bcuzbcuz Posted June 4, 2014 Author Posted June 4, 2014 But, we are not animals. we did not come from them. we may share many similarities but we are not animals. So when you play 20 Questions, and you're looking for clues, you don't ask "Animal, Vegetable, or Mineral"? I bet you did. You didn't ask "animal, vegetable, mineral or human?" did you? Kid's games got it right.
Rob Osborn Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 That you are using a secondary definition as the primary speaks to your improper use. The context is what is the biological definition of animal. Stop using a social convention as a definition. An Argumentum Ad Populum is a logical fallacy. So, If I ask a person how many animals they saw at the zoo what definition are they going to assume I am using? #1 or #2? If I tell people that I killed an animal with my car what definition are they assuming I am using? If I say I love animals what definition do people assume I am using? If I say that people are smarter than animals what definition are people assuming I am using? The whole point is the context. In the examples given above I brought up several different everyday usages for how we generally use the word. None of them fit under #1 definition and as such it doesnt apply at all.
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Sophistry: soph·ist·rynoun \ˈsä-fə-strē\: the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false: a reason or argument that sounds correct but is actually false
Rob Osborn Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Sophistry: soph·ist·ry noun \ˈsä-fə-strē\ : the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false : a reason or argument that sounds correct but is actually false So, you honestly think that when a person says they saw a lot of animals at the zoo they were actually referring to people too?
jkwilliams Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 So, you honestly think that when a person says they saw a lot of animals at the zoo they were actually referring to people too? Do you understand the concept of context?
Rob Osborn Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Do you understand the concept of context?Yes, its rather simple. Not sure why we even got off track with this.
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 So, you honestly think that when a person says they saw a lot of animals at the zoo they were actually referring to people too? Context my friend context, and yes when I go to the zoo I see plenty of human animals too. "At The Zoo" by Simon and GarfunkelSomeone told me it's all happening at the zoo.I do believe it, I do believe it's true.It's a light andtumble journeyFrom the East side to the park.Just a fine and fancy ramble to the zoo.But you can take the cross-town busIf it's rainning or it's cold.And the animals will love it if you do.Something tells me it's all happing at the zoo.I do believe it, I do believe it's true.The monkeys stand for honesty.Giraffes are insincere.The elephants are kindly but they're dumb.Orangutangs are skiptical of changes in their cagesAnd the zookeeper is they fond of rum.Zebras are reactionaries,Anthelopes are missionaries.Pidgeons plot in secrecyAnd hamsters turn on frequently.What a gas you got to come and seeAt the zoo.
Rob Osborn Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 This is ridiculous. I am not getting dragged into another stupid semantics debate with you. Everyone in the free world knows how to use the word "animal". Well, almost everyone, or we wouldnt be discussing it.
Brian 2.0 Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Reminds me of an old Mitch Hedberg joke:I went to see a band in New York. The lead singer got on the microphone, and he said "How many of you people feel like human beings tonight?" Then he said "How many of you feel like animals?" And everyone cheered after the animals part. But the thing is, I cheered after the human being part because I did not know that there was a second part to the question. 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 This is ridiculous. I am not getting dragged into another stupid semantics debate with you. Everyone in the free world knows how to use the word "animal". Well, almost everyone, or we wouldnt be discussing it. When we've discussing biology it is best to stick with biological definitions. IE; Humans are the only type of animals that we know of that have morals.
Rob Osborn Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 When we've discussing biology it is best to stick with biological definitions. IE; Humans are the only type of animals that we know of that have morals.Believe what you want but in church you are never going to hear that as animals we have morals. The principle of intelligence and morals combined is the precise reason why the dictionary specifies a difference in separating man from animals in classification in everyday terms. We are thus not animals. We cannot just say- "we are but animals and as such be justified in following our natural instincts, there is no sin".
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Believe what you want but in church you are never going to hear that as animals we have morals. The principle of intelligence and morals combined is the precise reason why the dictionary specifies a difference in separating man from animals in classification in everyday terms. We are thus not animals. We cannot just say- "we are but animals and as such be justified in following our natural instincts, there is no sin". I don't expect a biology lesson in Sunday School. I go to church to learn how to treat others including the human ones. Biology says we're animals. It is our morals that separate our actions from other animals. Where have I ever said that ""we are but animals and as such be justified in following our natural instincts, there is no sin"?
Brian 2.0 Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 This is ridiculous. I am not getting dragged into another stupid semantics debate with you. Everyone in the free world knows how to use the word "animal". Well, almost everyone, or we wouldnt be discussing it. At a cellular level the classifications of cells with nuclei are "plant" cells and "animal" cells. There is not "human" cell classifications as it would be purely redundant as they are the same as in other animals. You agree with that at least, right? Our bodies are made up of animal cells.
Rob Osborn Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 I don't expect a biology lesson in Sunday School. I go to church to learn how to treat others including the human ones. Biology says we're animals. It is our morals that separate our actions from other animals. Where have I ever said that ""we are but animals and as such be justified in following our natural instincts, there is no sin"? Look, you can go around and say hi to all your animal friends, I don't really care. But, we both agree that in everyday language its not proper to refer to your friends as animals. We both know its condescending to speak in general term calling humans as animals. Besides that, its not proper use of English to speak in general terms calling humans as animals.
thesometimesaint Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 I have a cat named Stripes. At least once a day I do say Hi to him, scratch his ears, give him kitty treats. He loves to get up on our bed and sleep. He is still a cat. Look I am biologically a human being. Have absolutely no problem with my religious beliefs and my knowledge of science. Though obviously I do not claim to know enough(everything) about either.
jkwilliams Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 Look, you can go around and say hi to all your animal friends, I don't really care. But, we both agree that in everyday language its not proper to refer to your friends as animals. We both know its condescending to speak in general term calling humans as animals. Besides that, its not proper use of English to speak in general terms calling humans as animals. But it is proper English to refer to humans as animals when we are talking about biology.
Rob Osborn Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 But it is proper English to refer to humans as animals when we are talking about biology.Yeah in that limited sense. The word has changed enough over the years that it has achieved two very distinct definitions now.
jkwilliams Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 Yeah in that limited sense. The word has changed enough over the years that it has achieved two very distinct definitions now. That limited sense is the sense with which we've been using the word here, so I'm not sure what your objection is.
Rob Osborn Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 I have a cat named Stripes. At least once a day I do say Hi to him, scratch his ears, give him kitty treats. He loves to get up on our bed and sleep. He is still a cat. Look I am biologically a human being. Have absolutely no problem with my religious beliefs and my knowledge of science. Though obviously I do not claim to know enough(everything) about either.I own 4 animals- two cats and two dogs. There are also four persons in our family- my wife, me and my two children. That makes 8 living beings in our home but only 4 are animals.
thesometimesaint Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 Incorrect. You have four human animals and 2 cat animals and 2 dog animals. I won't even get into all the other microscopic animals that live on and inside all 8 of the large animals you have in your home.
bcuzbcuz Posted June 7, 2014 Author Posted June 7, 2014 I own 4 animals- two cats and two dogs. There are also four persons in our family- my wife, me and my two children. That makes 8 living beings in our home but only 4 are animals.Some one said previously that all animals are not human but all humans are animals. You obviously deem being called an animal as an epithet that somehow lessens your worth. Is you wishing to not be called an animal strictly religious in nature?
Rob Osborn Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 Some one said previously that all animals are not human but all humans are animals. You obviously deem being called an animal as an epithet that somehow lessens your worth. Is you wishing to not be called an animal strictly religious in nature? I think almost everything can be religious. I even take my work religiously (literally). But, besides this point, my complaint is in the semantics of the word and using it correctly according to morals. The problem we see in society is that when we begin assuming we are but mere animals it then feeds to the sinners and justifies to them being safe when sinning and being morally corrupt because they believe, according to natural carnality, that they are just following their natural animal instincts. This is one of my main beefs with evolution in general. I dont care what any wisecrack says, Darwinian evolution is atheism and no part of it can include God. I have had many a debate and discussion with BYU professors over this issue and everytime we have both concluded that Darwinian evolution has no place for God in its theory and it must exclude him by very nature of its premise it is built upon. Darwinian evolution thus strengthens this false teaching that we are but just the extension of evolved animals. As it does such, the lines get blurred with morals and law and everything gets questioned- everything from sexuality and morals to intelligence and instincts. Evolutionary theory causes us to not look to God as our Creator. Let me just state this- there really isnt such a thing as an atheist creationist or an atheist intelligent design believer. But, on the other hand, you will find categorically that pretty much every atheist also believes in evolution. See a connection?
thesometimesaint Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) I think almost everything can be religious. I even take my work religiously (literally). But, besides this point, my complaint is in the semantics of the word and using it correctly according to morals. The problem we see in society is that when we begin assuming we are but mere animals it then feeds to the sinners and justifies to them being safe when sinning and being morally corrupt because they believe, according to natural carnality, that they are just following their natural animal instincts. This is one of my main beefs with evolution in general. I dont care what any wisecrack says, Darwinian evolution is atheism and no part of it can include God. I have had many a debate and discussion with BYU professors over this issue and everytime we have both concluded that Darwinian evolution has no place for God in its theory and it must exclude him by very nature of its premise it is built upon. Darwinian evolution thus strengthens this false teaching that we are but just the extension of evolved animals. As it does such, the lines get blurred with morals and law and everything gets questioned- everything from sexuality and morals to intelligence and instincts. Evolutionary theory causes us to not look to God as our Creator. Let me just state this- there really isnt such a thing as an atheist creationist or an atheist intelligent design believer. But, on the other hand, you will find categorically that pretty much every atheist also believes in evolution. See a connection? I obviously have no problem with LDS morals, and fully agree the idea hat just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Where have I ever said it is OK to act without morals? Incorrect Darwinian Evolution is not Atheist, it's not Theistic either.IE; What is Atheistic about giving birth? Humans, of whatever religious beliefs, have been doing it for a very longtime now. Science is Agnostic for a variety of reasons. I've give ample examples as to why. Mainly because God is an infinity. OTOH scientists can and do believe anything they want. That is where where you are wrong. Morality is not a subject for science, except to the extent that it provides a reproductive advantage to the individual. I'm well past the reproductive age. So evolutionarily I'm of no value. I get to spoil my Grandkids rotten then send them home to their parents. That doesn't make me have no value to my family, friends, and my God. Who give a rats behind what an Atheist believes about God? BTW Darwin was an Anglican. Edited June 8, 2014 by thesometimesaint
cdowis Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) "BTW Darwin was an Anglican." BTW, so is Dawkins. Edited June 8, 2014 by cdowis
thesometimesaint Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) Darwin certainly had serious questions about God, but remained an Anglican all of his life. He was buried in Westminster Abbey as was Newton. Dawkins claims to be an atheist.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins Edited June 8, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Recommended Posts