something special and more worthy. So called homo sapiens fight with each other for the issues of castes,mate and material things. We are just like other animals . I don't think that human have developed some understandings but just developing equipments which he calls technology.
What are your views about human and thier ranting?
Species: H. sapiens
See... it says right there at the top that we are animals.
Ya, I also agree with you. We human beings are really animals and we think that we are superior. We came to a conclusion that we only have intelligence and every other creatures are our slaves. I think we are same as all other creatures and so we don't have the right to capture them or make them do as we wish.
No, we're not "animal".
That is, if you mean we're animals. Because we're not animals.
Even if some of us, or even all of us, act like animals sometimes.
"People are unique because they're self-aware!"
And so is everything else. Just because an animal can't proclaim that it's an individual doesn't mean they have no idea that they are.
"People are unique because they have language!"
And so do most birds, mammals, and primates. We have even identified the prairie dog word for "human."
"People are unique because they have souls!"
"People are unique because they have technology!"
Houses and tools are technology, and I'm fairly certain most animals have one or both of those.
So what does make people unique from every other animal? We commit genocide. We are literally the only animal that goes out of its way to exterminate humongous swaths of our own kind. Have a nice day, everyone!
Humans create artificial, non-innate languages that are unparalleled throughout the animal kingdom in representational complexity. No other animal comes close. If you have the DNA of a certain non-human species, it is likely that you will be communicating effectively with them. Do you innately understand Chinese, English, or Swahilli? Humans invented it, and this is just the edge of what makes their developments miraculous. It's strange to me that genocide is the only example you can think of that separates humans from animals. Why do you think humans do this? They have ideologies, which animals don't have. These things can be positive and negative. Animals will not be committing genocide because they do not have the higher mental awareness to even consider WHY one even may do that.
Humans also are not all genocidal creatures, they are individuals. Some humans are 'evil', others are 'saints', most are in between. I believe no other animals are like this. People tend to view the negative only when describing humans, and by doing so they illustrate the massive differences between humans and non-humans. Are humans special? Yes.
This was beautiful.
It's weird, just today my neighbor was speaking spanish to his dog, I realized that if that dog were retrained by an english speaking owner... he would be bi-lingual (and thereby smarter than me). At least I am supposing he could retain the memory of the spanish language. Not that this has a lot to do with anything, but how fortunate for me that this thread would appear and I would get to share that thought. lol
Thanks, I don't think a bilingual dog would be smarter than you. I'm not bilingual but I certainly know more words in another human language than a dog could. For instance in French I know 'stay', 'sit', and 'come' as well as some simple sentences. I'm sure I could rapidly learn simple phrases that a dog understands in any other language, but don't ask me to conjugate. However dogs don't even actually understand our language, they latch on to the first uttered word fragment as well as body language, they don't understand syntax. In contrast I understand a lot of the movements that my dog uses to communicate, and all of my other pets. I think that human individuals also have an unparalleled desire to understand and empathize with other species, yet people often claim the exact opposite.
Mentally Disabled Person=Low Intelligence
Mentally Disabled Person=Animal
Autistic Person=No Empathy
Ability to Communicate with spoken language=Human
Inability to Communicate with spoken language=Animal
Inability to Communicate with spoken language= Deaf/Mute
Dang, the disabled people are getting screwed here.
Hmm, I'm not so highly educated on the various mental handicaps and illnesses, but I have a feeling that some of those judgements you've made about all of them are probably not all entirely true. The "low and high" intelligence part is rather vague in my opinion. And human language is not just spoken. Not hearing it doesn't mean the understanding is not there. Human sign language is still vastly more complicated and representational than anything non-humans could conjure on their own. I think many autistic children operate on their own forms of empathy, it is just unique to us and expressed in a way we don't expect. However I think some animals have empathy.
Actually, 'intelligence' alone is not really an attribute that I would call 'human', it's what one does with said intelligence. Chimps and elephants are better than us at certain mathematical concepts. But can they perceive what 'math' is or why it is valuable?
Have you ever seen a flock of birds switch direction spontaneously and completely instep with each other? Humans couldn't hope to have that level of communication. Could you follow a communication trail comprised of nothing but scent to find food when the trail last hundreds possibly thousands of scale miles? Seems pretty complex to me.
Other primate species have learned sign language effectively. Some primates score as high as a six or seven year old on IQ tests. So if IQ is the factor, either the ape was human or a six year old child isn't.
So what's the difference between an animal operating on a form of empathy that humans don't understand and an autistic child acting on a form of empathy that humans don't understand? What makes the child not an animal and the animal and animal?
Probably not, as math is a completely man made concept. We made up sounds to express things we saw...
Just like dogs, cats... etc.
Human beings are animals. To deny a scientific fact just because you don't want to be associated with "lower" lifeforms is self-defensive. We have no greater purpose than any other animal on the planet, we have no higher status. We're not really even biologically at the top of the food chain.
Actually, people (human beings) who move deeply into harmony with their environment and each other are perfectly capable of such communication (communion, really) and flow. Watch a peloton in a bicycle race, or a mindful meal at a Zen center. And such Zen centers and spiritual centers in other traditions also create peace, joy, deep spiritual guidance, and profoundly beautiful art. This is the human animal at our best.
That's actually a great example of animal instinct. Birds do not learn that behavior, it is ingrained within them, and it is so for reasons of survival and evolution. We learn unnatural things, such as dancing in perfect synchrony.
That is a completely different process that requires intelligence and awareness. Commending the birds for flying in synch and animals for smelling better is like commending humans for being able to grow hair while birds just have feathers.
It's true that some (a very limited number) of great apes (our closest relatives) have learned -some- sign language, and who taught them that? I'm interested in how an ape can take an IQ test when they cannot read. I've never taken a test in my life that required no reading outside of physicality tests, I thought that was a perquisite. So I need to know what this IQ exam actually tests.
"So what's the difference between an animal operating on a form of empathy that humans don't understand and an autistic child acting on a form of empathy that humans don't understand?"
Nothing, some animals have empathy, although it is limited and species-specific. Humans not only have empathy, but awareness of it, and when they lack it, they know they should, or are expected to have it.
"What makes the child not an animal and the animal and animal?"
Wait no, I'm certainly not saying we're not the scientific definition animals. No one can make that argument. We are composed of cells, we grow, we reproduce. The topic of this thread is about us 'pretending to be special'. We're not pretending, we are. I don't think we're more 'worthy', but that sentence is meaningless to me.
A social species will always entitle its own species before another species. A wolf thinks a member of its own pack is 'more worthy' than us, and it's right. It's not surprising that humans take care of their own kind, as animals do...because we're animals. And yet it is strange that only humans are criticized for doing this, while animals are given credit when they care a mere fraction as much as we do about another animal.
Some definitions use the term 'animal' to describe non-humans:
[an-uh-muhl] Show IPA
1. 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: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.
***2. any such living thing other than a human being.
3. a mammal, as opposed to a fish, bird, etc.
4. the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of human beings; animality: the animal in every person.
5. an inhuman person; brutish or beastlike person: She married an animal.
Therefore it is correct to state that we are not animals. In terms of having a greater status, well humans are absolutely on the top of the food chain because we are exceptionally adaptable and manipulative of our environment. We can hunt -anything- and alter enormous expanses of land. We can domesticate other animals/plants and keep others that aren't. We are the 'dominant species' in an unparalleled sense. If you think that just because a lion can hunt a defenseless single human, that it is lower on the food chain, I disagree. Humans are unique in that they have evolved to create and use tools. Many of our physical features reveal our coevolution and dependency on our technological advances, such as our small teeth resulting from learning to manipulate fire and cook food.
I'll do a longer answer later but IQ in non-verbals is tested using the TONI test for one.
There are also task-equivalent tests and observation. Problem solving tests, puzzles etc. Many parts of a traditional IQ tests are non-verbal as well.
It's been argued that reading skill is a biased measure for IQ anyway as it measures learning, not intelligence.
Isn't learning a part of intelligence? If chimps are too mentally inflexible to learn to read, I'm not sure how that provides evidence for them measuring up to us. Humans solve tasks and do other extraordinarily demanding forms of thinking. I would bet this would give non-humans an advantage in seeing patterns since they are more simplistic.
In addition, I can guarantee that a 6 year old chimp is smarter, both in awareness and intelligence, than an infant human. Is it really fair to pit old adult animals against still developing humans?
Beware, you should probably post out of this thread as it's getting squished.
The ability to learn is part of intelligence; what is actually learned is not. A good thing, or any chimp is much smarter than you are.
After all, you haven't learned their language, you can't find your own food in the wild, you haven't learned their culture. You haven't even learned how to properly groom or the satisfaction from eating what you find! We must be stupid indeed not to have learned such simple things.
Or, just maybe, different species learn different things because that's what is important to them?
wilderness, many humans live in the 'wild' and do just that. I don't know how to do it because I haven't even attempted it before. I can assure you that I could learn how to find food in the wild, in fact, most animals would not be able to do so if removed from their environment. They have a combination of instinct, and some parental learning. Finding food for many is the ONLY task they will ever learn. I have learned and adapted to forging for food in grocery marts.
Humans have learned animal language, or at least that of which is not embedded in instinct or inaccessible due to our sensory limitations. Is staying alive important to animals? Then why haven't they learned to evade us?
Not at all. The ability to read has nothing to do with IQ.
If I was comparing infant to infant, I would say that the baby animal wins in straight intelligence pretty much across the board. Almost every other mammal in this world is capable of problem solving and reasoning much earlier than a human infant.
As far as seeing patterns, yes that is a measure of intelligence in human IQ tests, it's called spacial reasoning. It's part of logic. It's not simplistic at all... as a matter of fact, it is the least common category to be "gifted" in IQ tests. Coincidentally, it is generally exceptionally low in those who have high verbal aptitude. It is also required to be considered a "genius" as it is part of composite score.
You seem to be going on the assumption that verbal aptitude is the only component to human intelligence. It's not. Not by a long shot. It, in fact, is arguably one of the least important components. It really serves no purpose. Average or even low verbal aptitude is quite sufficient for every day life.
I never cited IQ as a quality that separates humans from animals--you are arguing to me a point I never made. I'm not an expert on the aspects of what defines IQ is, but by what you describe, it is not even relevant to my points about what makes humans more mentally aware and advanced. I would be far more interested if a chimp, as I could accomplish, could learn what an IQ is. They can't.
So if empathy isn't what separates animals from humans, and intelligence isn't what separates animals from humans...Both of are what you claimed at some point during your argument, then claimed neither.
Er.. exactly what was it?
Animals use tools, build homes, create societies- even complex societies- communicate... I'm missing what your point is.
If you are arguing that technological dependence is what differentiates humans from animals and that somehow makes us someone superior... We can go all day about how birds don't fall from the sky in fiery deaths and how a lion won't starve to death because an artificial bartering system build on worthless paper collapses.
No, you brought up those things. I never claimed 'animals' (and this is only a few animals by the way) lacked empathy, tool-use, home building, or societies. In terms of societies, all animal societies are innate and non-artificial. I notice that many who do not agree with my stance try and argue the crude definition of things. That's why I would never say "animals don't have societies". Some animals have societies, but they are not artificial societies. Human societies and cultures have no definable traits. Perhaps many people fail to see why humans are so unique, because they keep bringing up the insubstantial qualities of humans and ignoring the profound.
Where in the world are you getting your definitions?
An iguana is not an animal? Or a shark? With only two kingdoms, will you put an amoeba in the "plant" kingdom?
How did a human, nearly identical to a chimp and fulfilling all the requirements for "animal", get removed from the animal kingdom?
Sounds like someone doesn't like the inference of the terminology so decided to change it.
It's from http://dictionary.reference.com/
Interesting - I found the same type of thing in several dictionaries. I did not, find anything like any but the first definition in any biology text or dissertation and even that was much better defined.
Guess I just like exact definitions rather than something that fits in with an emotional or religious response to the question. Semantics can be wonderful, can't it?
They need a word for 'non-human'. Surprised there isn't more.
There is lots of precedent; legally for instance, humans are not animals and vice-versa. We call each other "animals" when doing something requiring great strength or speed, and mean it as complimentary; something more than human. Or derogatorily in other cases.
And, of course, many are highly offended by the idea we are an animal or feel that God has declared it otherwise.
It just didn't occur to me to use any of those "definitions" in the context of this thread but they are certainly there.
Not to mention the need for us to separate ourselves artificially to maintain the illusion that we are somehow more worthy than every other living thing on the planet.
It's related to how individuals are then more worthy than other individuals.
After all, how can you have racial/cultural superiority if you don't even have superiority of species.
Also, if you were about to enter a building, and someone told you there were animals inside, would you interpret that as, there are humans inside? I think that it is well-established now that the word animals can refer to non-humans.
We have something no other animal has been able to control:
We are animals. The rationalist effort to separate us from the animal kingdom, promoted by Rousseau, was a big mistake.
Every animal is unique. Elephants, for example, I believe, have the longest noses. But they are not unique in having noses.
And so human beings are unique in having the most complex language, and in having certain qualities of self-awareness not known to be present in other animals.
Our behavior is unique in that we do a thing called pseudospeciation. All other animals know which animals are members of their own species, and which are not, and generally act differently towards their own kind. Human beings are capable of identifying themselves with a group smaller than all of the human species, and then dehumanizing the rest. This is called pseudospeciation, and is the basis of genocide, war, and other horrors.
Human beings also have a unique capability to invent with great variety. Each songbird creates a unique song, but only once, then keeps it for life. Each animal reshapes its environment. People create many different things and reshape our environments in many different ways.
May we learn to do so truthfully and in peace, in harmony with all other species and with Life itself.
Are you saying that animals do not separate into groups and identify only with their associates? I just don't understand why people only bring up negative 'animalistic' things about humans. Yet I'm called negative for bringing up the positives. I can't win
Melissa, you misunderstand me. I really appreciate what you are doing. Of course, animals, like humans, divide into groups. But groups of animals treat other groups of the same species very differently than they treat members of other species. For example, monkeys live in groups. The groups fight and bicker with one another. Monkeys kill and eat termites for food. But monkeys never say, "that group of monkeys are just termites, let's kill and eat them." Murder and cannibalism are very rare among animals. Abortion is rare. Among humans, though, these habits can become endemic and go on for decades and centuries. That is the unique quality of pseudospeciation.
On your other point, I do not separate qualities as either "animal" or "human." Take breathing, as an example. Almost all life - even plants - use oxygen. So we share that with many living beings. Animals breathe. So that is an animal quality. The rate and pace of breathing varies with effort and with the state of the body. Changing the breathing can induce peace, rest, healing, or rage. We share that with mammals. But humans, uniquely, can be aware of the breath, choose when to breathe in different ways, guide the breath for speaking and singing new songs. Humans, alone, can get caught in ill patterns of breathing and consciously restore healing by resuming natural breath.
Song, to, we share with wolves and birds, and yet we do so much more with it.
Our human qualities include and grow from animal qualities, and are also unquely human.
As for good and bad, I focus on nourishing that which brings joy, peace, healing and creativity. And I gently attend to harmful qualities, so they rest and quiet down.
And I appreciate what you think and write, no matter what anyone else does.
Well thanks, I see exactly what you're saying now. I think you are illustrating aspects of human behavior that are applicable to my definitions of why they are unique among animals, yet you are exploring a very small piece of it. As I've explained to another poster, humans, unlike animals, have a high degree of artificial behavior. Humans shape their own culture, beliefs, ideology, which indeed DOES have a basis in their original instincts. Such as the chimps that fight with other groups of chimps. This instinct which has been shaped by evolution is within us, and is the basis of why things like genocide, gangs, ect. occur.
However, we have a mind that makes these changes exceedingly plastic. They can turn out in many different forms, which is why I said to someone else that humans do not have definable behavior, unlike animals. I can make a blanket statement about the behavior of a monkey species (note, specific species, not monkeys as a whole), but this cannot be done with humans. I can't even say that all human societies are patriarchal.
Therefore, why do animals not commit abortion? Well, if an animal were going to do that it would need to be an instinct that would even give them the motivation and capability. With cannibalism, the few animals that do this have evolved to, and the one's that haven't, haven't. Unless an animal is opportunistic and desperate, ect. Animals are about basic means of survival, and humans are not when they have the luxury. This is because of their advanced intelligence and awareness. And actually, this is also just a fragment of what makes us 'special'.
I agree with your analysis, people are no different than other creatures upon this Earth. We all fight for food. We all live and die. We fight among ourselves, no different than many other creatures. We compete for mates, no different than other creatures. We struggle to dominate, no different that other creatures. We believe ourselves as more important than all other species. Can we truly and honestly argue that we are unique? Other creatures will eat us. Use us as food. Dominate us. If possible. Why do humans think themselves unique spiritually? Is not the reason because we are we? How do we know other creatures do not believe themselves unique spiritually? It is easy for humans to say all other creatures lack a "soul." But do they? Do we have a soul? Don't humans just make up things like a "soul" to prove themselves as unique. As special. As a godlike?
It is easy as the dominant species on the planet. It is easy as the technological superior species on the planet. To believe it is our planet. The planet was made for us. We are unique. We are special. And we have a right to dominant. To kill. To use other creatures as food, clothing, pets, transportation, entertainment and any other use we can think of for chattel and slaves. But this is because we can dominant them. So we justify the terrible things we do to other creatures. We justify it because we need to do so to survive. We justify it by telling ourselves if not dominated, these other creatures would interfere with our ability to survive and live the lives we desire. We denigrate all other species to salve our egos. To feed our delusions of godliness. To give an answer to why we exist. To make ourselves feel special. But are we really any different? Are we really anymore godly than the least technologically aware creature on this planet? We all need to eat. We all need to procreate for our species to survive. We all need to struggle with the environment to survive. We all need to deal with each other and other species to survive. We all need other species to survive. We all lack definitive answers to our questions of spirit and soul. We are the same. We are all unique. And none of us are unique.
"Can we truly and honestly argue that we are unique?"
"And we have a right to dominant. To kill. To use other creatures as food, clothing, pets, transportation, entertainment and any other use we can think of for chattel and slaves. But this is because we can dominant them."
You've just said that we are nothing but animals, so why would we not have the right to do as animals do and eat other animals? For us to even consider that we do not have the 'right' to do something, is made up, just like the concept of a 'soul'. Animals are impulsive and instinctual in the wild. They do not need to justify their behaviors. An ego is what ever single animal has, and if you are criticizing humans for this, why aren't you doing so with all other animals that you claim we are not above?
"We all need other species to survive."
Melissa A. Smith,
I respect your passion for human kind, but "me thinks you protest too much." I said we are unique and we are not unique. Can you really argue that other creatures do not have features and qualities that are unique?
And, I beg to differ with you that "yes" we do need other species to survive. For one example, if we do not eat organic food we die. Another example, plants and specific water thriving species are necessary for life on this Earth. Another example, we have microorganisms living within our bodies necessary for our survival. We live in a terrarium. We live in a closed system. Called the planet Earth. We are dependent on other species to live.
As far as our little friends who live within us. "Over the past 10 years or so, researchers have demonstrated that the human body is not such a neatly self-sufficient island after all. It is more like a complex ecosystem—a social network—containing trillions of bacteria and other microorganisms that inhabit our skin, genital areas, mouth and especially intestines. In fact, most of the cells in the human body are not human at all. Bacterial cells in the human body outnumber human cells 10 to one. Moreover, this mixed community of microbial cells and the genes they contain, collectively known as the microbiome, does not threaten us but offers vital help with basic physiological processes—from digestion to growth to self-defense."
Your argument that we have a "right" to dominant demands the existence of some god or other that gives us that right. Rights are something we earn amongst humans by human laws or they we argue are given us by some "dominant godly" entity. Otherwise, no creature has a "right" to anything. A right is no different than a "soul." Imaginary and man-made. Personally your argument for dominance sounds cold and cruel. If you believe that we have a "soul," how can you argue away the lives and right to exist of other creatures so coldly? Even if you believe as me that humans have no soul, are you claiming other species besides humans do not think, feel a reason to live and or feel pain? I feel it cold and callous to believe I have a right to kill and eat and bring pain to any creature just because I am me. I would never kick my dog. I would not eat my dog, because on a whim I felt he looked good to eat. I believe my dog loves me. He has shown he will protect me. He has shown a loyalty to me. But I suppose that is only "instinct" and he is an empty soulless shell that I should kill and eat when I am tired of him.
As far as instinct verses intelligence, that is human kind at its most egotistical. As far as all species on this planet we are aware, human kind has done some amazing things at manipulation of the planets elements. Everything from extending our lives to reaching the stars. Squirrels have not landed a squirrel on the moon. But of course neither have me or you. But if you exam the many other species on this planet and their daily lives you would discover that they accomplish some pretty amazing things. You would discover that "intelligence" does exist in other species. Instinct is basically a word created by a dominating species to elevate the dominant species in its own mind to a god-like level and with the further intent to justify its survival and non-survival acts of cruelty to other species.
My point being, we are one creature amongst many. One life amongst many. We are special in many ways. But we are far from unique in many other ways. We should respect all life on this planet. We do not have to be godlike to exist. We merely need to be human.
"And, I beg to differ with you that "yes" we do need other species to survive."
My bad, my brain read that as "we need ALL species to survive", I don't think that's what you were saying.
"Your argument that we have a "right" to dominant demands the existence of some god or other that gives us that right. "
No, that's not my argument. I explicitly stated as you did that the concept of a soul is made up, just like the concept of rights. And if it is just a made up expression of human ego, then you cannot tell me that I have "no right" to do something to an animal because you believe I am nothing but an 'animal'. Do you know how many hungry animals turn up a meal because they feel sorry for their prey? Zero.
I have no desire to eat my dog...I don't eat dogs and I'm not tired of her as a companion. Hence, I won't be eating her.
"Instinct is basically a word created by a dominating species..."
If you're going to try to deny the existence of instinct in animal behavior then it's likely I'm not going to convince you of anything. I think that defies rationale. Instinct exists. Instinct is what makes my pet genet such a good hunter. No experience, practice, innovation needed. They are born with it. I'm not going to support the proliferation of mistruths because it feels "cold".
I think I will write a reply here, but let you have the last word. It is obvious we will not agree.
I never said, creatures do not eat other creatures. You imply humans are above other creatures. If that is so, why are humans so cold and cruel to other creatures. You infer that if "they" aim to eat us, then we have a "right" to eat them first. That sounds pretty cold and "instinctual" in nature. I thought other species acted instinctively. Could it be humans do too? I never claimed other species do not have or act on instinct. And you never claimed human beings act on instinct, but humans do act on instinct. What I am saying that you are not is that many species act upon instinct and many species have intelligence. But the word "instinct" is a word used to smudge the meaning of intelligence. It is an insult to other species to proclaim that their brains only react instinctively and do not calculate or think. I suggest reading a little more on this subject and you will discover that there are many species that scientists will agree have a form of intelligence. Many species that think. Species that think, not merely react.
You misunderstand my suggestion of tiring of your dog and eating her. That was written suggested to point out that any species, as you stated, that has a "right" to dominate all other species, has a right to eat and do what they will with other species. Maybe you are attempting to qualify domination and limiting what the dominating species can do. I suggest watching some films of slaughter houses and the treatment of cattle. And when you watch these films, imagine yourself or your child as one of those cows in the slaughter house. Do you really believe the baby calves do not fear death? That they only have an instinct to survive, so they cannot understand pain and death? And as far as it being okay to kill other species since they would kill us if they could. I cannot think of one instance when I felt threatened by a cow.
So yes, despite your protestations, my arguments are rational. And I hope you can agree to disagree. Maybe one of the biggest differences between you and I is that I am secure and comfortable in my place in the Universe as one of many species. You seem to feel threatened by the possibility that other species could mean as much in life as your species means in life. I do not need to feel superior. I do not feel I have to dominate every species. I do not have to feel I have to subjugate all other species to feel secure and unafraid of life and death. I recognize I am and will be in constant conflict with many species of life on this planet. I recognize and I am grateful that humans have developed means to keep other humans from harms that we can otherwise suffer from certain aggressive species, big and microcosmic in size and numbers. But I also recognize that all species of life on this planet want to live. And I value the life of my family, friends and myself. But I also appreciate other species may place a value on their existence and I am okay with that. We need each other. We all live in a terrarium. None of us can exist off the planet unless tethered thereto. And I am okay with that. That is life. That is the world. That is what makes life what it is.
Your final paragraph was highly self-celebratory and, well...egotistical
I this, I that...read that back to yourself.
I'm just having a discussion and you've resorted to judging my character, accusing me of suggesting animals feel no pain, that I am not educated on animal intelligence, ect.
You're putting words in my mouth, and inventing my arguments. I think your claims have contradictions, and they just keep piling up.
I challenge you, place quotes by me in front of all of your written assumptions to show they are valid. Really, try it.
Some people appear to have issues with addressing my arguments. Why why why...I have my own theories but the thread is not supposed to be about that.
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 6 years ago
Just a curiosity. Do animal lovers love human beings?
by Xenonlit 6 years ago
Is a society failing when it gives less jail time for killing a person than for killing an animal?Throughout history societies have developed all sorts of warped and twisted moral and legal systems based on the ability of some to convince others. Killing an animal for a thrill or for the wrong...
by Darrell Roberts 23 months ago
What does it mean to be human being?As I am getting more advanced in my age ( I never get old), I was pondering on what makes a person a human being?
by Yves 3 years ago
Are humans "higher" than the animal kingdom? Furthermore, can animals choose evil over love?This is a two-part question. I've come across a few who believe that evil does NOT exist, that we are the same as animals---the logic being that evil is a choice. But, do animals choose...
by A Thousand Words 6 years ago
Now, this is not really an "attack" on Christianity. My goal is instead to ask an important question. According to many Christians, homosexuality and anything that is different from what they consider to be traditional, God-ordained "common sense" and order in the human world is...
by Jennifer Madison 4 years ago
Are humans superior to animals?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|