Poll: "What are you people, animals?!"

[e2density]

We are animals.

The bestest ones EVAR, might I say.

 

[maninahat]

Well what I'm trying to say is that humans are the only real beings that are expanding in terms of society. All other organisms seem to be at a standstill. That is why I say that humans are the dominant species. I also feel that our superior intelligence also makes us the most dominant because it allows for this expansion.

There are two problems with this:
1) It is very difficult to know if animals actually have societies or not, so it is equally difficult to establish whether or not their society expands.
2) Is an expanding society a positive indicator of superiority at all? Human ingenuity allows humans to live longer, easier, and in greater numbers. But is this really indicative of superiority? If this were the only quality that seperates us then that means inventive, clever people such as Brunell or Einstein are superior to myself.

I don't see geniuses such as Einstein as superior to me or you, except in terms of intelligence. Likewise, my intelligence does not really raise be above the level of any marmot, except in the sense that I am smarter. It is for this reason that I see human intelligence as no real qualifier for superiority. It is arbitrary of us to select this, our one strongest quality, and then assume this is what makes us better than animals overall. Would humans still be superior in a situation where our intelligence does not improve our chances of survival? Would a camel see themselves as superior, simply on the grounds that their enduarance outstrips any human in the desert? The moment we let the animal pick the criteria, our claims for superiority seem a little shaky.

So saying a human is superior because it can drive a car, or read a book means nothing to a creature who does not see these as necessarily important to their lifesyle. Why the hell would a Gorilla need to drive a car? We'd suck at trying to live like gorillas ourselves.

I consider Einstein superior to me. Anyway if you don't want to consider superior intelligence as a qualifier how about this.

We are the dominant species on earth because we dominate the earth. I'm sitting on a leather couch right now. That leather was taken from a cow that was killed because it was controlled by humans and needed for its leather. Tomorrow I need to drive to school, so I will drive in a car on oil extracted from earth by humans over a road which was created by humans. The road is a clear symbol of our superiority. A large area of land was cleared and changed for our convenience. That is why we are the dominant species because we change the earth to how we want it.

We don't dominate the earth. We don't master it, any more than we master the rats who live in our houses, eat our food, and crap all over our clothes. The road is no more a symbol of our power than a termite mound is of termite power. You try explaining the value of a road network to an elephant, and the elephant will merely shrug his shoulders, unable to comprehend such a valuable artifact. The elephant cannot see the importance in something he will never use, so he will neglect it in the same way us humans will neglect the technical brillance of a termite mound. Perhaps the elephant might direct you at the most beautifully scratched tree, hoping you'd appreciate the exquisite placement of the tusk marks and the scientific precision that went into the grooves - a true masterpiece.

All animals change the World to how they want it.

Are humans superior because they are the best at doing this? Before you can answer that, I'll point out that this question is a fallacy. I question begged: humans are not the best at it. As I have said before, "vermin" are. The tallest towers of the vatican are merely perches for the common rock dove. The wealthiest suburbs are rife with rats, who, never having to waste effort building anything, regard us the same way we regard cows. To rats, we just keep giving away free food and shelter. The rats can make any home their home. Same for any mouse, or fly, or bacteria. Hell, flies got into space before we did! And purely by accident. The fly squeesed into a test rocket and got launched into orbit. To us, we were taking a huge step in exploring space. The fly just regarded the craft as a warm space.

 

[Chunko]

Well what I'm trying to say is that humans are the only real beings that are expanding in terms of society. All other organisms seem to be at a standstill. That is why I say that humans are the dominant species. I also feel that our superior intelligence also makes us the most dominant because it allows for this expansion.

There are two problems with this:
1) It is very difficult to know if animals actually have societies or not, so it is equally difficult to establish whether or not their society expands.
2) Is an expanding society a positive indicator of superiority at all? Human ingenuity allows humans to live longer, easier, and in greater numbers. But is this really indicative of superiority? If this were the only quality that seperates us then that means inventive, clever people such as Brunell or Einstein are superior to myself.

I don't see geniuses such as Einstein as superior to me or you, except in terms of intelligence. Likewise, my intelligence does not really raise be above the level of any marmot, except in the sense that I am smarter. It is for this reason that I see human intelligence as no real qualifier for superiority. It is arbitrary of us to select this, our one strongest quality, and then assume this is what makes us better than animals overall. Would humans still be superior in a situation where our intelligence does not improve our chances of survival? Would a camel see themselves as superior, simply on the grounds that their enduarance outstrips any human in the desert? The moment we let the animal pick the criteria, our claims for superiority seem a little shaky.

So saying a human is superior because it can drive a car, or read a book means nothing to a creature who does not see these as necessarily important to their lifesyle. Why the hell would a Gorilla need to drive a car? We'd suck at trying to live like gorillas ourselves.

I consider Einstein superior to me. Anyway if you don't want to consider superior intelligence as a qualifier how about this.

We are the dominant species on earth because we dominate the earth. I'm sitting on a leather couch right now. That leather was taken from a cow that was killed because it was controlled by humans and needed for its leather. Tomorrow I need to drive to school, so I will drive in a car on oil extracted from earth by humans over a road which was created by humans. The road is a clear symbol of our superiority. A large area of land was cleared and changed for our convenience. That is why we are the dominant species because we change the earth to how we want it.

We don't dominate the earth. We don't master it, any more than we master the rats who live in our houses, eat our food, and crap all over our clothes. The road is no more a symbol of our power than a termite mound is of termite power. You try explaining the value of a road network to an elephant, and the elephant will merely shrug his shoulders, unable to comprehend such a valuable artifact. The elephant cannot see the importance in something he will never use, so he will neglect it in the same way us humans will neglect the technical brillance of a termite mound. Perhaps the elephant might direct you at the most beautifully scratched tree, hoping you'd appreciate the exquisite placement of the tusk marks and the scientific precision that went into the grooves - a true masterpiece.

All animals change the World to how they want it.

Are humans superior because they are the best at doing this? Before you can answer that, I'll point out that this question is a fallacy. I question begged: humans are not the best at it. As I have said before, "vermin" are. The tallest towers of the vatican are merely perches for the common rock dove. The wealthiest suburbs are rife with rats, who, never having to waste effort building anything, regard us the same way we regard cows. To rats, we just keep giving away free food and shelter. The rats can make any home their home. Same for any mouse, or fly, or bacteria. Hell, flies got into space before we did! And purely by accident. The fly squeesed into a test rocket and got launched into orbit. To us, we were taking a huge step in exploring space. The fly just regarded the craft as a warm space.

That may be well worded, but it's not exactly a counterpoint.

We are clearly dominating the world and I stand behind what I've said previously. I'm well aware that ants can build very elaborate underground societies, but regardless of population numbers they still don't compare to the advanced technology of humans.

 

[Bato]

-snip-

They communicate, yes.
They do not talk.

No idea if someone else said something or not, I haven't read all five pages, nor do I have the time to.

Talking as humans do it is a verbal communication.
Dolphins, whales, birds, hell a lot of animals verbalize communication.

It isn't English, french, or any human form of verbal communication, but it IS communication.

Parrots can mimic human speech, but only by whistling thorough their beak and shaping their trachea certain way, if I remember correctly they don't even have vocal cords.
I do know that a few trained parrots can speak whatever language taught even if using only a limited vocabulary and sometimes even in correct context and in the correct tense.

 

[Datalord]

Scientifically, we are animals, we belong to the kingdom Animal,

the derogatory term "animal" actually comes from inaccurate translations of various germanic words, most of which meant beast, or any untamed non-human animal.

 

[n00beffect]

No.WE're worst than animals...

 

[Datalord]

Well what I'm trying to say is that humans are the only real beings that are expanding in terms of society. All other organisms seem to be at a standstill. That is why I say that humans are the dominant species. I also feel that our superior intelligence also makes us the most dominant because it allows for this expansion.

There are two problems with this:
1) It is very difficult to know if animals actually have societies or not, so it is equally difficult to establish whether or not their society expands.
2) Is an expanding society a positive indicator of superiority at all? Human ingenuity allows humans to live longer, easier, and in greater numbers. But is this really indicative of superiority? If this were the only quality that seperates us then that means inventive, clever people such as Brunell or Einstein are superior to myself.

I don't see geniuses such as Einstein as superior to me or you, except in terms of intelligence. Likewise, my intelligence does not really raise be above the level of any marmot, except in the sense that I am smarter. It is for this reason that I see human intelligence as no real qualifier for superiority. It is arbitrary of us to select this, our one strongest quality, and then assume this is what makes us better than animals overall. Would humans still be superior in a situation where our intelligence does not improve our chances of survival? Would a camel see themselves as superior, simply on the grounds that their enduarance outstrips any human in the desert? The moment we let the animal pick the criteria, our claims for superiority seem a little shaky.

So saying a human is superior because it can drive a car, or read a book means nothing to a creature who does not see these as necessarily important to their lifesyle. Why the hell would a Gorilla need to drive a car? We'd suck at trying to live like gorillas ourselves.

I consider Einstein superior to me. Anyway if you don't want to consider superior intelligence as a qualifier how about this.

We are the dominant species on earth because we dominate the earth. I'm sitting on a leather couch right now. That leather was taken from a cow that was killed because it was controlled by humans and needed for its leather. Tomorrow I need to drive to school, so I will drive in a car on oil extracted from earth by humans over a road which was created by humans. The road is a clear symbol of our superiority. A large area of land was cleared and changed for our convenience. That is why we are the dominant species because we change the earth to how we want it.

We don't dominate the earth. We don't master it, any more than we master the rats who live in our houses, eat our food, and crap all over our clothes. The road is no more a symbol of our power than a termite mound is of termite power. You try explaining the value of a road network to an elephant, and the elephant will merely shrug his shoulders, unable to comprehend such a valuable artifact. The elephant cannot see the importance in something he will never use, so he will neglect it in the same way us humans will neglect the technical brillance of a termite mound. Perhaps the elephant might direct you at the most beautifully scratched tree, hoping you'd appreciate the exquisite placement of the tusk marks and the scientific precision that went into the grooves - a true masterpiece.

All animals change the World to how they want it.

Are humans superior because they are the best at doing this? Before you can answer that, I'll point out that this question is a fallacy. I question begged: humans are not the best at it. As I have said before, "vermin" are. The tallest towers of the vatican are merely perches for the common rock dove. The wealthiest suburbs are rife with rats, who, never having to waste effort building anything, regard us the same way we regard cows. To rats, we just keep giving away free food and shelter. The rats can make any home their home. Same for any mouse, or fly, or bacteria. Hell, flies got into space before we did! And purely by accident. The fly squeesed into a test rocket and got launched into orbit. To us, we were taking a huge step in exploring space. The fly just regarded the craft as a warm space.

Yes, vermin built the vatican and the suburbs, are bring the resources they need to survive into said places.
Vermin don't change the world, they ADAPT to survive.
And the most important criteria separating humans from other animals is UNDERSTANDING.
Pavlov showed that animals can learn, and remember, but similar experiments performed after his showed that animals cannot remember specific items apart from standard "stimulus-response" scenarios for more than several minutes. The rat knows that food will come into the suburban house, but it does not know why, when, or how, and no experiment EVER has shown that animals are able to perform higher thought. Memorization is all well and good, but what about comprehension, synthesis, and evaluation?

Humans are superior to other animals, when some deer destroy a suburb to build a forest, you could probably argue we aren't

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

You can be three things in this world, a mineral, a vegetable, or an animal. So yea, we are animals. What else would we be?

 

[maninahat]

.

 

[maninahat]

Yes, vermin built the vatican and the suburbs, are bring the resources they need to survive into said places.
Vermin don't change the world, they ADAPT to survive.

They eat through brick, they leave tracks, they select a home. They do not change the World in a recognisable human sense, but they do change their environment. Pointing out that they did not build the vatican makes no difference. To them, the vatican is another resource to exploit. A human does not make honey either, but the bees. So who, in this relationship, is dominating who? The bee or the beekeeper? And does this relationship actually make the bee keeper superior to the bee?

...And the most important criteria separating humans from other animals is UNDERSTANDING.
Pavlov showed that animals can learn, and remember, but similar experiments performed after his showed that animals cannot remember specific items apart from standard "stimulus-response" scenarios for more than several minutes. The rat knows that food will come into the suburban house, but it does not know why, when, or how, and no experiment EVER has shown that animals are able to perform higher thought. Memorization is all well and good, but what about comprehension, synthesis, and evaluation?

All well and good, but Why should "understanding, memorization, comprehension, synthesis and evaluation" prove our superiority? All it proves is that we are smarter. What I keep repeating is that intelligence is of arbitrary value in understanding other species. Why should it be intelligence that proves superiority, and not say, resourcefulness or versatility?

 

[ultrachicken]

Humans are most definetely animals, and I believe that strongly. I tend to see myself and my fellow humans as very lowly creatures.

 

[Sly Skater Man]

Yeah we're animals theres just no other way to put it. Yeah we act different and whatever but don't animals also act uniquely as well?
We're animals both in our needs and desires, sure we dont act on them all and have restraint but thats just like how a young wolf doesnt mess with the Alpha wolfs girl, sure yeah he COULD but he doesnt not only because the Alpha would kick his ass but also because its not acceptable in the pack, that's also restraint.
So yeah we're animals through and through.

 

[Noone From Nowhere]

No, no we are not animals.
We are classified as animals, yes.
But Pterodactyls were also classified as a dinosaur, but they're technically not Dinosaurs, as they are only landwalkers.

We can talk.
They can not.
We are not animals

So, talking is what makes one a person? I guess that makes trained Grey Parrots people then, huh?

Any other arguments about human communication,adaptability and tool use being more complex than those of other species dodges the point that other species share the same traits in less complex forms.

To put it in videogame terms, a PlayStation 3 is still a game system even though it is better than a PlayStation 1 in everyway and is different in major ways from the Xbox 360 or the Wii.

 

[Cowabungaa]

That may be well worded, but it's not exactly a counterpoint.

We are clearly dominating the world and I stand behind what I've said previously. I'm well aware that ants can build very elaborate underground societies, but regardless of population numbers they still don't compare to the advanced technology of humans.

Are we dominating the world? Of course, we're powerful, but it's silly to think that we rule over this planet. All our impressive creations could be gone in mere centuries, peanuts for this planet. We are still at the mercy of volcanoes, earthquakes and tornadoes, our machines cannot stop those. In a certain way, our technology made us weak. It's so easily destroyed, so easily wiped away, but without it we can barely survive nowadays. We're a weaker species than we often think.

 

[Chunko]

That may be well worded, but it's not exactly a counterpoint.

We are clearly dominating the world and I stand behind what I've said previously. I'm well aware that ants can build very elaborate underground societies, but regardless of population numbers they still don't compare to the advanced technology of humans.

Are we dominating the world? Of course, we're powerful, but it's silly to think that we rule over this planet. All our impressive creations could be gone in mere centuries, peanuts for this planet. We are still at the mercy of volcanoes, earthquakes and tornadoes, our machines cannot stop those. In a certain way, our technology made us weak. It's so easily destroyed, so easily wiped away, but without it we can barely survive nowadays. We're a weaker species than we often think.

I think it's very obvious that we are dominating the world. It doesn't matter if all our creations could be gone in a century (which probably isn't true), we're dominating earth right now.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I think it's very obvious that we are dominating the world. It doesn't matter if all our creations could be gone in a century (which probably isn't true), we're dominating earth right now.

What would make you say that? We're still at the hands of mercy of this planet's forces. Earthquakes, storms, volcanoes, you name it. Even a changing world hurts us because a large part of our species has lost the ability to adapt to changes. Bacteria, now they are dominating this planet. They are at the foundation of all else, without them all other life would die off. We're expendable surface critters, albeit with considerable power, the most powerful mammals around. We can destroy species, affect climates, yes we can do a lot, but we don't master the planet, we don't own it.

 

[J474]

Would you call a monkeyman a human?

I sure as hell wouldn't.
The cavemen could speak, yes.
Not our type of language, but their grunting counts

Guttural grunting to convey basic moods and emotions is language, but the clicking of dolphins to convey nigh-identical things is not a language. Seems a little biased, wouldn't you say?

EDIT: OT: We are biologically in the category Animalia, which makes us animals. We're certainly not plants, fungi, bacteria et cetera, so if we're not animals, then what are we..?