"I am NOT an animal"

[Zzyzx]

.
"I am NOT an animal"

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning that H. sapiens are classified as animals (alternatives being plant and virus). I do not recall ever hearing a Non-Theist object. 1) Is there something about religion that causes this?

You see I am NOT an animal, never was and never in a billion years will I evolve to be one, my family tree all the way back to Adam don't have one ape in it.

2) Why be upset, indignant or in denial about a biological / taxonomic classification?

3) Since humans differ from other animals only in degree (some mental and physical characteristics), what is the objection to recognizing that they are animals?

4) Is anything other than religion (and possibly narcissism) involved?


In the quoted statement someone (whose theological position apparently defies description) claims knowledge of his family tree back to Adam – as though that proves the claimant is not an animal. However, if the hypothetical Adam was human (H. sapiens), he (Adam) classifies as an animal.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 5 by JoeyKnothead]

So do we give animals the same rights as man or remove the laws that bound one animal and not others? It seems kind of speciest currently.

This question opens up a whole new can 'o worms, not that it doesn't need opening! [strike]Worms are people, too[/strike].

Buddhism (and it's forebear, proto-Hinduism) has had 'greater respect' for the non-human Earth life that precedes the Abrahamic religions. You could say that the differences they do take into account are not 'image' differences, but qualitative differences based upon sentience. Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive and subjectively experience.

Western religious thought, on the other hand, has for almost as long held that "God" is separate from God's creations. Therefore, man, made in God's image, is similarly 'separate' from the world and it's denizens. So, in two geographically distinct areas, we have completely different orientations. Hmm, is one of them wrong and the other correct?

Forty years of wondering about this stuff (I was ten when I remember climbing library shelves for 'adult' books on mysticism and the like) and having close and enduring relationships with a variety of mammals, avian critters, and even bugs, I have convincing evidence of their sentience, along a continuum. Clearly the 'animal rights' folks (in all their possible iterations) are taking a similar tack.

Whether I'm an animal like a chimp or not, we share sentience, to a degree, with non-human beings. Higher mammals, higher quality/quantity of sentience, and as life forms simplify, their quality of sentience also simplifies. Feeling sorry for the worm eaten by a robin is silly, as the worm doesn't have the neurological structures giving rise to a sense of a self that doesn't want to be eaten. But feeling sorry for a cow in a slaughterhouse is a natural sympathy, it doesn't have to be taught.

Dividing planet Earth's life between humans and 'all the rest' is rapidly becoming less acceptable or necessary, as evidenced everywhere you look, a new organization for the protection of elephants or spotted owls pops up.

A more biologically accurate division (which I concede we ought to make for convenience's sake) should be according to sentience.

So after that long-winded spiel, back to Wootah's question: My answer to that is no, it is neither moral OR necessary to give 'animals' the same rights as humans.

But instead of rejecting any ideas or attempts to promote the welfare of our nonhuman companions (and enemies) because of a mythic creation story where man is conveniently given eminent domain over all other life forms, why not engage our critical thinking with modern scientific observation of animal behavior?

The atrocities caused by the Abrahamic religious line between humans and all-the-rest included feeling just fine selling a slaves children right out of her arms in the American south. That religious line in the sand is unspeakably evil when taken to it's literal extremes.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 5 by JoeyKnothead]

So do we give animals the same rights as man or remove the laws that bound one animal and not others? It seems kind of speciest currently.

Why are those two the only options?

[arian]

.

Maybe that's why these female singers 'shake their booty so much', it's the Illuminate Ones plan to "bring the animal" out of humans, .. but I see it more like "turn them into animals", just like this purely 'brainwashing suggestive' song, Animals

THAT'S IT -- You have identified the GREATEST threat to humanity -- women wiggling their rear.

How could that have escaped the attention of everyone else?

Wow. What a revelation.

No, wiggling female butts in our (mens) faces is not the greatest threat to humanity, heck in my younger days I paid some good money to see them shake it in my face, but the greatest threat to humanity is "The Evolution Religion", which makes man an ape, and I tell you that right there turns me off of seeing a female ape shaking and wiggling their hairy a__, .. their butts in my face.

This religion degrades not only mans intellect, but their beauty also.

I could just see the sign in the newly evolved 'Gentlemen's clubs'; "Warning: Do Not Touch the Animals in their cages!" It's bad enough they swing on poles in the hanging cages, must you scientifically define them as apes too?

I am standing up for human-rights, stop calling us animal apes!

OR

Equal Rights for all animals, release us from our cages, remove all signs discriminating one animal from another!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxqIITtTtU

But for gosh-sakes, don't give them a gun!

[Zzyzx]

.

No, wiggling female butts in our (mens) faces is not the greatest threat to humanity,

Whew, glad to hear that threat has been down-graded from what was said earlier

heck in my younger days I paid some good money to see them shake it in my face,

It might be prudent to save that money for something sensible, like tires.

but the greatest threat to humanity is "The Evolution Religion", which makes man an ape,

With that identified as the greatest threat to humanity, we can be less concerned about atomic warfare, asteroid impact, environmental degradation, resource depletion, etc and focus on the REAL greatest threat -- evolution.

and I tell you that right there turns me off of seeing a female ape shaking and wiggling their hairy a__, .. their butts in my face.

Has that been a long term issue?

This religion degrades not only mans intellect, but their beauty also.

Perhaps the same can be said for any religion

I am standing up for human-rights, stop calling us animal apes!

Those who are offended by biological taxonomy might be more comfortable reading creationist websites.

[WinePusher]

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning that H. sapiens are classified as animals (alternatives being plant and virus).

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning that the alternatives to animals are not plant and virus. Animals are one of 6 kingdoms, the other five being plants, fungi, protists, archaeabacteria and eubacteria.

I do not recall ever hearing a Non-Theist object. 1) Is there something about religion that causes this?

Possibly. Homo sapiens belong to the animal kingdom, young earth creationist beliefs may cause people to reject this fact.

2) Why be upset, indignant or in denial about a biological / taxonomic classification?

I suppose it depends on the context that the word is used in. I doubt most people would get upset if a biology instructor was lecturing on how humans belong to the animal kingdom in a classroom setting, but others may certainly get upset if they are directly called an animal since the word is being used as an insult. If I were to call someone on this forum an animal that would be considered a personal attack. Perhaps that's what arian is talking about in his quote.

[WinePusher]

if you believe the 'flesh' is all we are, then acting on instinct would be perfectly normal, but we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we?

Arian, this idea that the body ['the flesh'] is separate from our thoughts is old and demonstrably untrue.

Danmark and arian, do you have any evidence to support either of your claims? If you do then please present the articles you've read that have led both of you to your respective conclusions. If neither of you has any evidence, which I suspect is the case otherwise you would've already presented it, then perhaps it would be wise to state beforehand that these are just your opinions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but people are not entitled to masquerade their opinions as facts when they clearly aren't.

Sadly, both of you are wrong, Danmark in particular. Danmark states that this idea that the body ['the flesh'] is separate from our thoughts is old and demonstrably untrue. (For those interested, this issue is formally known as dualism between the mind and body). He has provided no evidence for this claim, and this is unfortunate because those of us who have actually read on this issue know that he's wrong. Thusfar, the only thing we know for certain is that there is still no consensus among philosophers, psychologists and cognitive scientists about this issue. There is no definitive answer concerning consciousness and the question concerning dualism between the mind and the body. We do not know the nature of consciousness and whether or not mental activity can exist without a physically functioning brain.

Unlike Danmark and arian, I actually have sources to back up my claim:

Here is a popular article explaining the on going debates surrounding consciousness.

Here is another article explaining some of the latest research in this area.

And here is an intriguing book which essentially purports that consciousness, at its essence, is an inexplicable phenomena.

[Zzyzx]

.

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning that H. sapiens are classified as animals (alternatives being plant and virus).

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning that the alternatives to animals are not plant and virus. Animals are one of 6 kingdoms, the other five being plants, fungi, protists, archaeabacteria and eubacteria.

Thank you for display of scientific knowledge. I should have specified "major or commonly known alternatives."

Those who protest H. sapiens being classified as animals can choose a category that is more appropriate in their way of thinking.

I do not recall ever hearing a Non-Theist object. 1) Is there something about religion that causes this?

Possibly. Homo sapiens belong to the animal kingdom, young earth creationist beliefs may cause people to reject this fact.

Agreed. Religious beliefs may cause people to reject much of science that conflicts with their preferred theological preferences (while accepting /embracing the benefits science provides).

2) Why be upset, indignant or in denial about a biological / taxonomic classification?

I suppose it depends on the context that the word is used in.

The context of this thread has been in the general sense of the term (biological classification rather than personal attack).

I doubt most people would get upset if a biology instructor was lecturing on how humans belong to the animal kingdom in a classroom setting, but others may certainly get upset if they are directly called an animal since the word is being used as an insult. If I were to call someone on this forum an animal that would be considered a personal attack.

Agreed. However, there is no personal attack in the statement that H. sapiens sapiens are classified as animals, mammals, primates, Hominidae (great apes).

Perhaps that's what arian is talking about in his quote.

Interpretation of the posts is appreciated (if accurate). Perhaps Arian will clarify.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 5 by JoeyKnothead]

So do we give animals the same rights as man or remove the laws that bound one animal and not others? It seems kind of speciest currently.

Some animals already have privileges not afforded to other animals. Poisoning rats is common practice but poisoning dogs is considered cruel and inhumane. We care even less for insects as we crush them under our boots without a second thought.

It is only natural for an animal species to give preference to his own species. It might be "speciest" as you call it but it is a natural discrimination. If we weren't speciest, cannibalism would be common practice.

Both legally and ethically, people care more for their own kind. For their own species and, more localized, for their own family. Would you criticize someone for caring for their child while ignoring other underprivileged individuals? Would you rob your child of an education by using their university fund to buy blankets for the homeless? Would you starve your children in order to give food to strangers? It is only natural to give preference to your own. Your own family and by extent your own species

[Blastcat]

4) Is anything other than religion (and possibly narcissism) involved?

The Abrahamic religions are totally obsessed with the ego. Even the idea of being "saved" and going to heaven is really nothing more than an idea of having the ego perpetuated for eternity.

And the idea of being sent to hell is the idea of an ego being tortured for eternity.

It's all about the ego. Period.

Again, I find myself in disagreement with you.
Actually, I MOSTLY agree with your statement about the ego. Yes, I think that unsophisticated people would have unsophisticated ideas about ego states.

They were barbaric by our more advanced standards. It's a shame that people don't want to progress along with the best kinds of thinking available, but religions are more about preserving old ways of thinking than moving along on the fast lane.

Having said that.. I will usually disagree with someone who states just about anything categorically.

I can't accept that it's all about the ego.. period.

You might find that it's usually a bit more complicated than that. Simplicity is fine, but to over-generalize is never a good idea.

These people might be challenged to call themselves animals because they are ignorant of what it really means. This is an attack on evolution.. They see Darwin as an enemy.. and so.. anything at all evolution is wrong scientifically and morally so , as well.

And we cannot go into the minds of our dear befuddled thinkers and really say what their motivations are. We can only guess at that.

Human psychology is vastly complex. If you add religion to the mix, and all the different societies people come from.. almost impossible to figure out.

It would be easier to predict the weather for all time.
let's not presume to know what we really can't.

So.. SOME PEOPLE doesn't mean ALL PEOPLE...

right?

That's why I disagree with you here.
Ego may be a PART answer to SOME.. but you really can't say that it's the total answer to all.

1. You don't know all potential motivations. ( you MAY know many )
2. You don't know all people. ( you DO know many )

Does that make sense?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 39:

So do we give animals the same rights as man or remove the laws that bound one animal and not others?

We don't even give humans equal rights, up to and including the removal of laws design to protect their equal rights.

It seems kind of speciest currently.

Or Christianist, in the case of rights based on who or what ya kiss.

Do you deny that biologists classify species based on fact?