View unanswered posts | View active topics
| Author |
Message |
|
Kovu
|
Post subject:  Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:36 pm |
|
|
| Advanced |
 |
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 5:11 pm
Posts: 261
Location: On top of the food chain...
|
BaltoSeppala wrote: Actually, folks, people ARE animals. Just a different class of animal. Sentient, and generally far more intelligent (inasmuch as we can measure intelligence in other species). But homo sapiens is simply an evolved member of the family of great apes. Thus, an ANIMAL.
Again - as I've posted above: it's wrong to call "humans" "animals". We indeed are a member of "animalia", but define "animal" as something different.
_________________
"Windows is what we call Banana-
Software: it ripens at the customer's."
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
(deleted user)
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:45 pm |
|
|
|
Kovu wrote: BaltoSeppala wrote: Actually, folks, people ARE animals. Just a different class of animal. Sentient, and generally far more intelligent (inasmuch as we can measure intelligence in other species). But homo sapiens is simply an evolved member of the family of great apes. Thus, an ANIMAL. Again - as I've posted above: it's wrong to call "humans" "animals". We indeed are a member of "animalia", but define "animal" as something different. I disagree. But it's a matter of perspective. No matter what WE call ourselves, the facts don't change. We are of an order of animalia. We belong TO that order. The fact that we don't (or don't like to) call ourselves "animals" doesn't change the fact that we really are. We evolved from simpler and lower forms. We are indirectly related to them, and there are certain dormant genetic traits still present in our DNA which are associated with the lower and simpler forms.
Besides, I tend to think that the reason humans don't like to be referred to as "animals" is because, in a certain context, it has a negative connotation.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Maugrim
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:10 pm |
|
|
| Famous one |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 3:05 am
Posts: 1837
Location: England
Gender: Female
|
|
Well, that's if you want to look at it scientifically.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Kovu
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:38 pm |
|
|
| Advanced |
|
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 5:11 pm
Posts: 261
Location: On top of the food chain...
|
BaltoSeppala wrote: I disagree. But it's a matter of perspective. No matter what WE call ourselves, the facts don't change. We are of an order of animalia. We belong TO that order. The fact that we don't (or don't like to) call ourselves "animals" doesn't change the fact that we really are. We evolved from simpler and lower forms. We are indirectly related to them, and there are certain dormant genetic traits still present in our DNA which are associated with the lower and simpler forms. Yeah, we belong to that order. But that's no reason to abandon the original meaning of the word "animal"... BaltoSeppala wrote: Besides, I tend to think that the reason humans don't like to be referred to as "animals" is because, in a certain context, it has a negative connotation.
I don't know... I mean - primarily it's because humans like to have an actual purpose that defines their existence. Humans simply don't like the idea that their existence is founded on accidents.
_________________
"Windows is what we call Banana-
Software: it ripens at the customer's."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Aluewolf15
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:53 pm |
|
|
| Animation Source is my home! |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:51 pm
Posts: 5110
Location: With Anakin on Corosaunt.
|
|
I don't know about you guys but I consider my pets, as a part of my family. Most of the time they can be so trust worthy and they are there for you.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
(deleted user)
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:57 am |
|
|
|
+_Brianna_+ wrote: YES!THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY!THANK YOU MEEKO!
Then your poll should have said:
"should people be called animals?"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
sunkissin
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:38 pm |
|
|
| Animation Source is my home! |
|
 |
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:40 am
Posts: 3218
Location: Scotland
Gender: Female
|
Finnish Fox wrote: I don't think we should call animals people. People is a term reserved for Homo Sapiens in the same way dog is for canids. We do not call monkeys cats, nor do we call elephants tigers, or horses lions. No, its best not to mix up species by giving them interchangeable names, or we would loose track of things. However, keep in mind that humans are a type of animal.
I'm with you
We shouldn't call Animals 'Humans'! We call Humans 'Animals'! Calling Animals Humans is plain weird...for, as Finnish Fox pointed out, 'Human' is the term for 'Homo Sapiens' aka 'People'  xD
_________________
 ✿ Signature art by dNiseb@dA, Avatar made by me ✿
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
(deleted user)
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:21 pm |
|
|
|
Daisy~DreamerWolf wrote: Finnish Fox wrote: I don't think we should call animals people. People is a term reserved for Homo Sapiens in the same way dog is for canids. We do not call monkeys cats, nor do we call elephants tigers, or horses lions. No, its best not to mix up species by giving them interchangeable names, or we would loose track of things. However, keep in mind that humans are a type of animal. I'm with you We shouldn't call Animals 'Humans'! We call Humans 'Animals'! Calling Animals Humans is plain weird...for, as Finnish Fox pointed out, 'Human' is the term for 'Homo Sapiens' aka 'People' xD No...but we do call humans "hominids". And "hominids" (all the great apes) ARE animals. And we are a form of great ape...a hominid. An ANIMAL. Finnish Fox is partially wrong. Sure, we DON'T call monkeys "cats", nor elephants "tigers", nor horses "lions". But we DO call them all "animals". And no one was suggesting that we call humans "fish" either. The question was whether or not they can be referred to as "animals". Humans arose from earlier ANIMAL forms. Therefore, logic and science dictate that we ARE animals.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
sunkissin
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:30 pm |
|
|
| Animation Source is my home! |
|
|
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:40 am
Posts: 3218
Location: Scotland
Gender: Female
|
BaltoSeppala wrote: Daisy~DreamerWolf wrote: Finnish Fox wrote: I don't think we should call animals people. People is a term reserved for Homo Sapiens in the same way dog is for canids. We do not call monkeys cats, nor do we call elephants tigers, or horses lions. No, its best not to mix up species by giving them interchangeable names, or we would loose track of things. However, keep in mind that humans are a type of animal. I'm with you We shouldn't call Animals 'Humans'! We call Humans 'Animals'! Calling Animals Humans is plain weird...for, as Finnish Fox pointed out, 'Human' is the term for 'Homo Sapiens' aka 'People' xD No...but we do call humans "hominids". And "hominids" (all the great apes) ARE animals. And we are a form of great ape...a hominid. An ANIMAL. Finnish Fox is partially wrong. Sure, we DON'T call monkeys "cats", nor elephants "tigers", nor horses "lions". But we DO call them all "animals". And no one was suggesting that we call humans "fish" either. The question was whether or not they can be referred to as "animals". Humans arose from earlier ANIMAL forms. Therefore, logic and science dictate that we ARE animals. Aye, I know we're all animals! I'm jsut saying that Animals aren't Humans!!
After all, if we aren't animals, then what are we? Plants??? 
_________________
✿ Signature art by dNiseb@dA, Avatar made by me ✿
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
(deleted user)
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:50 pm |
|
|
|
|
It's my guess, based on her subsequent statement (which I responded to) that the original poster meant it the other way around from how she stated it.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
