Talk:Chimera

JoshuaZ's edits had a liberal bias and were reverted accordingly. For example, his edits replaced "animal" with the awkward "non-human". See the dictionary definition of animal.--Aschlafly 15:51, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

1: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation

-Merriam-Webster dictionary

I don't see how User:JoshuaZ's edits had any "liberal bias." TigersRoar 16:20, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Andrew, I also don't see even if you disagreed with that edit (which was the second edit) what the issue was with the first edit. (I'll incidentally note that the Bible considers man to be an animal. See comments in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes). JoshuaZ 22:30, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

The complex M-W dictionary definition exists, but is not its most common definition. We strive to be concise here as a useful resource. That means avoiding useless and overly complex definitions.

Liberals seek to portray humans as just another type of animal. The animal rights advocates and evolutionists are big in doing this. Not here, guys. We accept, as the vast majority of Americans do, that humans are different from animals, as that term is commonly used.--Aschlafly 22:42, 27 June 2007 (EDT)