<p>Yeah my friend is weird and she needs help. lol</p>
<p>@ John 117:</p>
<p>Really, well I don’t blame you. I would’ve try to save both, because eagles are endangered animals and I wouldn’t want them to be extinct.</p>
<p>Heads up again Romani: In terms of bio classification. “Molecular phylogenetics, which uses DNA sequences as data, has driven many recent revisions and is likely to continue to do so.”</p>
<p>Romani, you are BEAST!</p>
<p>I thought beast was a complementary term. <em>confused</em></p>
<p>I was just going to take it as a compliment. I really liked Beast from Beauty and the Beast a whole lot more than Beauty. But, the teapot beat all of them!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s fabulous, with the small problem that we humans made up that list…</p>
<p>But yes, biologically our bodies are animals. But we have something more that some animals may have but if they did we would never know. It’s called conciousness. As far as we know, no animal can think “I am an animal”.</p>
<p>I’m not going to lie; most people who care about animals more than humans disgust me.</p>
<p>I’m also not going to argue about the semantics of saying “non-human animals.” The point of writing is effective communication. Any literate English speaker can understand my above sentence as is, making the insertion of “non-human” unnecessary and redundant.</p>
<p>@romani: The chef in the kitchen beats of the teapot by a fair amount… Rule of fantasy #235: When attacking a castle where everything is alive, do not under any circumstances enter the kitchen. Enchanted living cutlery is bad news.</p>
<p>^^ it’s not semantics, it’s a world-view that not all the world shares. I believe the correct term you’re looking for is an incovenient truth.</p>
<p>^ I’m still going with teapot. It’s Angela Lansbury! You can’t argue with the queen :)</p>
<p>Romani, it clearly is semantics. We don’t constantly refer to our pets as non-human animals, do we? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>^Bad argument. That would be like calling an orange a non-apple fruit. It doesn’t make sense unless you are talking about ALL fruits that are not apples.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, it pretty clearly is an issue of semantics. In almost any context, and certainly in this situation, it is not necessary to clarify that one means non-human animals when one writes animals. If I’m writing simply for the sake of clarity, including “non-human” is unnecessary.
Nothing I wrote in my previous post indicated or implied that it was either false or inconvenient that humans were animals.</p>
<p>*Bad argument. That would be like calling an orange a non-apple fruit. *</p>
<p>Um, are you responding to me? I’m arguing against that.</p>
<p>Having read philosophy papers on biological ethics, I know that “non-human animals” is the term used in many of these papers.</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>Anyways, that being said, if <em>everyone</em> started caring a lot more about animals than about humans, then there would be a lot more reason to care more about humans than about animals. But right now, the pendulum is way over to the other side.</p>
<p>Okay, i’ve become impatient enough. Where are those budding entomologists who love insects more than humans, and perhaps, dare i say, love insects over animals? i want answers!</p>
<p>
Let me introduce you to the mosquito.</p>
<p>Mosquitos suck!</p>
<p>^Case in point.</p>
<p>i’m itching to end this thread.</p>
<p>
Lol, good one.</p>
<p>
I didn’t state my point very well. I was just saying that ‘non-human’ would be superfluous. In Millancads case, you could make an argument that just ‘animal’ is ambiguous, but in this case, it doesn’t make any difference. I don’t think I’m saying this very well :/</p>