3 ms·

I guess the downvote is because you are not really adding anything to the discussion because it is obvious what they meant.

loup-vaillant 15y ago
OK, maybe I wasn't explicit enough, then. I wanted to stress the fact that, even though most atheists completely accept that humans are animals like any others, just with "bigger" brains, there is still vestiges of the time where we thought it was not the same at all. Some of those vestiges can be found in our language. Here, it was saying "human and animals" instead of the more correct "human and other animals" (without the emphasis of course). This kind of phrasing tend to promote the higher status of humankind as self evident, while frankly it is not. (I've read once that Dolphins may be almost as sentient and sapient as we are. In this case, they should have right they currently don't have.)
- deadmansshoes 15y ago
  Animals in the English language already means any living thing other than humans.
  - loup-vaillant 15y ago
    Which is a plain mistake. http://lesswrong.com/lw/nj/similarity_clusters/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nj/similarity_clusters/ I repeat, if you are right (I think you are) the English language is wrong http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/ We now know that making up a category that includes all fishes, insects, birds, reptiles… and all mammals (including apes), but Homo Sapiens and some of its now extinct cousins isn't reasonable. Unless of course if you believe that humans have immaterial souls and animals do not. That would make us very special. But the probability I assign to this possibility is negligible.
    - jarek 15y ago
      A language cannot be "wrong", especially a language without a strong central controlling authority.
    - chc 15y ago
      Even biologists have such a category: They call it "non-human animals". You might argue that this category is not generally useful, but it's not "wrong." That is itself a sort of superstition.
      - loup-vaillant 15y ago
        Well, at least by putting "non-human" in "non-human animals", they understood that human shouldn't be excluded by default. By "wrong" I essentially meant "you shouldn't do that", here because it is misleading. Using the single word "animal" when you actually mean "non-human animal" suggest we humans are not animals. We are. Now you changed my mind a bit: the "non-human animals" category does have its uses, and it does make sense to think of it. I just think it doesn't deserve the shorter expression "animals".
- jodrellblank 15y ago
  (I've read once that Dolphins may be almost as sentient and sapient as we are. In this case, they should have right they currently don't have.) Like which ones? The useless (to dolphins) ones such as freedom of speech or owning property, or the ones many humans don't have like kind treatment and living in an uncontested land like they used to?
  - loup-vaillant 15y ago
    The second kind of course. Priority should still be given to humans (if only because it's my specie), but we should keep in mind the other animals, especially the most advanced ones. I suspect however that once the world treats its humans well (if ever), then the other animals will also be in much better shape.

loup-vaillant 15y ago

OK, maybe I wasn't explicit enough, then. I wanted to stress the fact that, even though most atheists completely accept that humans are animals like any others, just with "bigger" brains, there is still vestiges of the time where we thought it was not the same at all. Some of those vestiges can be found in our language. Here, it was saying "human and animals" instead of the more correct "human and other animals" (without the emphasis of course). This kind of phrasing tend to promote the higher status of humankind as self evident, while frankly it is not. (I've read once that Dolphins may be almost as sentient and sapient as we are. In this case, they should have right they currently don't have.)

deadmansshoes 15y ago
Animals in the English language already means any living thing other than humans.
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  Which is a plain mistake. http://lesswrong.com/lw/nj/similarity_clusters/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nj/similarity_clusters/ I repeat, if you are right (I think you are) the English language is wrong http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/ We now know that making up a category that includes all fishes, insects, birds, reptiles… and all mammals (including apes), but Homo Sapiens and some of its now extinct cousins isn't reasonable. Unless of course if you believe that humans have immaterial souls and animals do not. That would make us very special. But the probability I assign to this possibility is negligible.
  - jarek 15y ago
    A language cannot be "wrong", especially a language without a strong central controlling authority.
  - chc 15y ago
    Even biologists have such a category: They call it "non-human animals". You might argue that this category is not generally useful, but it's not "wrong." That is itself a sort of superstition.
    - loup-vaillant 15y ago
      Well, at least by putting "non-human" in "non-human animals", they understood that human shouldn't be excluded by default. By "wrong" I essentially meant "you shouldn't do that", here because it is misleading. Using the single word "animal" when you actually mean "non-human animal" suggest we humans are not animals. We are. Now you changed my mind a bit: the "non-human animals" category does have its uses, and it does make sense to think of it. I just think it doesn't deserve the shorter expression "animals".
jodrellblank 15y ago
(I've read once that Dolphins may be almost as sentient and sapient as we are. In this case, they should have right they currently don't have.) Like which ones? The useless (to dolphins) ones such as freedom of speech or owning property, or the ones many humans don't have like kind treatment and living in an uncontested land like they used to?
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  The second kind of course. Priority should still be given to humans (if only because it's my specie), but we should keep in mind the other animals, especially the most advanced ones. I suspect however that once the world treats its humans well (if ever), then the other animals will also be in much better shape.