Do you consider Humans to be Animals?

[Sioux Center]

No, we are above t#at...

[Vousielle]

No, we are above t#at...

I'm curious, why do you persist in using the pound sign instead of an H?

[Mavorpen]

No, we are above t#at...

Funny, I think my dog can spell "that" correctly while it seems you cannot.

[Straight From Above]

No, we are above t#at...

I'm curious, why do you persist in using the pound sign instead of an H?

I know, right? When I see "#" in a word, I think its covering a profanity.

So, I read "t#at" as "twat".

[Sioux Center]

No, we are above t#at...

I'm curious, why do you persist in using the pound sign instead of an H?

Somet#ing I do to distinguis# myself...I find languages interesting...

[Vousielle]

From elsewhere:

You can #ave a perfectly #appy life wit#out religion...t#e question is w#at will #appen AFTER LIFE! ! ! !

I'm curious, why do you persist in using the pound sign instead of an H?

Somet#ing I do to distinguis# myself...I find languages interesting...

It is certainly distinguishing, but perhaps not in the way you intend. I say abandon it, and distinguish yourself through words and deeds.

[Hetland 2]

I'm curious, why do you persist in using the pound sign instead of an H?

Somet#ing I do to distinguis# myself...I find languages interesting...

Not going to lie. Its kinda obnoxious.

[Mavorpen]

I'm curious, why do you persist in using the pound sign instead of an H?

Somet#ing I do to distinguis# myself...I find languages interesting...

Ebonics is nowhere near interesting.

[R Ev0lution]

From a biological standpoint, yes.

But, in the common lingo, we typically make the distinction between ourselves and other animals, because we like to think we're better.

[Yo is that your new ride]

Yes and no. I think that biologically we are, not in any denial there. However, I do not think so because we can do some things that other animals cannot. For example, have you ever heard a dolphin say "Pardon me, sir, but can I have some water?"? Most likely not.
I am not going to say that we are advanced animals: there are some things we cannot do but other animals can. Therefore, they get the same debate. Calling us "advanced" animals to me sounds selfish.

[Giovenith]

Yes.

It's quite arrogant to think that we're some great big uber special UNIQUE creature that can only be considered it's own kingdom.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm curious, why do you persist in using the pound sign instead of an H?

Somet#ing I do to distinguis# myself...I find languages interesting...

Wh!le not prec!sely against the rules, taken to an extreme !t could potent!ally be considered ba!t!ng or spam; note that we do strongly d!scourage unnecessar!ly gar!sh posts.

That's not even remotely a formal warn!ng, but you m!ght want to cons!der that as some fr!endly moderator adv!ce.

[Giovenith]

No. If my teacher says "no," then we are not because I trust her.

Exactly what is your teacher's specific profession?

[Yo is that your new ride]

-snip-

[Giovenith]

Funny, I think my dog can spell "that" correctly while it seems you cannot.

What on earth? Maybe the person whic# was typing #as a broken 'h' key, so maybe he/she's just usin' it to cover up some h's. Did yinz catch my 2?

False. I looked through his posts, and saw him use "H" in the word "Hell", in the same post he was still using #.

[Yo is that your new ride]

-snip-

[The Archregimancy]

If we can't bring this thread on topic - instead of it turning into a discussion of Sioux Center's idiosyncratic approach to orthography - I'll have to lock the thread.

So let's try and return to the actual point of discussion, please.

[Straight From Above]

How about this:

Are humans merely animals?

I mean after all, could a dolphin or a dust mite have played Ed Wood?

(I know what you're thinking, and the answer is yes. Johnny Depp can capture prey using echolocation.)

[Galborg]

Of course we are animals, what elseb could we be? Toadstools? Rocks? Vampires? Of course Neil de Grass Tyson plans to abolish animals, but he hasn't done it yet.

[Hydralis]

We aren't the only sentient animal.

Especially if you include Orks.

Alright, let me correct myself in that. We are the most advanced sentient animal.

[Straight From Above]

Especially if you include Orks.

Alright, let me correct myself in that. We are the most advanced sentient animal.

That's kind of racist, but I don't think any of the mods are Ork sympathizers, so I guess its okay.

I would do a girl Ork.

Like an animal.

*cue Trent Reznor music*

[Valdehmar]

Especially if you include Orks.

Alright, let me correct myself in that. We are the most advanced sentient animal.

That's a rather misleading statement. How exactly do you define advanced?

I wouldn't say we were the most advanced, just because we have what we deem a discernible language and because we have apposable thumbs that doesn't make us more advanced along the evolutionary scale than, let's say, dogs. Sure, they might not have thumbs and they can't speak like a human, but they can communicate equally as well as any person can between themselves, and they have no need for extra appendages because they are perfectly suited to their lifestyle as they are.

I find such a statement fairly arrogant and rather untrue, of course, it depends on your definitions of 'advanced'

[The Emerald Legion]

Of course we are animals, what elseb could we be? Toadstools? Rocks? Vampires? Of course Neil de Grass Tyson plans to abolish animals, but he hasn't done it yet.

Humans.

Alright, let me correct myself in that. We are the most advanced sentient animal.

That's kind of racist, but I don't think any of the mods are Ork sympathizers, so I guess its okay.

I would do a girl Ork.

Like an animal.

*cue Trent Reznor music*

Err... Watz a Gurl ya humie? 'Urry up an' Ansah 'Afore I Givez Yah a Stompin'

Alright, let me correct myself in that. We are the most advanced sentient animal.

That's a rather misleading statement. How exactly do you define advanced?

I wouldn't say we were the most advanced, just because we have what we deem a discernible language and because we have apposable thumbs that doesn't make us more advanced along the evolutionary scale than, let's say, dogs. Sure, they might not have thumbs and they can't speak like a human, but they can communicate equally as well as any person can between themselves, and they have no need for extra appendages because they are perfectly suited to their lifestyle as they are.

I find such a statement fairly arrogant and rather untrue, of course, it depends on your definitions of 'advanced'

As I said, their tech tree isn't as deep as ours. Animals abilities are ridiculously shallow. Whereas the level of options presented to humanity is quite frankly ridiculous.

[Hydralis]

Alright, let me correct myself in that. We are the most advanced sentient animal.

That's a rather misleading statement. How exactly do you define advanced?

I wouldn't say we were the most advanced, just because we have what we deem a discernible language and because we have apposable thumbs that doesn't make us more advanced along the evolutionary scale than, let's say, dogs. Sure, they might not have thumbs and they can't speak like a human, but they can communicate equally as well as any person can between themselves, and they have no need for extra appendages because they are perfectly suited to their lifestyle as they are.

I find such a statement fairly arrogant and rather untrue, of course, it depends on your definitions of 'advanced'

Do you see dogs with medicine as advanced as ours? What about weapons, or computers? I say advanced because technologically, we are.

[Hetland 2]

That's a rather misleading statement. How exactly do you define advanced?

I wouldn't say we were the most advanced, just because we have what we deem a discernible language and because we have apposable thumbs that doesn't make us more advanced along the evolutionary scale than, let's say, dogs. Sure, they might not have thumbs and they can't speak like a human, but they can communicate equally as well as any person can between themselves, and they have no need for extra appendages because they are perfectly suited to their lifestyle as they are.

I find such a statement fairly arrogant and rather untrue, of course, it depends on your definitions of 'advanced'

Do you see dogs with medicine as advanced as ours? What about weapons, or computers? I say advanced because technologically, we are.

Yes. I do.