Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: + + + + + +
→Are humans animals?: No. And stop saying that.
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. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 17:28, 16 January 2010 (EST)
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. [[User:Eoinc|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 being]]s as animals.
:This discussion is closed, unless you want to contribute to our [[Debate Topics]]s.