You know what I was typing up a whole argument about how the “if you are self-destrucive you are dumb and therefore an animal” logic is flawed but then I remembered I am on the internet and get to do this fun thing instead:
Humans aren’t smarter than animals because we are animals. We’re also not smarter than non-human animals either, as evidenced by our self-destructive behavior.
Great let’s dissect this then:
Firstly you are for some reason making the choice to ignore the common meaning of “animal” meaning (very broadly) non-human lifeform. Yeah yeah go ahead and nitpick about mushrooms and plants if you want to. Showing that you see animals and humans in the same category.
The first sentence thus becomes a tautology because you moved the goalpost to include humans in the term “animal”. I bet you felt clever about that. Just to then go ahead and make that same distinction but with more words “non-human animal”. Because, turns out, its a useful distinction to make. I’m gonna go ahead and ignore your ignoring of this and use “animal” to refer to “non-human animals”.
You claim that humans aren’t smarter than animals, which you further claim to be evidenced by the “self-destructivene behaviour” humans display. So you are at least saying that the level of intellect is dependent on the behaviour, and thus the actions, of a species. I’m now claiming that you putting animals and humans in the same catgegory stems from this false equivalence of intellects, which by your logic is dependent on the actions.
So yes, while you never explicitly said that “being an animal is a consequence of lack of intellect or of an action” your logic and phrasing make it clear that you see animals and humans in the same category, and the reason for that is the, according to you, equivalent level of intellect and actions.
Edit: I am forgetting my nettiquette again, so sorry!
You know what I was typing up a whole argument about how the “if you are self-destrucive you are dumb and therefore an animal” logic is flawed but then I remembered I am on the internet and get to do this fun thing instead:
No U
On top of it, you’re functionally illiterate, cool.
At no point did I state being an animal is a consequence of lack of intellect or of an action – go back to school, you clearly need it.
Great let’s dissect this then:
Firstly you are for some reason making the choice to ignore the common meaning of “animal” meaning (very broadly) non-human lifeform. Yeah yeah go ahead and nitpick about mushrooms and plants if you want to. Showing that you see animals and humans in the same category.
The first sentence thus becomes a tautology because you moved the goalpost to include humans in the term “animal”. I bet you felt clever about that. Just to then go ahead and make that same distinction but with more words “non-human animal”. Because, turns out, its a useful distinction to make. I’m gonna go ahead and ignore your ignoring of this and use “animal” to refer to “non-human animals”.
You claim that humans aren’t smarter than animals, which you further claim to be evidenced by the “self-destructivene behaviour” humans display. So you are at least saying that the level of intellect is dependent on the behaviour, and thus the actions, of a species. I’m now claiming that you putting animals and humans in the same catgegory stems from this false equivalence of intellects, which by your logic is dependent on the actions.
So yes, while you never explicitly said that “being an animal is a consequence of lack of intellect or of an action” your logic and phrasing make it clear that you see animals and humans in the same category, and the reason for that is the, according to you, equivalent level of intellect and actions.
Edit: I am forgetting my nettiquette again, so sorry!
No U