Comeone you are going around all “Hurr durr humans aren’t smarter than animals, we are so self-destructive” that’s an edgelord position if I’ve ever seen one
You know what I was typing up a whole argument about how the “if you are self-destrucive you are dumb and therefore an animal” logic is flawed but then I remembered I am on the internet and get to do this fun thing instead:
Humans aren’t smarter than animals because we are animals. We’re also not smarter than non-human animals either, as evidenced by our self-destructive behavior.
Great let’s dissect this then:
Firstly you are for some reason making the choice to ignore the common meaning of “animal” meaning (very broadly) non-human lifeform. Yeah yeah go ahead and nitpick about mushrooms and plants if you want to. Showing that you see animals and humans in the same category.
The first sentence thus becomes a tautology because you moved the goalpost to include humans in the term “animal”. I bet you felt clever about that. Just to then go ahead and make that same distinction but with more words “non-human animal”. Because, turns out, its a useful distinction to make. I’m gonna go ahead and ignore your ignoring of this and use “animal” to refer to “non-human animals”.
You claim that humans aren’t smarter than animals, which you further claim to be evidenced by the “self-destructivene behaviour” humans display. So you are at least saying that the level of intellect is dependent on the behaviour, and thus the actions, of a species. I’m now claiming that you putting animals and humans in the same catgegory stems from this false equivalence of intellects, which by your logic is dependent on the actions.
So yes, while you never explicitly said that “being an animal is a consequence of lack of intellect or of an action” your logic and phrasing make it clear that you see animals and humans in the same category, and the reason for that is the, according to you, equivalent level of intellect and actions.
Edit: I am forgetting my nettiquette again, so sorry!
Firstly you are for some reason making the choice to ignore the common meaning of “animal” meaning (very broadly) non-human lifeform.
That’s not a common meaning, it’s the morons’ meaning.
Showing that you see animals and humans in the same category.
As does anyone with a brain.
then go ahead and make that same distinction but with more words “non-human animal”
Are you braindead?
So you are at least saying that the level of intellect is dependent on the behaviour, and thus the actions, of a species.
No. Go back to 1st grade English, your ability to derive meaning from words is simply not there. Everything following this fallacy isn’t even worth talking about.
The word “animal” comes from the Latin animalis, meaning ‘having breath’, ‘having soul’ or ‘living being’. The biological definition includes all members of the kingdom Animalia. In colloquial usage, the term animal is often used to refer only to nonhuman animals.
So your argument here is basically “But I have big brain because I use the correct word as defined in biological science as opposed to the morons that use language colloquaillyon the internet”. Good job.
Showing that you see animals and humans in the same category.
As does anyone with a brain.
I mean yeah sure they are in the same category in the sense that both have evolved from the same basis. But humans have evolved further than animals, which is why there is commonly a distinction made between humans and animals without having to say non-human animals.
Examples are:
animal cruelty
animal rights
animal shelter
Obviously none of these relate to humans, because everyone with a brain uses the term animal to mean life that is not human.
Are you braindead?
It sure feels that way when I talk to you, because you are draining my will to live.
behaviour [SIC]
Imagine not knowing that behaviour is a valid spelling of the word everywhere but the place that had to drop the letter U from words to feel special. Time to make a few more rounds in the spelling bee
This sentence alone tells me you don’t have an inkling of a proper thought in your smooth marble of a brain. A biologist would punch you for saying that - I’m being nice, here.
Once again, your argumentation is fallacious and based on fallacious reasoning. I won’t address this moronic waste of time.
Are you a bot, or just really dumb? That phrase doesn’t even apply…
Comeone you are going around all “Hurr durr humans aren’t smarter than animals, we are so self-destructive” that’s an edgelord position if I’ve ever seen one
Got it, it was the second option.
You know what I was typing up a whole argument about how the “if you are self-destrucive you are dumb and therefore an animal” logic is flawed but then I remembered I am on the internet and get to do this fun thing instead:
No U
On top of it, you’re functionally illiterate, cool.
At no point did I state being an animal is a consequence of lack of intellect or of an action – go back to school, you clearly need it.
Great let’s dissect this then:
Firstly you are for some reason making the choice to ignore the common meaning of “animal” meaning (very broadly) non-human lifeform. Yeah yeah go ahead and nitpick about mushrooms and plants if you want to. Showing that you see animals and humans in the same category.
The first sentence thus becomes a tautology because you moved the goalpost to include humans in the term “animal”. I bet you felt clever about that. Just to then go ahead and make that same distinction but with more words “non-human animal”. Because, turns out, its a useful distinction to make. I’m gonna go ahead and ignore your ignoring of this and use “animal” to refer to “non-human animals”.
You claim that humans aren’t smarter than animals, which you further claim to be evidenced by the “self-destructivene behaviour” humans display. So you are at least saying that the level of intellect is dependent on the behaviour, and thus the actions, of a species. I’m now claiming that you putting animals and humans in the same catgegory stems from this false equivalence of intellects, which by your logic is dependent on the actions.
So yes, while you never explicitly said that “being an animal is a consequence of lack of intellect or of an action” your logic and phrasing make it clear that you see animals and humans in the same category, and the reason for that is the, according to you, equivalent level of intellect and actions.
Edit: I am forgetting my nettiquette again, so sorry!
No U
That’s not a common meaning, it’s the morons’ meaning.
As does anyone with a brain.
Are you braindead?
No. Go back to 1st grade English, your ability to derive meaning from words is simply not there. Everything following this fallacy isn’t even worth talking about.
Cambridge dictionary has both definitions, the more common one first
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/animal
Wikipedia has this to say:
So your argument here is basically “But I have big brain because I use the correct word as defined in biological science as opposed to the morons that use language colloquailly on the internet”. Good job.
I mean yeah sure they are in the same category in the sense that both have evolved from the same basis. But humans have evolved further than animals, which is why there is commonly a distinction made between humans and animals without having to say non-human animals.
Examples are:
Obviously none of these relate to humans, because everyone with a brain uses the term animal to mean life that is not human.
It sure feels that way when I talk to you, because you are draining my will to live.
Imagine not knowing that behaviour is a valid spelling of the word everywhere but the place that had to drop the letter U from words to feel special. Time to make a few more rounds in the spelling bee
This sentence alone tells me you don’t have an inkling of a proper thought in your smooth marble of a brain. A biologist would punch you for saying that - I’m being nice, here.
Once again, your argumentation is fallacious and based on fallacious reasoning. I won’t address this moronic waste of time.