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

[+] Gabu@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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!

go back to school, you clearly need it

No U

[+] Gabu@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That’s not a common meaning, it’s the morons’ meaning.

Cambridge dictionary has both definitions, the more common one first

something that lives and moves but is not a human, bird, fish, or insect

anything that lives and moves, including people, birds, etc

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/animal

Wikipedia has this to say:

The word "animal" comes from the Latin animalis, meaning 'having breath', 'having soul' or 'living being'. The biological definition includes all members of the kingdom Animalia. In colloquial usage, the term animal is often used to refer only to nonhuman animals.

So your argument here is basically "But I have big brain because I use the correct word as defined in biological science as opposed to the morons that use language colloquailly on the internet". Good job.

Showing that you see animals and humans in the same category.

As does anyone with a brain.

I mean yeah sure they are in the same category in the sense that both have evolved from the same basis. But humans have evolved further than animals, which is why there is commonly a distinction made between humans and animals without having to say non-human animals.

Examples are:

animal cruelty
animal rights
animal shelter

Obviously none of these relate to humans, because everyone with a brain uses the term animal to mean life that is not human.

Are you braindead?

It sure feels that way when I talk to you, because you are draining my will to live.

behaviour [SIC]

Imagine not knowing that behaviour is a valid spelling of the word everywhere but the place that had to drop the letter U from words to feel special. Time to make a few more rounds in the spelling bee