4 ms·

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

by 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.

by Veratyr 10y ago

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.