Difference between revisions of "Talk:Animal"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Are humans animals?)
Line 16: Line 16:
 
:This discussion is closed, unless you want to contribute to our [[Debate Topics]]s.
 
:This discussion is closed, unless you want to contribute to our [[Debate Topics]]s.
  
::You acknowledge that the human body is mammalian - ie, that we are mammals. Mammals are one of many subsets of the kingdom ''animalia''. Yes, we differ from every other animal in some very important ways. But, for the purposes of describing the physical and biological nature of human beings, being multicellular and eukaryotic is of more fundamental importance than our intelligence, cultural achievements, ethics, or anything else.  
+
::You acknowledge that the human body is mammalian - ie, that we are mammals. Mammals are one of many subsets of the kingdom ''animalia''. Yes, we differ from every other animal in some very important ways. But, '''for the purposes of describing the physical and biological nature''' of human beings, which is all that the scientific classification is intended to do, being multicellular and eukaryotic is of more fundamental importance than our intelligence, cultural achievements, ethics, or anything else.  
  
 
::It is regrettable that you conflate the meanings of ''animal'' as a neutral term for certain types of organisms, ''animal'' as a colloquial term for non-human animals, and ''animal'' as a pejorative description for a human being who acts upon their most base impulses. As a piece of scientific terminology, no such negative connotations are intended.  
 
::It is regrettable that you conflate the meanings of ''animal'' as a neutral term for certain types of organisms, ''animal'' as a colloquial term for non-human animals, and ''animal'' as a pejorative description for a human being who acts upon their most base impulses. As a piece of scientific terminology, no such negative connotations are intended.  

Revision as of 18:53, 16 January 2010

Not qualified to improve this article, other than to make it even shorter... the article states that animals have no cell walls. If the article means Animal CELLS have no cell walls, I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. I'm an animal, and I'm sure somethings keeping the cytoplasm in my cells!

Are humans animals?

I would just change this, but since an administrator wrote it I'll discuss it here first.

For the purposes of scientific classification, an 'animal' is any living thing that fulfils certain criteria, like being multicellular, eukaryotic, ingesting other organisms for nourishment, and a few other things. According to these standards, human beings are animals. Of course there are many important ways in which we differ from other animals, but for scientific purposes these are of secondary importance to the fact that we are multicellular, eukaryotic, etc...

In the opening paragraph, which describes the scientific definition of animal, it is not appropriate to say that humans do not belong in this category. From a scientific point of view, animal is a plain description of physical features and not a pejorative description of primitive behavior. Eoinc 17:28, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Those "scientific standards" fail to distinguish between human beings and animals. When secular standards conflict with reality, one of the two must suffer. We at Conservapedia prefer to retain reality at the expense of standards which contradict the truth.
Granted that the human body is mammalian, let us not lose sight of what sets mankind apart from animals. We need not adopt the views of Nietzsche here. Calling a person an animal is always pejorative; if liberals object to use of the term "redneck", I can't see how they can tolerate classifying human beings as animals.
This discussion is closed, unless you want to contribute to our Debate Topicss.
You acknowledge that the human body is mammalian - ie, that we are mammals. Mammals are one of many subsets of the kingdom animalia. Yes, we differ from every other animal in some very important ways. But, for the purposes of describing the physical and biological nature of human beings, which is all that the scientific classification is intended to do, being multicellular and eukaryotic is of more fundamental importance than our intelligence, cultural achievements, ethics, or anything else.
It is regrettable that you conflate the meanings of animal as a neutral term for certain types of organisms, animal as a colloquial term for non-human animals, and animal as a pejorative description for a human being who acts upon their most base impulses. As a piece of scientific terminology, no such negative connotations are intended.
Couldn't the article have the standard scientific meaning of animal, and then state that "colloquially, however, 'animal' is usually taken to mean any non-human animal...etc"? Eoinc 18:37, 16 January 2010 (EST)
Or, you could have it the other way around, put the Biblical definitions first, and then add that the scientific definition of animal is any multicellular (etc, etc...), including humans. Eoinc 18:45, 16 January 2010 (EST)