Do you consider Humans to be Animals?

[Northwest Slobovia]

Why?



^Why?

We're seriously fucking up the ecosystem and we have enough nuclear weapons to cleanse the earth of almost all life.

True on one, but we're also the only animal able to clean up the "ecosystem" to suit us if we think it's too dirty.

False on two. We could probably wipe ourselves out with an out-all nuclear exchange, but even that's not certain. We're damn resilient species. We could probably wipe out all of the other land vertebrates with a nuclear war, and do a number on the sea vertebrates, but the invertebrates have survived far worse than what we can dish out, and I doubt we could do much more than annoy the microbes for a while.

[Huskvarneque]

So the fact that we simply made laws makes us better.... uhhuh... Did you know in some wolf packs, it actually violates the Alpha wolfs "law" for another pack member to mate with a female? That right there shows that animals can have a form of government, and a form of laws to govern that group.

I also might add that I don't get how being "sub-human" means anything, you're sub-wolf, sub-otter, sub-cougar because you don't possess some of the adaptations they possess.... Again with humans thinking everything about them is superior.

No, that is inherited instinctual behaviour.

I am not making a value judgement when I say 'sub-human' I am simply distinguishing humanity from all of the other animals, we have a certain skill that no other animal posses as we are, thus, distinct. For example, if Chimpanzee started to formulate systems of ruler-ship or morality distinct from their inherited hierarchical instinct then I would consider them 'non-human' but not 'sub-human' as they would then posses the skill that distinguishes from all other animals.

Again, other animals posses certain skills we don't have, your still not making sense. Just because we posses certain skills/traits doesn't make us any better, all animals exhibit different traits/skills, saying that our certain skill set is somehow far better is a bit far-fetched.

Also, if it were instinctual, it would be that way in all packs. Different packs have different ways of running, while some only allow the Alpha pair to mate, other's allow any member pair to mate. Also, is it instinctual for some wolves to actually stay with their chosen mate for life? Monogamy isn't exactly something to be benefited from. Care to explain that?

[The Emerald Legion]

We're seriously fucking up the ecosystem and we have enough nuclear weapons to cleanse the earth of almost all life.

True on one, but we're also the only animal able to clean up the "ecosystem" to suit us if we think it's too dirty.

False on two. We could probably wipe ourselves out with an out-all nuclear exchange, but even that's not certain. We're damn resilient species. We could probably wipe out all of the other land vertebrates with a nuclear war, and do a number on the sea vertebrates, but the invertebrates have survived far worse than what we can dish out, and I doubt we could do much more than annoy the microbes for a while.

Ironically it's believed a small nuclear war would do a lot to alleviate global warming.

[Jagalonia]

So, humans have intellect, what else? Quite frankly all we have is our intelligence, we don't have hearing as good as some animals, out sense of smell is just ridiculous, we can't run real fast, we don't have a jaw-full of sharp teeth to fight with, we don't have sharp claws, we can't sense when an earthquake will strike... the list keep going. Without that little bit of intellect we have, we'd be a weak species. Sorry, having just one thing over other's isn't much of a divider, animals have advantages that we don't have, and we have some they don't.

And in D&D 3.5 all wizards have is spellcasting. Still doesn't stop them from easily curbstomping everything else.

Despite being a broken system....I'm forced to agree...=.=

[Periodspace]

Yes, we are animals. Though humans are set apart from other animals with some unique characteristics (i.e. articulate speech). But all animals have their own unique characteristics.

[Fashiontopia]

We are Lions... Humans were the true kings of the jungle in early times. When we began making more advanced technology we just extended our tools for ruling. We are the only animals that stand straight up and have fully possible thumbs as well as far superior mental ability and communication skills. Therefore, naturally we rule.

[Hydralis]

Yes, humans are animals. The only difference is that we are sentient animals. I do believe that eventually, other animals will begin to learn how to advance themselves. Chimpanzees already use tools, have warfare between packs, and even a trading system. www.cracked.com for the article on that. Just search "Chimpanzee" and you'll find it.

[The Darwinian People]

No, that is inherited instinctual behaviour.

I am not making a value judgement when I say 'sub-human' I am simply distinguishing humanity from all of the other animals, we have a certain skill that no other animal posses as we are, thus, distinct. For example, if Chimpanzee started to formulate systems of ruler-ship or morality distinct from their inherited hierarchical instinct then I would consider them 'non-human' but not 'sub-human' as they would then posses the skill that distinguishes from all other animals.

Again, other animals posses certain skills we don't have, your still not making sense. Just because we posses certain skills/traits doesn't make us any better, all animals exhibit different traits/skills, saying that our certain skill set is somehow far better is a bit far-fetched.

Also, if it were instinctual, it would be that way in all packs. Different packs have different ways of running, while some only allow the Alpha pair to mate, other's allow any member pair to mate. Also, is it instinctual for some wolves to actually stay with their chosen mate for life? Monogamy isn't exactly something to be benefited from. Care to explain that?

Firstly; we posses a skill that no other animal posses. Other animals might posses skills that we do not; but they are not distinct to that species alone because they are genetic.

Secondly, monogamy can be arrived from an instinctual perspective; the desire to create a stable parentage for potential offspring due to increased experience (giving a small amount of offspring a good chance of survival as opposed to give a large amount of offspring a poor chance of survival). But only that, but monogamy can simply be based in a strong emotional relationship which I am not denying exists within the greater animal kingdom but it is not necessarily the result of an artificial moral code.

[Northwest Slobovia]

True on one, but we're also the only animal able to clean up the "ecosystem" to suit us if we think it's too dirty.

False on two. We could probably wipe ourselves out with an out-all nuclear exchange, but even that's not certain. We're damn resilient species. We could probably wipe out all of the other land vertebrates with a nuclear war, and do a number on the sea vertebrates, but the invertebrates have survived far worse than what we can dish out, and I doubt we could do much more than annoy the microbes for a while.

Ironically it's believed a small nuclear war would do a lot to alleviate global warming.

Well, sure, killing a bunch of people will do that. It wouldn't surprise me if there's some eco-wacko out there who thinks that a nuclear war between the US and China would be Just Great.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Secondly, monogamy can be arrived from an instinctual perspective;

I would hope so, since there are plenty of monogamous and/or nearly monogamous critters.

But only that, but monogamy can simply be based in a strong emotional relationship which I am not denying exists within the greater animal kingdom but it is not necessarily the result of an artificial moral code.

Yup. People have suggested that human monogamy (or polygamy with a small number of wives) is the result of tribes attempting to prevent the current head honcho from winning the genetic lottery by having tons of kids by different women. This is one of the oddities of our species: there aren't many species where the subordinate members gang up on the dominant ones to keep them in check.

[Duck Duck Evolution]

Yes, we are animals. Though humans are set apart from other animals with some unique characteristics (i.e. articulate speech). But all animals have their own unique characteristics.

Other animals have their own way of speaking too.

[Straight From Above]

Secondly, monogamy can be arrived from an instinctual perspective;

I would hope so, since there are plenty of monogamous and/or nearly monogamous critters.

But only that, but monogamy can simply be based in a strong emotional relationship which I am not denying exists within the greater animal kingdom but it is not necessarily the result of an artificial moral code.

Yup. People have suggested that human monogamy (or polygamy with a small number of wives) is the result of tribes attempting to prevent the current head honcho from winning the genetic lottery by having tons of kids by different women. This is one of the oddities of our species: there aren't many species where the subordinate members gang up on the dominant ones to keep them in check.

Our true gift. To be able to do Revenge of the Nerds on a species wide scale...

[Artanili Datium]

Kingdom : Animalia.


Yep we are Animals.

[Straight From Above]

Kingdom : Animalia.


Yep we are Animals.

You can't believe everything scientific taxonomy says.

I mean, technically we're also Chordata, but look at the Labor Party. No backbone at all.

I'm kidding, we don't have a labor party where I live. At least not one on the ballot.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Kingdom : Animalia.


Yep we are Animals.

You can't believe everything scientific taxonomy says.

I mean, technically we're also Chordata, but look at the Labor Party. No backbone at all.

I'm kidding, we don't have a labor party where I live. At least not one on the ballot.

Those definitions are on relationships, not physical characteristics. Those are just used colloquially, for the most part. The physical characteristics are useful in determining which is more related to which, but not the deciding factor. Birds are more like bats than snakes, but they're more closely related to snakes.

[Straight From Above]

You can't believe everything scientific taxonomy says.

I mean, technically we're also Chordata, but look at the Labor Party. No backbone at all.

I'm kidding, we don't have a labor party where I live. At least not one on the ballot.

Those definitions are on relationships, not physical characteristics. Those are just used colloquially, for the most part. The physical characteristics are useful in determining which is more related to which, but not the deciding factor. Birds are more like bats than snakes, but they're more closely related to snakes.

Goddamn animals and their inside parts. Or whatever.

Jeez, I honestly thought what put you in CHordata was being vertebrate, having a spine.

Goddamn scientists and your increasingly refined differentiations!!!!

[Tlaceceyaya]

Those definitions are on relationships, not physical characteristics. Those are just used colloquially, for the most part. The physical characteristics are useful in determining which is more related to which, but not the deciding factor. Birds are more like bats than snakes, but they're more closely related to snakes.

Goddamn animals and their inside parts. Or whatever.

Jeez, I honestly thought what put you in CHordata was being vertebrate, having a spine.

Goddamn scientists and your increasingly refined differentiations!!!!

No, but that's a common misconception. Some people in my class refuse to accept that birds are dinosaurs (despite dinosaurs meaning anything in Dinosauria and anything in Dinosauria meaning anything descended from the cut-off point) based on the "extinct reptile" definition.

[Straight From Above]

No, but that's a common misconception. Some people in my class refuse to accept that birds are dinosaurs (despite dinosaurs meaning anything in Dinosauria and anything in Dinosauria meaning anything descended from the cut-off point) based on the "extinct reptile" definition.

If I were a dinosaur, I'd be happier my descendants just became smaller and feathered than I would be if they'd just ended.

[Hyrule-Guardia]

Well, we ingest our food, so yes, we are animals.

[Mavorpen]

Yes, humans are animals. The only difference is that we are sentient animals. I do believe that eventually, other animals will begin to learn how to advance themselves. Chimpanzees already use tools, have warfare between packs, and even a trading system. http://www.cracked.com for the article on that. Just search "Chimpanzee" and you'll find it.

We aren't the only sentient animal.

[Straight From Above]

Yes, humans are animals. The only difference is that we are sentient animals. I do believe that eventually, other animals will begin to learn how to advance themselves. Chimpanzees already use tools, have warfare between packs, and even a trading system. http://www.cracked.com for the article on that. Just search "Chimpanzee" and you'll find it.

We aren't the only sentient animal.

Especially if you include Orks.

[Mavorpen]

Well, we ingest our food, so yes, we are animals.

Have you ever heard of phagocytosis?

[Straight From Above]

Well, we ingest our food, so yes, we are animals.

Have you ever heard of phagocytosis?

Isn't that the Greek name for "Rick Santorum"?

[Mavorpen]

Have you ever heard of phagocytosis?

Isn't that the Greek name for "Rick Santorum"?

No, Rick Santorum means something else.

[Straight From Above]

Isn't that the Greek name for "Rick Santorum"?

No, Rick Santorum means something else.

Right on.

Are there plants that ingest prey? Like that "Feed Me Seymour" thing...Audrey II. Like that but probably it doesn't sing.

Although that would be an awesome Phylum. "Cantoria".