4 ms·

Oh yes! Bust out the Comic Book Guy voice for half of the posts in this thread if you want max lulz. <comic book guy>Technically, humans are also animals. Worst

Oh yes! Bust out the Comic Book Guy voice for half of the posts in this thread if you want max lulz. <comic book guy>Technically, humans are also animals. Worst. Headline. Ever.</comic book guy> Actually, Comic Book Guy, you're incorrect. In Webster's dictionary, the first definition for "animal" is: "a living thing that is not a human being or plant". As Webster's or any other English dictionary in the world will attest, colloquially and very commonly when people use the term "animal" they mean "non-human", and there is nothing wrong with colloquialism in headlines. The intent of the original headline is crystal clear, it is not misleading, and it is not unserious or unethical. Of course, this fact doesn't stop HN's legions of nit-picking boobs from descending on this title like a pack of leg-humping chihuahuas... but again, that's what Comic Book Guy voice is for :p

tillinghast 10y ago
As a human who is also apparently a leg-humping chihuahua, I just wanted to chime in to say that Noah Webster is a dumbass.
- jonstokes 10y ago
  Yeah, you win. All of the definitions in this popular online dictionary are some variant of "animal == nasty type of human", so this must be a better source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Animal&utm_source=search-action http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Animal&utm_so...
Veratyr 10y ago
To expand this with quotes a little, OED (using the paid OED.com so can't provide links unfortunately) defines "animal" as: a. A living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and a nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli; any living creature, including man. b. In ordinary or non-technical use: any such living organism other than a human being. The etymology from OED shows that its origins are both a borrowing from French (which excludes man) and Latin (which includes man), which explains the confusion a little I think. So technically, the people claiming humans are an animal are correct. In common parlance however, distinguishing humans from animals is totally acceptable. Both sides have an argument but I don't see how it's appropriate to describe other HN users as "nit-picking boobs" or compare them to "leg-humping chihuahuas". That's the kind of childishness I'd expect from Reddit or 4chan.
- jonstokes 10y ago
  No, actually both sides are not correct. It's not correct to say that the headline is wrong because a human is a type of animal. The claim that is being made is that headline is wrong/misleading/unethical, and that specific claim is nonsense. Also, the claim on which the "headline is wrong" claims are based (i.e."human" == "animal", always and forever and if you disagree then you're some sort of creationist throwback) is also incorrect. There is no two sides here. The people insisting that a) "animals" are always considered a superset of "humans", therefore b) the headline is wrong, are just plain wrong on both counts.
  - headShrinker 10y ago
    > "animals" are always considered a superset of "humans" technically, humans are a subset of animals, not the other way around.
  - Veratyr 10y ago
    I didn't say both sides are correct, I said both sides have an argument. In this case I believe the "human != animal" definition is clearly what was intended but those who wish to argue that it shouldn't have been used have an argument, as in technical contexts (such as scientific journals), "animal" usually encompasses humans.
dang 10y ago
Please don't comment like this here. It makes the signal/noise ratio even lower. > Of course, this fact doesn't stop HN's legions of nit-picking boobs Dissing a community that you're part of, as a rhetorical status move, is particularly associated with low-quality comments.

tillinghast 10y ago

As a human who is also apparently a leg-humping chihuahua, I just wanted to chime in to say that Noah Webster is a dumbass.

jonstokes 10y ago
Yeah, you win. All of the definitions in this popular online dictionary are some variant of "animal == nasty type of human", so this must be a better source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Animal&utm_source=search-action http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Animal&utm_so...

Veratyr 10y ago

To expand this with quotes a little, OED (using the paid OED.com so can't provide links unfortunately) defines "animal" as: a. A living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and a nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli; any living creature, including man. b. In ordinary or non-technical use: any such living organism other than a human being. The etymology from OED shows that its origins are both a borrowing from French (which excludes man) and Latin (which includes man), which explains the confusion a little I think. So technically, the people claiming humans are an animal are correct. In common parlance however, distinguishing humans from animals is totally acceptable. Both sides have an argument but I don't see how it's appropriate to describe other HN users as "nit-picking boobs" or compare them to "leg-humping chihuahuas". That's the kind of childishness I'd expect from Reddit or 4chan.

jonstokes 10y ago
No, actually both sides are not correct. It's not correct to say that the headline is wrong because a human is a type of animal. The claim that is being made is that headline is wrong/misleading/unethical, and that specific claim is nonsense. Also, the claim on which the "headline is wrong" claims are based (i.e."human" == "animal", always and forever and if you disagree then you're some sort of creationist throwback) is also incorrect. There is no two sides here. The people insisting that a) "animals" are always considered a superset of "humans", therefore b) the headline is wrong, are just plain wrong on both counts.
- headShrinker 10y ago
  > "animals" are always considered a superset of "humans" technically, humans are a subset of animals, not the other way around.
- Veratyr 10y ago
  I didn't say both sides are correct, I said both sides have an argument. In this case I believe the "human != animal" definition is clearly what was intended but those who wish to argue that it shouldn't have been used have an argument, as in technical contexts (such as scientific journals), "animal" usually encompasses humans.

dang 10y ago

Please don't comment like this here. It makes the signal/noise ratio even lower. > Of course, this fact doesn't stop HN's legions of nit-picking boobs Dissing a community that you're part of, as a rhetorical status move, is particularly associated with low-quality comments.