| what does "Biologically Speaking" mean?
Just so you know, I do not dispute your conclusion, i make the same cocnclusion. I do not think we are animals. If an animal were to bite off my arm it would not be 'immoral' it would be an extreme nuisance. So I would not try to bring 'justice' to the animal, I would seek to protect others from it. And if ti were an endangered species I wouldn't even kill it.
But a human who does the same to me unprovokedly is 'immoral' and justice must be meted out. Considering that intuitively I see this existence of justice and morality in humanity, I cannot say that we are animals. We are definitely seperated from them. Regardless of basic similarities in some areas, differences in others create a huge gap between us and animals.
We also share much in common with plants, with inanimate materials, with microscopic and subatomic materials. But we are seperated from them by a wide divide.
I was only being facetious in my statement to notscientific, much as I suspect he was being facetious to riska. His attempt to belittle her argument by those means I see however as flawed. I do not think riska's argument is true, and I myself would disagree with the reasoning of riska, but not on that point. On that point of animals being different from humans, she is entirely correct. Or at least most people would concede that she is.
From Freedom, Prosperity
Dave |