for her spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend's consent. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks otherwise. That's the bare minimum.

 

[stvdv]

Yes, this is someone else explaining exactly what I was trying to explain to you

There is a clear difference between his reply and your reply

His reply I have no problem with, and I agree
Your reply is different, but if you can't see the difference
That is fine

I will put you in the
set of "animals"
subset "humans"
sub subset "I don't feed"

 

[Bathos Logos]

Your reply is different, but if you can't see the difference
That is fine

Please remember who first used an actual derogatory adjective to describe the other in our exchange. It was you. You called me arrogant and implied that I was being indecent. Please point out an instance where I called you anything at all in a derogatory manner.

 

[metis]

Would you like us to add this clarification to your OP?

Thank you as that would be better, and I should have done that from the get-go.

 

[metis]

A dog is a pet, and a pet is normally someone's friend or even a family member. Even though it is "just" an animal, there is an emotional attachment that qualifies it differently from farm animals raised to kill and be cut into meat chunks.

But in a sense, that's the point, namely if we eat some meat then we are eating a life form that has feelings and personality.

 

[metis]

Quite possible. When you are hungry, ever lizards have been eaten.

Then I guess that means you must run for your life!!!

 

[Vee]

But in a sense, that's the point, namely if we eat some meat then we are eating a life form that has feelings and personality.

True, and I feel guilty when I eat meat, which is not often, but it happens occasionally.

 

[metis]

True, and I feel guilty when I eat meat, which is not often, but it happens occasionally.

Ditto here, but my Sicilian wife loves to have an occasional Italian sausage [with fennel] on the barbi, so I usually cave in.

 

[KWED]

I have no misunderstanding. You claiming to know me, where you have no clue about me, that's arrogance. At least have the decency to phrase it as your opininion if you talk about me or others. Otherwise I won't reply

You made a statement that was factually wrong. Not a problem in itself. I sometimes do it (no, really!). The trick is to accept that you were wrong when it is demonstrated, thank the person for correcting you (either with sincerity or pass/agg, either will do), and move on.
Just a thought.